Women

here is something i heard in dream and this is an attempt to remember it as best i can:

there is something happening amoungst women right now that i don’t remember seeing, they are beggining to get their voices back, voices that have been cruicified silent for many years and it has not been healthy.  equals in christ; it is ridiculous that they have not been heard.  where are they?  they have siliently been in our impossed solitude of submission but they are being/have been getting raised up and like wild lionesses they are getting ready to be realeased, released on the church, released on thier culture and released to be the women that god has called them to be. 

 

we have to provide the intentional interaction amoungst our women.  they are strong and vibrant, wonderfully brilliant and i can’t wait to hear them speak out, teach, prophesy, model, admonish, encourage. hopefully our place in doing church will reflect all the potential thats there for us to see them released into the various areas of being co-laborers with god and followers of his spirit. 

i fear that the church has grown tired, and is malnourished on the male centered voice, if we don’t provide our wives, daughters and sisters opportunities to be raised up, then how will we ever hear anything different?  we need to provide for them the same access, the same oppourtunities and the same selfless hearts they have given to us.  there voices must be heard, it is simply foolish and ignorant to think otherwise. 

how can we bless them more, how can we free them up, how can we restore what has been oppressed? what will it take to see them walk in ways they have been unable?  how can we allow them to step into the full blessing of daughters of god?  

we are at a pivotable time and sphere of influence, our culture has far surpassed our expectations within the church, and we must repent to see a change in the church.  those who are not followers of jesus will see the potential of what it means to be in gods family and it will be inviting.  it will be right and it will be very refreshing.  can you imagine a church that can actually look at women in healthy ways?  how prophetic. what more could speak to the world then that alone, what could be more of a statement about how we view our king?  what could be more honoring to jesus?  spririt we need you to teach us.  teach us to be a renewed  people of god, not renewed men. 

god is jealous for the fullness of his daughters hearts, but he has allowed them to serve us for unknown reasons.  lets serve our wives the way they have served us and lets allow our wifes, daughters and sisters to see what it means to have his full attention.  

++bless the fellowship that you are bringing about in women of your church, and forgive us(men) for being so dominereing, so contemptous and so fragile that we have not understood their hearts, restore the centuries of slavery that has been put upon them, encourage them and lift them up as worshippers of your kingship and lordship reighn over them and exalt them, free them from the oppression of the decades and allow them to speak your words freely without holding back, allow them to prophesy and worship in profound ways, raise them up to be teachers, and give back thier voice

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 0 Comments

Pneumatology

p n e u · m a · t o l · o · g y    n . T h e   d o c t r i n e   o r   s t u d y   o f   s p i r i t u a l   b e i n g s   a n d   p h e n o m e n a ,   e s p e c i a l l y   t h e   b e l i e f   i n   s p i r i t s   i n t e r v e n i n g   b e t w e e n   h u m a n s   a n d   G o d . 2)  T h e   C h r i s t i a n   d o c t r i n e   o f   t h e   H o l y   G h o s t . p n e u ‘ m a · t o · l o g ‘ i c ,o r   p n e u ‘ m a · t o · l o g ‘ i · c a l   a d j .  p n e u ‘ m a · t o l ‘ o · g i s t   n .  

”we are spiritual beings with and eternal destiny trying to be human. . .”

                                                                                    Dallas Willard

The demonstration of the kingdom is in itself an apologetic.  No hype, no manipulation, but rather spiritual expression.  Power demonstrated in the immediate, power demonstrated in the actual and power demonstrated which can only be defined as pneumatological.  It is through this kingdom which is now and not yet,[1] that we as spiritual directors have responsibility to act.[2]  A responsibility, to describe, to language to voice, to encourage and to guide.  As we begin to employ direction and help prepare individuals  to live, and a means to fulfill that vision, a connection needs made to the spirit. The absence of this pneumatological expression will not only stifle the process, but will never holistically fulfill it.

The kingdom of God is the range of God’s effective will, where what the spirit chooses to accomplish is done.[3]  This Spirit is available to us now, in the immediate.  It transcends cultural milieu’s, it’s not bound by circumstance, and is not bound by will (footnote biblical reference) Recently Dallas Willard made the beautiful statement “It is our job to lead and teach people about Jesus”[4] a rewording of this statement with a singular substitution of “show”, for the word “teach” has significantly more powerful implications and aligns itself better theologically with biblical accounts, stories and reports of earlier friends of Jesus[5] .  It raises one of the questions and focus of this essay. How we as practitioners in the emerging church can show people about Jesus?

 

 

Kingdom Paradigm

As a leader Jesus, demonstrated a Kingdom mindset, and brought into the lives of his followers a means of spiritual and trans/formation.  He relationally seemed to accomplish this through the demonstration of his kingdom authority, (seldom with explanation)[6]  “Jesus was misunderstood all the time and never tried to run around and fix it. . .he never felt paranoid of not doing stuff. . .never felt the need to explain”[7]

 The result was a model that took care of both the physical and spiritual needs of the individual whom he was involved with.  Normatively he first accomplish this through a pneumatological demonstration of his kingdom.  This included (and is not limited to) physical healings, the riddance of demons, the use of phenomenological experience and various other miraculous signs.[8]  These demonstrations were the means by which he typically captured the hearts of individuals.  Consistently and reportedly, he used/uses this means as a learning modality, pedagogy and androgological discourse, to provide an understanding and basis for his work. 

This precept transcends our culture.  Still living within the biblical context and continuation of the biblical story, the 21st century continues to provide an eloquent platform for the demonstration of kingdom works.  The boundaries and provisions of our culture indeed are poised and prepared for a resurgence of this understanding and demonstration.[9] As we move away from the constrictions of modernity and move towards cultures and historical influences which embrace the: mystical, the liturgical, the ceremonial, the ritual, the phenomenological, the paranormal, and as we are inundated with reports of the miraculous, it is becoming obvious that we are a culture which embraces phenomena.

“our culture is wrong but we can’t just dismiss it. . .that’s our world, these are the people we deal with”[10]

We are living in a culture that values experience. “In the last century  the Church has been preparing individuals to die, however, we should be preparing them to live”[11] To live as a renewed humanity, and as an empowered people; specifically, empowered by the Spirit of God.  As thinkers in the 21st century our inclinations and understandings of polemics, discourse, content and even truth are blurred, the value of truths are no longer a priori rationalizations, or pragmatics which derive value from reasoning. We are currently living in the biggest philosophical shift in at least the last 200 years.  And the church lives in such a sub-culture rentreanchant mentality that it often times doesn’t understand the important shifts in the ways that people think, and the way that they process reality. Truth has been know as a series of propositional statements that can be proven though science, logic, technology  and reason. However, in the words of Mark Driscoll “Truth is a person his name is Jesus Christ and as you come into relationship with him you have access to the truth, but that truth doesn’t come by science or technology but that it comes by faith and faith is a gift from God”..[12]  Truth, needs demonstrated, and the value of collective reasoning, is considered; no longer is it perceived as absolute.[13]  As addendum to this thought collective reasoning takes on new form perhaps not dissimilar to corporate guidance.  In terms of intentional communities/emerging this concept needs teased if the church is raising followers of Jesus

As spiritual directors our duty is to demonstrate, and value Gods Kingdom in our ordinary context.  Understanding Ladd’s agenda of Kingdom[14] this definition of Kingdom Power becomes a reality of power; a power that can exist independent of bodies. This power is devoid of personal means, made up of thoughts, feelings, evaluations or even choice and habits involving creative will.[15]

As metaphysical conditions for spiritual growth, potential followers of Jesus need a vision for the kingdom of God within their communal context, a vision, which will define their humanity.  This link toward spiritual formation has to be connected to the Spirits Power, there is some nuance of this in literature but very little praxis.[16]  As we fully understand the implications of the following statement:
“There are no ordinary people you have never talked to a mere mortal.  Nations, cultures, arts, and civilizations, these are mortal; and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry snub, and exploit–immortal horrors or everlasting splendors… nest to the blessed sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to you senses”. . .[17]

This understanding will radically alter our worldview, a worldview that is culturally dormant in understanding their actual spiritual heritage and origins.  We live in a society and culture that does not embrace their pneumatological formation, and the very ethos for which they were created.

We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings having a human experience.[18]

This notion of experience and its starting point from a spiritual context radically speaks against our culture, a culture that so values experience. Sociologically current culture has an axiomatic juxtaposition to its starting point.   The starting point and scoreboards of our culture measures human experience and values those in terms of quality of life.[19]  However, life as a spiritual being can only be completed by living from a kingdom that is governed by the heavens.  Through being lead by Jesus, we are able to fulfill a mandate that is eternal. As we recognize Gods kingdom and the reality of truth and power, we can begin to understand and develop a reliance and expectancy of his works, and presence amongst us.  As sub-contractors and co-laborers we guide through the context of time and place, “of our own experience”[20] and through the experiences of others.  We guide through the context of his work and his kingdom.  We co-labor with angels and the hosts of God who are in conflict with the Satan and his subordinates, working against us to oppose God.[21]  This is our platform, this is our context, this is our story, this is the relational field at which we are poised to influence, this is our sphere.  As Eugene Peterson says “the kingdom is the invisible part of the Church”[22] . . . The church and the kingdom ideologically would be one in the same; but the kingdom of God is where we are clarified, where we are given expression, where details are fulfilled within the spiritual realm and where we can have immediate access to God’s presence.

A worldview or life style of dualism gives observation to the both/and.[23] Recently this anomaly has provided cultural explanation for the interpretations of cultural truisms. One example of this is the inward/outward journey, a wonderful metaphor; however we don’t live in the dualistic, we live in the here now, we live as it happens, we integrate and synthesize.  Dualism is an abstraction from what we are doing that’s independent.  It’s important to realize that these terms[24] and specificities are merely semantical and non-pertaining to the realities of following Jesus.

“the devils first attack is on lectiography, he likes to twist words so they don’t mean what they say”- C.S. Lewis

Culturally a sociological worldview presents us with a perception that we can live integrated or disintegrated.  This distraction is in opposition to the Kingdom of God;  a distraction which continues to keep the world at bay from the realities of a Kingdom perception.[25] Culturally we have the freedom to choose that which we perceptively belong to.  It’s like we have this ability to created mind hotel’s that we can check into and be free from a Kingdom mindset.  Culturally we can immerse ourselves in consumption’s such as: clubs, organizations, teams, secret sins, and pleasures that bring us happiness.  We can create our own autonomy, our own destiny our own future. We can biologically alter our DNA.[26]  We have cultural permission and encouragement that this is normative and expected if it is within our means.  However, from a Kingdom standpoint this is in opposition to the teachings of Jesus.  There is no distinctions, no exemptions, and no clauses.  It ALL is Kingdom, and it’s all in the midst of God.  Although at times invisible to our cultural minds. . .  in the Kingdom, its all integrated, this IS reality now,  Kingdom now, not something to be applied, this Is what’s happening, this Is our story, the story now.[27]

 

Emerging Church

The voice of the emerging church is largely one calling out to itself, it has become radically outside of mainstream culture. Some within the Church who are listening has heard the cry of reformation, but largely that sphere of worldly influence has dwindled through the disintegration of Christendom.   That voice has had small exposure, and difficulty finding a unifying front, largely this is due to the fact of its ideological agenda not based in praxis.   Networks, such as the Ooze, Soularize, Emergent, Off the Map, Not-Alone, Kingdom Living;  authors such as Lesslie Newbigin,[28] Darrel Guder,[29]  Richard Foster,[30] Stan Grenz,[31] Dallas Willard,[32] Leonard Sweet,[33] George Hunsberger,[34] Stanley Hauerwas,[35] Greg Boyd,[36] and various other aquifers of numerous brilliance;  All of this aforementioned ideological, and intellectual prodding has done much to further the cry of change.  Their impact has been large, and time will prove their influence. The battles they have been waging are necessary and have begun a revolution of change that is slowly stirring the hearts of leaders, and culture within the Church.  This can be visibly evidenced through recent educational tracts of seminary’s and programs[37] that set out to study what it means to be a leader in an emerging world.[38]

Recently much time and dialogue has been forced to inwardly focus on the Church’s reformation.  In cloning the times, thrusts such as Generation X[39] churches and alternative services spent a great part of the 90’s rearranging the furniture and lighting candles. This was an honest attempt at keeping up with trends like MTV’s unplugged; however this was still only a response and being culturally reactive.[40]  In speaking of efforts made by those whom had hoped to see reformation one scholar commented that “The Church will never be reformed”[41] (Within context) This is because it is made up of sinners, who will never embody perfection, or represent the Church in its fullness,

The problem and fascination with reforming the church has been a reactive response rather than preventative maintenance; understanding culture is certainly a helpful tool, but those living within that culture need no predictors, or hypothesis as to where the church will be in the next 10 years.  Understanding genetically bio-engineered humanoids or meta-sexual’s[42] and the online church can be fascinating, however it isn’t a Kingdom agenda or one that produces practitioners.  Rather, it just continues in the vein of theorists and the trans-laying of cultural relevancy.  Technology and emergence is not a purporter to the single mom, with 2 kids.  And, neither is slipping a tract of the four spiritual laws under her door.  We need to raise practitioner leaders in the emerging church.  Leaders who are both experiencing the personal transformation of being Christian.  And leaders who are outwardly practicing the experience of spiritual transformation.  We need to DO Christianity.

Predictably the Church would look different if we focused on being more proactive in its leadership in reference to lead, and to teach people to be truly human.[43]  Providing individuals with the four spiritual laws is no longer effective, evangelistic stadium crusades are a dying breed.  Futuristically even the seeker church model will find suffering, because they too are based in a modernist model of church thinking largely based in an apologetic.  As America closes its historical run under the mantle of Christendom, we will be forced into new delivery systems, which are accessible and relevant.[44]

Unless the emergent church begins to become more outwardly focused, it will become nothing more than talk shops for intellectual growth.  Perhaps most perplexing is the recent identity emerging church’s discovery and overlay with their fascination with the traditions of Celticism.[45] This is interesting because of what is becoming the emerging church’s staple-introspection and spiritual reformation of the individual.  The inward journey of the Celts, has terrific ramifications, however what seems to go unrecognized is their equivalent and arguable mission,[46] to go out and preach the gospel fulfilling the mandates of a Kingdom (MT,28) agenda seemingly in direct defiance of cultural norms.[47] 

As the emergent voice has struggled to find its identity in encouraging leadership and corporate voice, it has passionately neutered the very individuals who have the autonomy to lead it.  Struggling to find their places within the context of local community[48]  leadership is often forced into a roll, that is “anti-ceo”  this role is in perhaps a backlash to CEO style of leadership that has become prevalent, however the danger in this line of thinking finds churches with passive voice and leadership that has neutered their platform to speak; and that have lost their prophetic voice..[49] 

Culturally, the emergent church, is hyper concerned with culture and dangerously resembles the liberal church of the pre Wesleyan Anglican Church who were early vigilantes of intellectual thought constructs.  The liberal church has become idle in efforts of being anti-culture, no longer are they defiant, no longer are they visible in terms of being cultural iconoclasts. It is a fear that the Emerging church could follow this vein.  Contrarily, the historical early church was radically defiant of their culture, its practices liturgy and voice was culturally heretical.  Sundays’ Sabbath, was a statement of defiance, not complacency, it was not an embrace of the Starbuck culture[50] of the day but rather opposition to it.[51] The voice, its kingdom message its mission was in the face of both Roman and Hebraic thought arguing for a call of allegiance to a new king and emperor.  This Roman heritage has remained entrenched in the emerging churches paradigm.  Its slavish reformation attempts and introspection remains a stigma of critique.  They must regain a prophetic voice, a voice the will be in defiance.  Sadly it’s difficult to be an orator for a kingdom message, if that message is lost in the rearranging of intellectual philosophizing.

 
Practitioners

How can leaders move from ideological practitioners, in talking shops, if they have never been taught to hear God’s voice?  I am not proposing gaining intellectual understanding of biblical texts and dogmatic teachings, literally and specifically I mean hearing Gods voice. There is much material regarding, inner journey, retrospection and inner voice, however, the praxis and instruction regarding the aforementioned question has not yet emerged.  If we are called to prophesy, where are the how to books of the emergent church.  The ideological thought fomenter’s are visible, but where are the practitioners? Who in this emerging paradigm are working through this? Who is hearing gods voice, Audibly, silently, through dreams, visions, prophetic words of understandings?  How can we as the Church have interpretation for unknown cultural knowledge if we don’t know how to hear Gods voice? The concept of waiting upon the spirit or leading within a corporate setting borrowing the Quaker, Brethren notion of “corporate guidance[52] presumes, following the Spirit. This clearly is not normative in teaching of prominent emergent church voices.  Who is equipping the church in this vastly undernourished tool, how can we be complete without it?  How can we be lead, if we don’t know how to see the leader?

The largest component of Spiritual Formation that is void in the Emerging Church is the Absence of the (”kingdom” = “reign/rule” = “power” = Dunimas)[53] or gifts of the Spirit.  Of  the aforementioned emerging authors and organizations, there is very little mentioned in terms of spiritual praxis.  The charismatic battle was waged in the 1970s and won.  The purpose of this paper is not to defend that statement, but to rather focus on the absence of that message within the emerging church.  There is much talk about community,[54] heightened discussion on personal reformation,[55] and recently the dialogue has begun to turn Missional.[56]  The voice of the emerging church is failing to train its leaders in matters of deciphering pneumatology.  It’s not that leadership doesn’t believe in the practice of gifts, its just that that leadership has no priority to fulfill that component of spirituality and has not yet given it priority. The seeker movement has had great effect on this and recently a prominent Christian scholar, leader and author said “that seeker[57] ) was the most destructive force to yet attack the Church in the last 2000 years”.  This attack is on the position that if it raises controversy or hyper awareness, than attendance will be effected[58] A reductionalist Gospel with a value for public opinion must be radically positioned when compared with practitioners in the early church[59] who were in defiance of cultural sensitivity[60]

The Spirit of Gods or Holy Spirit’s role in the emerging church[61] has been reduced to a means to accomplish personal spiritual transformation.  Within personal transformation and spiritual formation, lays the dormant force and the next phase for healing the emerging church.  However, it would seem that an obvious precursor or addendum would be hearing Gods voice.  It would seem a difficult postulate to determine what Gods heart and vision for accomplishing that transformation is, if an individual had no understanding or paradigm for listening to, or hearing God’s voice.[62]  A synthesis and marriage of this concept needs to take place within the emerging church.  How is it we can be prophetic, if we don’t know what gods voice sounds like?  How is it we can pray for others, if we don’t have a paradigm to see what the spirit is doing?[63]  How is it we can pray to see and individual healed if we have no understanding of physical healing?  How, in the middle of conversation can we be spiritual guides and leaders if we don’t know how to discern god voice?  As guides and spiritual directors it would seem a precursor to know what it is we are guiding towards and a means to determine the directions to the destination.  How is it that we can gain understanding of the spirits activity if we can’t see the Spirit.[64]  How can we creatively co-labor if we don’t have knowledge of spiritual matters?  How can we be signposts of the kingdom, if we can’t read the sign?  How can we pray if the Spirit, is not heard?[65]  These are ridiculous rhetorical questions (in the spirit of 1 Cor. 12:29-31) however the emerging church is encouraging this, without answering the questions.

Where are the visible models that radically intersect sin.  Perhaps if one has a problem with addiction they pray for guidance and wisdom, ask for help and of course thank God for their prophet the psychologist.  Continuing on, they eventually get to the sin motivators of that issue and through steps and guidelines suggested by their counselor, eventually they are able to control their addictions.  Perhaps a prescription of self-help, a peer group and even accountability structures are set in place.  Wonderful, amazing, and glorious. . . but, were are the models of divine intervention and why is it that those “prescriptions” are not brought about, demonstrated or written of with more regularity.

In the recent book (Stories of Emergence; Moving from Absolute to Authentic) composed of a diverse group of Christian leaders, whose purpose was to comment on culture and direction of the Emerging Church, there was not a single account of pneumatological expression-not one!  This wasn’t a surprise in fact it only took a perusing of the book to predict this.  It’s a message that has simply escaped this group of leaders. How sad! How Absolutely Un-Authentic.  There is much material ensuing on the praxis of inward journey, but very little on the praxis of apostolic. If the Church is writing on hearing and finding a voice, wouldn’t a precursor to that be hearing Gods voice?

The are obvious models that raise controversy and one needs only to turn the channels on a Sunday morning, to see them.  Having attended numerous conferences, and being significantly involved in conversations regarding emerging church in recent years, I have yet to see intentional instruction or dialogue regarding pneumatology.   Recently In the Last year, at Allelon’s National Meeting, in January,  and recently  Allelon’s Regional Church Planters Weekend  we intentionally set out to model and discuss the topic of pneumatology and were shocked to see the backlash that ensued,  some where angry, at the mention of the spirit, and had their own baggage of poor models.  However, many were upset.  Upset that they had never heard, seen, or understood this to be a component of Christianity that was real.  Upset that their relationship to the Holy Spirits activity was hyper atrophied, they were and are desperate to understand more.[66]

 

Conclusion

The Emerging Church is asking its congregation to be girl scouts without giving them the cookies.  This has to change, this project hopes to see it happen we desperately need practitioners who can voice, and demonstrate Kingdom.  We need forums, chat rooms, and places where this can be discussed.  Most importantly we need the theology that supports, this agenda, and accessibility for those who wish to learn. 

The books have been written, the research has been done, and information is overwhelmingly abundant.  In the words of Eddie Gibbs, President of Fuller Seminary “We’ll never know if power evangelism worked because nobody ever tried it”.  I want to be part of the generation that tries it.  I want to see the emerging church, dabble play and consume this Kingdom mindset and way of living.  I want to see it move from rhetoric and ideology to praxis

 

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 1 Comments

Atonement… aTonement

Introduction
For many in the emerging church, we have waged the battle against hate, speaking out against Christians hating homosexuals, Christians hating abortionists, Christians hating drug offenders, Christians hating violence, Christians hating pacifism etc… But now there is a new kind of hate being unleashed that is equally concerning.  The hate of the mainstream evangelical church and at times it seems that Christians are leading the fight.  Why is this? Perhaps it is inflamed by our culture, or a by-product of our zeal, but it is wrong. The tragic dilemma we are facing is that programmatic voices with the purest of intentions are failing to reach a generation of people no longer impressed by the trappings of evangelicalism.  If we look intently at culture to evaluate evangelicalism’s recent journey, perhaps a larger concern and question for enfolding individuals into becoming Christ followers is evaluating: where ”We”, the Church, are, and how “We” got here.  I believe in order to fully understand what drives this issue, we need to take a closer look at atonement and our relational understanding of what it means to be the people of God. 

The role of the Church is to be the sent people of God, we need a strong reminder of this calling.  One could easily conclude that hate hasn’t lead many toward becoming Christ followers.  But being the ‘sent people of God’ is a radical agenda, with radical implications. Thinking in terms of NT. Wright, George Hunsberger, and Leslie Newbigin; and the concept of the Church being the sent people of God, we run into several ecclesiological problems. For one: how should churches organize around this role in the world?   Perhaps the most crucial question to the mainstream Christian is one that should be the foundational building block of community:  How do “We” participate in covenantal relationship? 

A demonstration of atonement via covenantal relationship is ultimately a form of evangelism potentially so inviting no language can contain it.  It is so pure, that individuals can feel it and see it, before understanding it.  It is so detectable and present that immersion can result in conversion and it can be caught without being taught.  The demonstration becomes embraced and embodied in community.  So, what does it mean to be working within a covenantal atonement model of relationship?

In theological terms the way the modern church has been describing atonement and the metaphors they have used quite simply are askew, or “off” and they have missed the mark .  A large task to rework some theological under girding and rebuild the framework of some rudimentary understandings is a large task. 

At one time or another, most of us have typed a query or typo in a browser window only to see an  “error message” pop up which states: “The page cannot be displayed” Using that analogy, if one could transcribe the metaphors associated to date with atonement, it would be best for the Church (the sent people of God) if that same “error message” could occur.  Ultimately most “t-shirt” theology, and wwjd type slogans communicate a message of proof text error , in that they seed to streamline events, which quite simply should not be reduced to single phrases. 

An immediate question any (rational) person would then ask is “If the modern Church has been successful in influencing a 21st century audience to the extent that it influences our thinking and many of the commonly used metaphors are wrong. Why, then do these views go unchallenged?” How did these metaphors form?  The models or metaphors of “ransom”, “chivalry” or “penal theories” had day-to-day relevance when they were developed.  But culture has changed, and hence to the extent that these metaphors now have taken on a different meaning from the original. 
A simple image is an example of this metaphorical shift.

An impoverished woman, gathering firewood out in a forest.  Disheveled and tired from her menial tasks and hard living, and dressed only in rags, she wipes her brow as she resumes her mundane chore of looking for twigs to build a fire so that she can heat water she has just drawn.  Fatigued with the emotions of disengagement from this life, she is on her way to her humble home, when a drunken and vile woodsman suddenly singles her out.  This scoundrel’s sole motivation is thievery and desolation.  Seeing the woman alone in the forest, unable to protect herself, and out of sight from witness, he plots to rape her.  Just as this vile, and loathsome being is about to overtake her, she catches sight of a gallant prince riding through the forest on a white horse. Seeing the damsel he cries out to the thief, “Leave her alone!, Should you have a duel your duel is with me”. The woman is clearly unable to protect herself from this treacherous creature bent on her demise, but this winsome hero with all the authority of his father’s kingdom is willing to take on her burdens.

Although it is believable tale, and one repeated through out history and via literature and cinematography of our day its not theology, does it relate to atonement? In this sense is Jesus our rescuer? Is he our gallant prince on a white horse? Is this a demonstration of covenant? Where does the metaphorical illustration break down?   Is it a biblically accurate metaphor for the history of covenanted Israel?  Perhaps, unthinkably to our western minds it is not an accurate metaphor.  As delicately voiced as could be heard this metaphor of chivalry has never been an accurate depiction, of sin, or the taking on of burdens…

No doubt this is a bold statement.  Especially because the aforementioned metaphor is so imaginable and engrained, but what are the implications of the allegations that it is not a metaphor for atonement?  Couldn’t this be considered heretical to challenge?  The implications could challenge many theological precepts already in place.  Those economics of sin management and even the Gospel in some paradigms are foundationally challenged by this assertion. 
But what if we have the wrong starting point for atonement?  What if we have the wrong Gospel or “Good News”? What if Calvin, Luther  and fragmented interpretation of bad exegesis, horrible contextualization and weaker extrapolation have yielded us a Gospel of atonement that has been reduced to a sin management so biased and off base, it can no longer be reduced or translated into a culture?

By viewing atonement through a penal view lens the church has put eggs in the one basket of modernal culture. This may have worked within, but that context is no longer relevant within the world we operate in.  With a whole new set of definitions in post modernity, we are desperately waiting for our own Christus Victor.   Some embodiment of a healthy biblical viewpoint aligning itself with the ancient idea of cosmic battle and forces of evil needs to be brought back to a pre-Augustinian mindset and we need to rethink how we are reinterpreting the atonement.
“Since Augustine, [cosmic warfare motif] has constituted the most frequent explanation in the church, and in western culture in general, for why people suffer. Though it [spiritual warfare] directly opposes the standard Protestant understanding of the atonement (in which all sin has already be atoned for), and though an entire book of the Bible is devoted to its refutation (job) and though Jesus himself teaches against it (Lk 13:1-5; Jn 9:1-5), it has never the less dominated the churches thinking on this subject throughout history and continues to exercise a strong influence today “ God at War, Greg Boyd, pgs. 41-42. 

Classical return to atonement
What would a model that incorporated a biblical covenantal view of atonement look like? A return to a classically biblical view has surrounding relevance to our culture.  Having an openness to Wicca, New Age (and arguably a better understanding of non-western mindsets and worldviews, than of a world 20 years ago), it seems that culturally speaking, the world we live in is smaller, and has a framework of expectancy.  This modern mind is more open to the mystical  than that of our culture even 20 years ago.  With an over arching view a therapeutic model that calls for the reconstruction for the healing of the land and a healing of the people the Old Testaments account of generational healing seems like a culturally relevant fit, in some paradigms this resides in atonement theory.  Perhaps it needs not be stated but there is no therapeutic model that could ever biblically appropriately align itself with penal theory.  Some have searched out means to “fit” penal theory into the texts, but it is then intriguing that not even Jonathan Wesley could find resources to support the penal doctrine of spiritual formation.  Dallas Willard a well-published author and Meta Physics professor at the University of Southern California has appropriately re-named the “Penal Doctrine of Atonement” as “Sin Management” or “The Gospel of Sin Management”.   Unfortunately it seems that in dealing with the consequences of sin, Christianity has developed myriads, whole kingdoms of atonement theories that beg exploration.

Penal Systems are not Relational
In the last 25 years, we have reduced our explanations of the atonement, to the penal system, or a penal view.  In just this single lump of idealism, we have severed the very strand of fabric that our culture longs for: relationship. Our generation has become cynical as a result of institutional stipulations and is weary of any form of mega-institution.   Our mantra is not one of rebellion but rather relationship.  We are longing for a truth that is subjective.  In response to this longing we have sought out the counsel of friends as an interpretational grid of apriori knowledge.  How is it that one could assume modernist thinking towards atonement, would slip through under the guise of theological truth? It’s no mistake that traditional evangelism is failing fast within our generation and there are countless violations by a modernistic lens of how we perceive community. 

For example, “The ipod generation” has a much different view of intellectual properties  than those of just 10 years their superior.  And their superiors, according to Moore’s law are infinitely and exponentially removed from the access of information that the ipod generation now possesses.  This perceived information often is recognized and perceived as the truth, but is not the truth that our emergent generations are longing for.

In an article on Pope John Paul II, National Post writer Robert Fulford points out that
“The Pope’s paradigms were those of the13th century, and the Pope’s model was consistent was because The truth never changes”. 

For the ipod generation the consequences for violations of intellectual properties are virtually irrelevant.  The Statement “If it ain’t hurting me or any of my friends, it’s is ok” comes to mind.  The underlying premise of that slogan is not only an obvious lack of truth, but also the burden of relationship.  This burden of relationship should not go unnoticed; Ask an ipoder  “would you burn for a stranger?  There answer will be “No.”  Consider the expression that “You can break every law but the one which binds “Us”, as indication that relationship is the currency of our generation.  Our culture is longing to get rich in relationship.  Most rules or regulations pale in comparison to the underlying core of relationship.
 
Is it a mystery that a penal model of gods love for a post-modern culture has not flown well in the face of our humanity?  We are a generation that is bombarded with images of war.  Within our own nation, the ipod generation matured viewing three significant Wars, mostly in the Middle East, but with unparalleled media coverage and participation.  Our minds have been invaded by countless media focused atrocities and judicial injustices.  We have literally seen and abhorrent treatment of the poor, minorities, and disadvantaged.  A frivolity associated with recycling and ecology that will historically be looked upon as a generation of ignorance.  How could the Church present a penal model that could even be conceived of in terms of justice?  Clearly a 21century audience cannot absorb a model where sin has an economy.  “Do the crime and pay the time”, was a mantra of earlier generations. But our generation has come to see just how unjust this mantra is, just how unsacred, and unholy it can be.

                                                                                                                                                    comment

Bibliography

Boyd, Gregory A. God at War. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
———. God at War. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997.
Coldplay. “Speed of Sound.” In Coldplay. Influential Music. 4.15.05 2005 <http://www.coldplay.com/site.php>.
Copeland, Douglas. Generation  X. NYC, NY: St. Martins Press, 1991.
Fee, Gordon. God’s Empowering Presence. Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994.
Fulfords, Robert. “John Paul II.” National Post (Canada), December 21 1999.
Keck, Eric. Blog. 4.21.05, 2005.Abbey-Normal <http://www.erickeck.com/2005/04/21#a6085>.
Koerner, Brendan I. “START Cheat Sheet.” Wired Magazine (San Francisco), November 2003, http://wired-vig.wired.com/wired/archive/11.11/start.html?pg=13.
Lodahl, Michael. The Story of God. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1994.
Matisyahu. . 4.19.05 2005. Jeb Dub. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007XT7TU/qid=1114280123/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-2135355-0932018?v=glance&s=music&n=507846 <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0007XT7TU/qid=1114280123/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-2135355-0932018?v=glance&s=music&n=507846>.
Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990.
Rains Kevin. “Www.Kevinrains.Com/2005/02/17.” Blog. Www.Kevinrains.Com, 2.17 2005.
Roberts, Wes. Original Intent for the Church. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004.
Scholem, G. Gershom. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. Jerusalem Isreal: Schocken Publishing House, 1946.
Shelton, Larry. Divine Expectations. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan (pending), 2005.
Tomlinson, Dave. The Post-Evangelical. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003.
Willard, Dallas. The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God. New York, NY: Harper Collins, 1998.
Wright, N.T. Jesus and the Victory of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
———. The New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992.

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 0 Comments

Intro

 The models of organization and structure at these meetings lend themselves to flexibility. As a result attendees are often expecting to co-participate with God in shaping the event. Although the Spirit seems to give specific leading to people as the Spirit chooses, many attending these gatherings are not intimidated to speak out, dialogue, or give an impromptu teaching. This is a unique phenomenon to observe in a setting of 30 people; it becomes even more staggering in audiences of 300. There is a difference in starting points between 200 people attending church on a Sunday morning to hear one preacher preach a sermon he took all week to prepare and 200 people preparing all week to potentially preach; it quickly shifts the onus of participation and demonstration from exclusively the clergy to implicitly the laity as well. “In the average U.S. church today less than 10 percent of the people are doing 90 percent of the work.”5 Rather than cater to this strictly consumer-oriented religious culture, these organizations have been attempting to foster an environment in which participation and demonstration are blended as part of the proclamation. In the end, it fosters a missionality that is contagious:

It is practitioner-focused. We believe that the best theology arises in the context of mission, and the best mission is informed by sound theology….We seek to bring theological scholars, thinkers and missional practitioners from around the world together for mutual learning, encouragement, and fruitful contact with each other so that effective strategy and sound theory may be wedded together….It makes available educational resources and material to help facilitate vision and change in the missional life of faith communities.6 
      The excitement, expectancy, and participation on their websites are explainable when one takes into an account that their membership is entirely online. Yes, there are forums and groups that meet in buildings owned by groups that identify with these three parachurch organizations and that shared their values of fostering and educating the people of God, but it is important to note that such groups are only informally associated with them. In no way are they legally connected through any formal membership process.

These organizations are models of “both/and” ministry. The marketplace needs both proclaimers of the Christian faith who are well-informed, educationally-adept students of the Kingdom, and students of the Kingdom who are acting out and demonstrating what it means to be followers of Christ. 
 
 

Introduction

      Although the charismatic battle was fought, waged, and won on an intellectual level a generation ago via the charismatic renewal, it has since waned in implementation. One of its unique contributions was the concept of “Power Evangelism,” defined as “the coupling of power from the spirit….A proclamation coupled with demonstration of the God’s mercy.”7 However, Eddie Gibbs, Professor of Evangelism and Church Growth at Fuller Seminary, tragically stated, “We will never know if power evangelism [proclaiming spiritual gifts and demonstrating them] works [as a form of evangelism] because we never saw anyone try it long enough to see the results.”8

      This is due to the Church’s inability at times to meld proclamation to demonstration. Perhaps this is due to the multi-definitional culture of which we are a part.  Semantically-driven discussions over definitions at times bring in baggage and words loaded with personal history make some discussions difficult to comprehend. Two individuals can be speaking using the same language and words, with radically different interpretations. In an attempt to find common ground, definitions sometimes become the lowest common denominator and lose the essential truth, thus becoming a detriment to the engagement/discussion: “Well, when you say ’X,’ what exactly do you mean? Do you mean ’X’ as in the cultural definition of ’X’? Or in your impression of ’X”? Or in the context of its historical definition? Or do you mean ’X’ like I mean ‘Y’? Do you know what I mean?” The iPod generation loves to debate and question; it is in our DNA from the 1960s. But too many times we find ourselves trapped in dilemmas that need redefining in order just to bring clarity to what it is we are debating!

      For example, among academic and theologians there has lately been some discussion of the word “spirit,” and the spirit’s life-changing power coupled with the spirit’s ever life-changing presence, especially in the context of the emerging church/post modernity discussion.9 This has been encouraging in one respect; however, it has also ironically brought about a misconception and even confusion regarding the work of the Spirit. The aspect of Spirit that has begun gleaning attention from scholars like Dallas Willard and Richard Foster and from teachers like Leonard Sweet and Brian McLaren is incredibly relevant, prophetic, timely, and necessary. These men, along with many others, are stirring a wave of theological renewal that will continue to shape the church for many years to come. Their conferences, speaking engagements, and retreats are beautiful examples of individuals who are proclaiming the message of Christianity. However, the pretexts and baggage associated with individual words makes all their starting points unique, and less cohesive.

      While “Spirit” is a beautiful start to engaging in the message of Christianity, many discussions are lacking a critical component: “lab time,” or physical demonstrations and concrete examples, a chance for their audiences to engage and move from rhetoric to praxis and become the co-conspirators10 that these speakers are encouraging followers of Jesus to become. A dilemma in these speaking forums is that typically the theologians invited are high-profile leaders in mainstream Christianity. Whether it is due to the insecurity of their audiences to give direction to their speakers, or whether it is a failure to consider the necessary time constraints of teasing out definitions—whatever the reason—these leaders are lacking the time and tools to create the acute metaphors and imagery that should be associated with their subject matter.

      Imagine the frustration of a leader who is asked to speak and flippantly mentions the word “Spirit.” In Pentecostal circles this word takes on a unique meaning, but for those in the culture of the emerging Church it could have an entirely different one. In some emerging church circles they have reduced their understanding of this word to a self- help adage for personal well-being. In this context, stripped of the Spirit’s creative power, the emerging Church has gotten lost in language and semantics rather than engaging in praxis involving pneumatological expression. The emerging Church needs to learn how to cooperate, listen to, and, most importantly, identify with the Spirit before they will sustain a source of power which aligns itself holistically with the Gospel within a context of renewed humanity. Demonstration, as opposed to mere articulation, of these concepts is really where the practitioners get set apart from the rhetoricians, and unfortunately this has been a difficult distinction to tease out.
 
Standing Under to Understand

      Many in the emerging church have waged the battle against hate, speaking out against Christians hating homosexuals, Christians hating abortionists, Christians hating drug offenders, Christians hating violence, Christians hating pacifism, etc. Now there is a new kind of hate being unleashed that is of equal concern, which is the hate of the mainstream evangelical church. And at times it seems that Christians are leading the fight. Why is this? Perhaps it is inflamed by culture, or a by-product of zeal, but it is wrong. Perhaps it is because the Church has poor metaphors for communicating who they are and from whence they have come. The tragic dilemma the church is facing is that programmatic voices with the purest of intentions are failing to reach a generation of people no longer impressed by the trappings of evangelicalism. So how can these opportunities be used to show people about Jesus? The answer is demonstration, not just articulation. Granted, this process often takes much longer than the forums in conferences/seminars and speaking engagements often allow, but failing to demonstrate this life-changing power in forms that are unifying is a trap into which academics too easily fall. Failing to marry the demonstration to their proclamation is not only dualistic in thinking, but it also perpetuates an unspoken agenda of dualism in the Church and a pervasive attitude of “Well, it’s not my job; it’s someone else’s.”

      Even with the best of intentions demonstrating the kingdom is hard. It is messy, it brings controversy, and there is great potential for error; however, it is a reality that many prominent followers of God (including, but not limited to, Moses, Jesus, and Paul) continually addressed and modeled. Demonstration stirs its viewers and potential participants to address their own personal misconceptions. It challenges their own maturation process and rivals their own grids and agendas for defining the kingdom of God, in a sense giving them a new paradigm, or ”spiritual set of glasses,”11 through which to see God. Demonstration, coupled with an explanation pointing back to God (via proclamation), is a kingdom methodology embedded in our creative DNA—from an individual perspective a resonance occurs that causes the heart to reverberate with the mind. How do we assist the brilliance that academics are able to communicate and still provide terms and abstracts that draw the marketplace culture into seeking out what it means to be followers of Jesus? One solution is giving the culture of the day new metaphors.

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 0 Comments

New Metaphor’s

The Metaphors of the Church are no Longer Relevant
      Over the last 25 years some circles of the Church have reduced their understanding of the atonement to an exclusive commitment to the penal substitution theory.  It is idealistic to even attempt to think about atonement through a monocular lens, however in this single lump of idealism, these church circles have severed the strand of fabric for which our culture longs: relationship. This generation has become cynical as a result of institutional stipulations and is weary of any form of mega-institution.12 The iPod generation has a mantra that is not one of rebellion but rather relationship. They are longing for a truth that is subjective. In response to this longing we have sought out the counsel of friends as an interpretational grid of a priori knowledge. How is it that one could assume that modernist thinking towards the atonement would slip through under the guise of theological truth? It is no mistake that traditional evangelism is failing fast within this generation and there are countless ways in which the Church has misunderstood community because it is seeing solely through the lens of modernism.

      In addition, the iPod generation has a much different view of intellectual properties than those ten years older.13 And their superiors, according to Moore’s law, are infinitely and exponentially culturally removed from the information that the iPod generation now possesses. This information often is recognized and perceived as the truth, but it is not the truth for which the emergent generation is longing.

      In an article on Pope John Paul II, National Post writer Robert Fulford points out that “the Pope’s paradigms were those of the 13th century, and the Pope’s model was consistent because the truth never changes.”14 Truth may never change, but metaphors and culture do. Think of the penal institutional model of atonement. Now attempt to relate it to the iPod culture within this generation. The consequences for violations of intellectual properties are virtually irrelevant. The statement, “If it ain’t hurting me or any of my friends, it’s okay,” comes to mind. The underlying premise of that slogan is not its obvious lack of truth, but the burden of relationship. This burden of relationship should not go unnoticed. Ask an “iPoder, “Would you burn for a stranger?” His answer will be “no.” Consider the expression, “You can break every law but the one that binds us” as an indication that relationship is the currency of this generation. This culture is longing to get rich in relationship. Most rules or regulations pale in comparison to the underlying core of relationship.

      Again imagine attempting to relate a penal model of God’s love for a post-modern culture. Is it a mystery that it has not flown well in the face of this humanity? This generation has been bombarded with images of war. Within our own nation, the iPod generation matured while viewing three significant wars, mostly in the Middle East, but with unparalleled media coverage and participation. Their minds have been invaded by countless media-focused atrocities and judicial injustices. They have literally seen the abhorrent treatment of the poor, minorities, and disadvantaged. They have witnessed a frivolous attitude toward important ecological concerns, an attitude that will someday brand this generation as ignorant. Within this cultural grid of “justice” how could the Church present a penal model that could even be conceived of in terms of justice?

      Clearly a twenty-first century audience cannot absorb a model where sin has an economy. “Do the crime and pay the time” was a mantra of earlier generations. But our generation has come to see just how unjust this mantra is, just how unsacred, and unholy it can be. Because of this the very separation of church and state that our forefathers protected us from, doesn’t seem to be let go of by the mainstream church and, as a result, the mainstream church has lost relevance to a generation who has seen that “crime and time” have a disproportionate context for justice. By some opponents the conservative right has been lumped into the mainstream church because of its proof text justification of manifest destiny and triumphalism. This is a slap in the face to any who have ears or eyes in our culture. With countless corporate undoing and mistrust, this generation refuses to see the sacredness of our own faith–branded, manipulated and controlled. In a “Coldplay”15 or “Matisyahu16 world, relationships and a sharing of experience together are what bind our understanding. It is because of this that the theological scholars need new metaphors to communicate their messages.

      Another example of a word that needs new imagery is “covenant.” The Biblical word for covenant has very little to do with this culture, according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary, which could be considered the voice of a 21st century audience:

cov·e·nant (k?v’a-nant)  n. 1. A binding agreement; a compact. See synonyms at bargain, pledge 2. Law. a. A formal sealed agreement or contract. b. A suit to recover damages for violation of such a contract  3. a : (pledge) a binding promise or agreement to do or forbear b (1) : a promise to join a fraternity, sorority, or secret society (2) : a person who has so promised.17
There is a expression: “Look, it ain’t personal; it’s just business.” Devoid of the “personal,” the concept of covenant loses the relational qualities that are most inviting to biblical understanding of the term. “It ain’t business; it’s personal!” Again, seemingly simple definitions need clarification; “covenant” is one word with potentially radically different intents. One could even argue that the Biblical definition of covenant has also had added meaning—meaning that has been added to the text. 

      By not fully grasping the meaning of covenant the Church can wield a dangerous sword of power and control. When the starting points for this relational covenant are not defined, things become dangerous. When institutions of power and individuals clash, the contractual interpretations based in modern business models of covenant are grabbed and the historical origins of covenant in terms of relationship are forgotten. What can become clear to the individual within the dysfunctional hierarchy of relationship is that, regardless of individual issues or interpretations (right or wrong), the views of the holders of power and control are the ones that potentially become dogma. This is dangerous because a perceived and established hierarchy or right of rule can quickly become culturally justified, rendering the opinions and understandings of the individual as extraneous, not part of the original contract. How tragic! Ultimately, there is not a covenantal journey of transpiring togetherness, but rather a covenantal journeying with. For example, once an individual has entered into a contract that is contractual (like those employed in a business context), sooner or later hierarchy will emerge and the relationship will suffer. Once entrapped in this contractual snare a journeyer can quickly and painfully see the distinction. A contractual relationship of that sort can never be truly relational. Thus, by not giving the Church metaphors and imagery that they can grapple with and discuss, academics give knowledge without understanding and set up the potential for horrible spiritual abuse. The alternative is demonstration.

 

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 0 Comments

Abstract for Research

Abstract
      The theology of academia lacks appropriate metaphors and abstracts to demonstrate, embody, and announce the kingdom of God. A solution is the creation of new metaphors and abstracts to add insight and definition. The purpose of this project, then, is to interpret and create some new metaphors for theological themes commonly used in academic circles. Because of prior knowledge readers bring with them when they engage with theology, their positions and starting points sometimes limit their understanding of the sensus plenior1 or fuller meaning, of the original text. By providing new metaphors for these theological themes, readers will enter into the conversations with new starting points enlisting an audience that perhaps otherwise would be disengaged.

      In some instances the language of academics loses broader relevance to popular culture. Because of this, a prior understanding and critical interaction with numerous texts becomes a prerequisite and often times understanding the surrounding theological polemics is a mandatory prerequisite to adequately wrestle with texts. Within popular culture, the academics become unappreciated, and as result their material lacks distribution. Therefore, there needs to be a relationship between the proclamations of the academic theologians and a demonstration of what it is they are communicating. A solution is new metaphors and abstracts to add insight and definition because of cultural perceptions commonly associated with the chosen themes. There is room for an artistic exposition to solidify the link between proclamation and demonstration.

      The medium of physical art is an appropriate context in which to address this. Each piece of metal used in the sculptures is unique in that it was created for another purpose.  An “alternator pulley,” a “Lions Club International” road sign, and a “1940 Ford Spindle” all are unique in their own contexts and have their own stories behind them. By linking them together in the fusion of art, their stories become something greater and assist in shaping a new metaphoric reinterpretation of their collected story. These sculptures are being created to re-language metaphors used in Christian dialogue and to hopefully add applicability to a wider audience.

      Utilizing the medium of metal sculpture, a series of sculptures will be placed within the boundaries of a meditation garden. The viewers of this project will be permitted time to contemplate each piece’s meaning. When given a chance to read a short statement on each piece, they will see the reasons and justifications behind the intent.  If engaged, the viewer can then access further descriptors of each piece on the project website where they will be pointed to additional resources, and written works for each piece’s theme. The intent of this artwork is to re-language metaphors needed to engage popular culture in the biblical story. 

 

——————————————————————————–

[1] This is a Latin phrase referring to the fuller meaning of a text. This approach proposes that successive interpreters, perhaps with divine authorization, derive novel meaning from the original author’s text. That is, God had a double meaning in mind but only revealed the other sense to a later author. Thus, God guided Isaiah to say certain things with meaning in his own time but that God also intended Christ to fulfill. This approach was developed in response to New Testament uses of the Old Testament that seem to treat apparently non-predictive or ’single meaning’ OT material as predictive prophecy. See http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue3/mtappe.htm

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 0 Comments

Demonstrations for the People of God

Demonstrations for the people of God
      The experiences of Moses, Jesus, Paul and many other biblical heroes were not only exceptional within their own context, but were also historically significant.  However, what is often unmentioned is that for Christians (and not only for the Christians mentioned in the Bible) these pneumatological experiences should be normative. If this is true, then by inference the pneumatological outpourings (including but not limited to the realization that they spoke with God on a regular basis, experienced paranormal expressions, participated in miraculous signs and wonders, healed the sick, raised the dead, and experienced personal transformation, to name just a few) that these individuals experienced should be expected and taught.. Should not teachers and those who proclaim the Kingdom of God provide a demonstration of the experiences that these individuals enjoyed?18 If these are Christian practices, Christian expressions, and Christian experiences, then to not experience them may imply that one is being disobedient.19

      The modern Church has done a beautiful and remarkable job of helping to recognize that it is the believer’s duty and job to devote oneself to the study of the biblical accounts. Many leaders encourage those within their spheres of influence to seek out education and support structures to understand the Biblical story better and also perhaps encourage them in taking necessary steps to accomplish this, such as attending a class,20 participating in lectures, completing assignments, or perhaps attending a conference or seminar, or even attending a weekly study. Leaders many have no rational problem accepting the notion that such proactivity toward education is normative. Why, then, does this same aggressive proactivity become unusual in terms of demonstrating the Spirit of God? Why is being proactive in terms of the Spirit perceived as unnecessary or reserved for extreme Pentecostalism?21 If this is a cultural perception and a negative stigma (whether accurate or inaccurate) should not the Church be bringing about ways to re-communicate its message? Should not the Church be looking for new media, new metaphors, new abstracts, and radically powerful imagery to articulate the Spirit’s continual and creative daily activity? Should not the Church be supporting a message of being co-creators with God and exuding God’s creativity?

      Does our mundane worldview inhibit miraculous expression? Is our thinking so empirical that we accept cognitive learning and the experiences that accompany it as normative22 but fail to apply the same pragmatics of Aristotelian analysis to expressions of the Spirit?23 Just as Descartes set out to understand new ways of discovering the existence of God in unfamiliar places by thinking, so, too, must we seek out ways of experiencing God in the ordinary by doing, by proactively engaging with the spiritual and kingdom worldview we know24 and juxtaposing it within the matrix of worldview with which we are barraged and into which we culturally enfolded.25

      Historically, the teaching, understanding, and demonstration of spiritual gifts was that they were ordinary expressions of the supernatural. However, this author has seldom witnessed them being mentioned, taught, demonstrated or engaged in purposeful or intentional ways. Of course, this is an enormously strong statement, but the hope is to fulfill a Kingdom mandate expressed in Matthew 10—that of seeing people become kingdom apprentices and co-laborers of the Gospel message. The mandate represents a coupling of proclamation to demonstration, a marriage of pneumatology to the proclamation of its arrival with imagery that fosters understanding: “Bring health to the sick. Raise the dead. Touch the untouchables. Kick out the demons. You have been treated generously, so live generously.”26

      Unfortunately, the Church is more familiar with the negative aspects or stereotypes of the charismata than they are of the necessities. This message of normative supernaturalism is timely as well as overdue as a cultural response to thinkers such as Depek Chopra. With the rise of Hinduism and the practice of meditation, culturally metaphysical thinkers and mystics are becoming more aligned with mainstream culture. The Church is being surrounded by a cultural fire that is heating the outside of the mainstream pot. Melt, boil, or simmer, we cannot grow cold to the insights of mystics. Their message is one that is readily distributed via technology and the internet. With technology come wider information and also a wider acceptance. Spiritual mysticism is widely accepted and normative within mainstream culture; however, it seems absent in Christian culture. Convincing the Church that these experiences are part of being human as God intended and not outside the parameters of normality is a necessary step to assist followers of Jesus to see the many different ways God speaks today. It seems that there is a position that God is limited to the mundane, rather than utilizing the same means he has and continues to use to communicate to individuals.

The saga continues up to our own day in the lives of those recognized as leaders in the spiritual life. When. coming through the ages, we consider St. Augustine, Theresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, George Fox, John Wesley, C.H. Spurgeon, Phoebe Palmer, D.L. Moody, Frank Laubach, A.W. Tozer or Henri Nouwen, we see in each case a person who regards personal communion and communication with God both as life changing episodes and as daily bread. Untold thousands of humble Christians whose names will never appear in print-who will never preach a sermon or lead a crusade-can testify equally well to exactly the same kinds of encounters with God as are manifested by the great ones in the Way.”27 
      These experiences were exceptional and they were personal. God was using specific abstracts and means of communication and imagery that allowed each individual to experience the Kingdom in unique ways that were beautiful. Reading through the memoirs of these individuals, one is able to appreciate aspects of God that are not only unique but inspiring, as an outsider can look into the ways these outstanding individuals responded to the demonstrations from God that they witnessed. Their lives were and are living sculptures of what it means to be Christian. A great takeaway from their experiences is that they were in the context of their lives normative and they were naturally supernatural.

      By no means is this project an attempt to limit the Spirit to moving in new ways, or a means to prevent the Spirit from accomplishing things the same way twice. Clearly the Spirit is not bound to the steadfast rules of orderliness to which we are often confined. However, it seems that many people are able to hear from God in consistent ways that they recognize as being participatory.28 Perhaps these come as a voice of conscience or reason, an audible voice, or perhaps a powerful image that God singes into our love for ascetics. Maybe God comes in a sense of understanding or assuredness of direction that is physically felt; perhaps He is within the voice of a friend, stranger, or child, or the emotions of a pet, or a dream. Whatever the abstract, with it comes a hyper-awareness that God is leading. For those who have not yet taken his name (“pre-Christians”), this experience could come in the form of assurance that God is guiding, directing ,and conspiring to speak and teach them something new.

       How do we live out the gospel in a practical narrative that will be viewed as prophetic to our culture? There has been much talk shop dialogue,29 but it seems that evangelism within the emerging church has been difficult to define and in terms of modernistic measurement is it even failing. We long to see our friends and colleagues come to meet Jesus, but we have mysteriously misplaced any sort of invitation, because we are trying to be responsive to a consumer-based population30 or to matters of the intellect. If we throw out saying the prayer so that when we die we go to heaven, and somehow breed it with the notion31 that “heaven isn’t the goal, it’s the destination,” then from an intellectual standpoint the four spiritual laws are inapplicable. This is a heavy and confusing burden, in a formulaically driven church culture it renders them looking for silver bullets and singular approaches. For many this leads to a fearful distancing of friends and relationships by Christians who would rather be silent than voice some horrible presentation of gospel facts that would identify themselves with a tribe of religious, fanatical kooks. The iPod generation can no longer identify with a Christian sub-culture of religiosity.32 With catchy religious Christianese phrases, Jesus junk, and proof text slogans, they have died a slow death. Yet, unfortunately, they have been left without replacement words or life mantras that fit. This is a horrible predicament.

New-ma-tol-o-gy: Pneumatology
      “We are spiritual beings with an eternal destiny trying to be human….”

                                                                                          Pierre Teilhard de Chardin33

      The demonstration of the kingdom is in itself an apologetic: no hype, no manipulation, but rather spiritual expression. It is power demonstrated in the immediate, power demonstrated in the actual, and power demonstrated that can only be defined as pneumatological. It is through this Kingdom which is now and not yet34 that we as spiritual directors have responsibility to act,35 a responsibility to describe, to speak, to voice, to encourage, and to guide. As we begin to employ direction and help prepare individuals to live, and provide them a means to fulfill that vision, a connection needs made to the spirit. The absence of this pneumatological expression will not only stifle the process, but will never holistically fulfill it.

      Using the definition that the kingdom of God is the range of God’s effective will, where what the spirit chooses to accomplish is done,36 we find in this premise the beautiful notion that this same Spirit is available to us now, in the immediate.  It [Spirit] transcends cultural milieux; it [Spirit] is not bound by circumstance nor by will.  Recently, Dallas Willard made the striking statement, “It is our job to lead and teach people about Jesus.”37 Perhaps a rewording of this statement with a singular substitution of “show” for the word “teach” would have significantly more powerful implications. In addition, this would align itself better theologically with biblical accounts, stories, and reports of earlier friends of Jesus.38 In finding new images and abstracts to communicate the themes that these theologians are addressing, we (the accountants, architects, artists, assemblymen, etc.) can assist the Church in showing people what it means to be Christian.

      As a leader Jesus demonstrated a Kingdom mindset and brought into the lives of his followers a means of spiritual and transformation. He seemed to accomplish this relationally through the demonstration of his Kingdom authority (seldom with explanation).39 “Jesus was misunderstood all the time and never tried to run around and fix it….He never felt paranoid of not doing stuff. . .never felt the need to explain.”40

      The result was a model that took care of both the physical and spiritual needs of the individual with whom he was involved. Normally, he first accomplished this through a pneumatological demonstration of his kingdom. This included (but is not limited to) physical healings, the removal of demons, the use of phenomenological experience, and various other miraculous signs.41 These demonstrations were the means by which he typically captured the hearts of individuals. Consistently and repeatedly, he used demonstration as a learning modality, a pedagogy, and an andragogical discourse by which to provide an understanding and basis for his work. 

      This precept transcends our culture. Still living within the biblical context and continuation of the biblical story, the twenty-first century continues to provide an eloquent platform for the demonstration of kingdom works. What St. Francis of Assisi said nearly eight centuries ago is still relevant for the twenty-first century: “Preach the Gospel at all times, and, if you have to, use words.” The boundaries and provisions of our culture indeed are poised and prepared for a resurgence of this understanding and demonstration.42 As we move away from the constrictions of modernity and move towards cultural and historical influences that embrace the mystical, the liturgical, the ceremonial, the ritual, the phenomenological, and the paranormal, and as we are inundated with reports of the miraculous, it is becoming obvious that we are a culture that embraces phenomena. Some could argue that our culture is not influential but, as Eugene Peterson recently stated, “Our culture is wrong but we can’t just dismiss it….That’s our world; these are the people we deal with.”43

      Whether we agree with them or not, people are talking. We are living in a culture that values experience. However, it appears that the agenda of the Church is not attuned to align itself positionally within the framework of experience  as an overarching value, Richard Foster argued that “in the last century the Church has been preparing individuals to die, however, we should be preparing them to live.”44 We should be preparing individuals to live as a renewed humanity, and as an empowered people; specifically, a people empowered by the Spirit of God. As thinkers in the twenty-first century, our inclinations and understandings of polemics, discourse, content, and even truth have become blurred. The values of truth are no longer a priori45 rationalizations or pragmatics that derive value from reasoning. We are currently living in the biggest philosophical shift in at least the last 500 years. And the church lives in such a sub-cultural mentality of retrenchment that it often does not understand the important shifts in the ways that people think, and the way that they process reality.46

      In the past, truth was understood as a series of propositional statements that can be proven though science, logic, technology, and reason. However, in the words of Mark Driscoll, “Truth is a person. His name is Jesus Christ. And as you come into relationship with him you have access to the truth. That truth doesn’t come by science or technology but that it comes by faith and faith is a gift from God.”47 We can no longer sit aside and talk about truth stand alone. Truth needs to be demonstrated.48 As addendum to this thought, it should be noted that collective reasoning takes on new form, perhaps not dissimilar to corporate guidance. In terms of intentional/emerging communities this concept needs teased if the church is raising followers of Jesus.

      As spiritual directors our duty is to demonstrate and value God’s Kingdom in our ordinary context. According to Ladd,49 the agenda of the Kingdom is to become a reality of power, a power that can exist independent of bodies. This power is devoid of personal means, made up of thoughts, feelings, evaluations, or even choice and habits involving creative will.50

      As metaphysical conditions for spiritual growth, potential followers of Jesus need a vision for the kingdom of God within their communal context, a vision that will define their humanity. This link toward spiritual formation has to be connected to the Spirit’s power. There is some nuance of this in literature, but very little praxis.51 Therefore, we must learn to fully understand the implications of the following statement:

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, and civilizations, these are mortal; and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit–immortal horrors or everlasting splendors….Next to the blessed sacrament itself, your neighbor is the holiest object presented to your senses…52
      This understanding will radically alter our worldview, a worldview that our culture has rendered dormant to the task of understanding actual spiritual heritage and origins of those with whom we interact. Awakening will help us to foster new imagery, new metaphors, and new contexts within which to communicate theology. We live in a society and culture that embraces neither their pneumatological formation nor the very ethos for which they were created. This notion of experience and its starting point from a spiritual context speaks radically against our culture, a culture that in other respects values experience. Sociologically, our culture lacks an ideological starting point for a worldview that includes no ordinary people or mere mortals.

      The scoreboards of our culture measure human experience and value those in terms of quality of life.53 However, life as a spiritual being can only be completed by living from a kingdom that is governed by the heavens. Through being led by Jesus, we are able to fulfill a mandate that is eternal and, as we recognize God’s kingdom and the reality of truth and power, we can begin to understand and develop a reliance and expectancy of his work and presence among us. As sub-contractors and co-laborers we guide others through the context of time and place “of our own experience”54 and through the experiences of still others. In this guiding we owe individuals both the words and the demonstrations of theology that they can grab hold of, wrestle with, and engage in. We also guide through the context of God’s work and God’s kingdom, and our own experiences with that. We co-labor with angels and the hosts of God who are in conflict with the Satan and his subordinates, who are working against us to oppose God.55 This is our platform, this is our context, this is our story, this is the relational field we are poised to influence, and this is our sphere. As Eugene Peterson says, “The kingdom is the invisible part of the Church.”56 The church and the kingdom may be ideologically one and the same, but the kingdom of God is where we are clarified, where we are given expression, where details are fulfilled within the spiritual realm and where we can have immediate access to God’s presence.

      A worldview or lifestyle of dualism gives meaning to the reality of “both/and” living.57  Both/and living is like eating the meat and spitting out the bones. Recently, this seeming paradox has provided explanatory power for certain truisms. One example of this is “the inward/outward journey,” which is a wonderful metaphor. However, we do not live in dualism. We live in the here and now, we live as it happens, we integrate and synthesize. In articulating this and manifesting it in all areas of our life we can show that dualism is an abstraction from what we are doing. It is important to realize that these terms58 and specificities are merely semantics, not pertaining to the realities of following Jesus. As C. S. Lewis said, “The devil’s first attack is on lectiography. He likes to twist words so they don’t mean what they say.” In a culture that embraces moral relativism on a sliding scale, it is important to have the skills to distinguish the meat from the bones. 

      A sociological worldview presents us with a perception that we can live integrated or disintegrated. This distraction is in opposition to the Kingdom of God; it is a distraction that continues to keep the world at bay from the realities of a Kingdom perception.59 We have the freedom to choose that to which we perceptively belong. As a culture it seems as if we have an ability to create mind hotels into which we can check into and be free from a Kingdom mindset. We can immerse ourselves in consumption—our clubs, organizations, teams, secret sins, and pleasures that bring us happiness. We believe we can create our own autonomy, our own destiny, our own future. We can biologically alter our DNA.60 We have cultural permission and encouragement that this is normative and expected if it is within our means. However, from a Kingdom standpoint this is in opposition to the teachings of Jesus. There are no distinctions, no exemptions, and no clauses. It all is Kingdom, and it is all in the midst of God. Although at times invisible to our culture and our minds, in the Kingdom, it is all integrated. This is reality now, Kingdom now, not something to be applied; this is what is happening; this is our story, the story now.61 And we must show this to the world.

 

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 2 Comments

Emerging Church

The Emerging Church
      The voice of the emerging church is largely one calling out to itself; it has moved radically outside of mainstream culture. Some within the Church who are listening have heard the cry of reformation, but largely that sphere of worldly influence has dwindled through the disintegration of Christendom. That voice has had small exposure and difficulty finding a unifying front; this is largely due to the fact that its ideological agenda has not been based in praxis. This agenda has been established in the creation of networks, such as TheOOZE, Soularize, Emergent, Off the Map, Not-Alone, and Kingdom Living, and articulated in the works of authors such as Lesslie Newbigin, Darrell Guder, Richard Foster, Stanley Grenz, Dallas Willard, Leonard Sweet, George Hunsberger, Stanley Hauerwas, Greg Boyd, and others. All of this intellectual prodding has done much to further the cry of change. The impact of these individuals and organizations has been large and time will prove their influence. The battles they have been waging are necessary and have begun a revolution of change that is slowly stirring the hearts of leaders within the Church. This can be visibly evidenced through one or more recent seminary programs62 that set out to study what it means to be a leader in an emerging world.63

      Recently much time and dialogue has been devoted to inwardly focusing on the Church’s reformation. In cloning the times, thrusts such as Generation X64 churches and alternative services spent a great part of the 1990s rearranging the furniture and lighting candles. This was an honest attempt at keeping up with trends like MTV’s “Unplugged;” however, this was only being culturally reactive.65 In speaking of efforts made by those who had hoped to see a reformation, one scholar commented that “the Church will never be reformed.”66 In one sense, this is true because the Church is made up of sinners, who will never embody perfection or represent the Church in its fullness.

      The fascination with reforming the church has been a reactive posture rather than preventive maintenance; understanding culture is certainly a helpful tool, but those living within that culture need no predictors or hypotheses as to where the church will be in the next ten years. They do need teaching consistent with their interpretational grids of comprehension and metaphors to which they can relate. Understanding genetically bio-engineered humanoids or metrosexuals and even the online church can be fascinating; however, this is neither a Kingdom agenda nor one that produces practitioners. Rather, it just continues in the vein of theorists and the “translayering” of cultural relevancy.  Technology and emergence are not relevant to the single mom, with two kids. Neither is slipping a tract of the four spiritual laws under her door. We need to raise practitioner leaders in the emerging church—leaders who are both experiencing the personal transformation of being Christian and who are outwardly practicing the experience of spiritual transformation. We need to DO Christianity.

      The Church would look different if we focused on being more proactive in leading and teaching people to be truly human.67 Providing individuals with the four spiritual laws is no longer effective; evangelistic stadium crusades are a dying breed. In the future even the seeker church model will suffer, because it, too, is based in a modernist model of church largely based in an apologetic. As America closes its historical run under the mantle of Christendom, we will be forced into new delivery systems that are accessible and relevant.68

      Unless the emergent church begins to become more outwardly focused in its demonstrations, it will become nothing more than a collection of talk shops for intellectual growth. Perhaps most perplexing is the emergent movement’s recent discovery of and fascination with the traditions of Celtism.69 This is interesting because of what is becoming the emerging church’s staple—introspection and the spiritual reformation of the individual. The inward journey of the Celts has terrific ramifications for the individual; however, what seems to go unrecognized is that the Celts were equally committed to mission.70 They sought to go out and preach the gospel, fulfilling the mandates of a Kingdom agenda seemingly in direct defiance of cultural norms.71 An integral part of Celticism is their integration of metaphor and symbol; from their daily rituals72 to their artistic design, they are able to give allegory and metaphor for commonplace activity.

      As the emergent voice has struggled to find its identity by encouraging both individual leadership and corporate voice, it has passionately neutered the very individuals who have the autonomy to lead it. Perhaps in some cases they have drained the tub and made the assumption that all that is left is are babies. It is really important to recognize that the playing field is not level, just because the rules of church are changing. In the displacement of church models many “CEO” type leaders of the past are struggling to find their places within the context of local community,73 and as a result leaders are often forced into a somewhat passive role. This is perhaps a backlash to CEO style of leadership that has become prevalent in the American church; however, the danger in this line of thinking is that it results in churches with only a passive voice and leaders who have been neutered and who have lost their prophetic voice.74 We need to re-teach leaders how to both step back and forward: to step back from a model that demonstrates a division between clergy and laity, and yet step forward in demonstrating their natural and spiritual qualities that makes them unique in the body of Christ.

      The emergent church is overly concerned with culture and dangerously resembles the liberal, pre-Wesleyan Anglican Church, whose leaders were early vigilantes of intellectual thought constructs. The “liberal church” has become idle in the effort to be anti-culture; no longer are they defiant, no longer are they visible in terms of being cultural iconoclasts. The emerging church could follow this vein. On the contrary, the early church was radically defiant of their culture; its practices, liturgy, and voice were culturally heretical. The Sunday Sabbath was a statement of defiance, not complacency; it was not an embrace of the Starbuck culture75 of the day but rather a statement of opposition to it.76 Its voice, its kingdom message, and its mission were, in the face of both Roman and Hebraic thought, arguing for a call of allegiance to a new king and emperor.  This Roman heritage has remained entrenched in the emerging church’s paradigm. Its slavish reformation attempts and introspection remains a stigma of critique. The church must regain a prophetic voice, a voice that will be in defiance. Sadly, it is difficult to be an orator for a Kingdom message if that message is lost in the rearranging of intellectual furniture.

 

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 0 Comments

Engagement

Engagement
      Sculpture is one way to help people move from a theoretical praxis to a physical embodiment. Within this project individuals will be potentially interacting, dialoging, and engaging in a piece of art, and thus witnessing additional aspects of theology with which they tangibly can engage. They will be provided a living story and representation of a kingdom theme that will assist them in their journey of discovering what it means to be Christian.

      Sculpture is an appropriate medium for enhancing the proclamations of the academics because, by its very nature, it engages people in a tangible, visible, and, at times, kinesthetic sense, rather than just a logistically-oriented mind experiment. When viewing art individuals become curious about what it is that drives the shape, the style, the medium, and the creativity behind each piece. Coupled with a theological agenda it becomes a medium that allows for a discussion surrounding it as a demonstration of something more than just elements. Enveloping personal engagement, it becomes a physical representation of something far extending the materials of which it is made. Within art there is a passivity that allows for engagement in a non-threatening way. These are the experiences our culture is longing to have—connectors to the Spirit of God that we all embrace when they happen, like a favorite smell, a song, or tangible manifestation of a Kingdom presence, that momentarily Kingdom moment that transcends us to the heavens, reminding us of our spiritual future and inheritance.

      The talk shops of emerging culture are primed for this discussion. Moving from Hallmark Moments® to Holy Spirit™ will only take a slight demonstration. Most only need the language to which to attach these experiences and the permission to know that they are valid. With flexible truths and a culture that encourages self-discovery and individuality, emerging culture allows itself its own interpretation and grids for truth. Art is a medium to which this generation can relate because of the process of discovery. In art rarely do two individuals find themselves arriving at the same conclusions, yet wonderfully it typically opens up dialogue between those two individuals as to the reasons why. It couples the words to the works and results in a conversatio fide about proclamations they have heard and a demonstration with which they have engaged.

      Common sense would dictate that the best way to find out an artist’s intentions is to hear directly from the artist what it was s/he was attempting to accomplish. If the artist is available or there is a means to discovery what it is one was attempting to communicate, that art is given additional power. This demonstration can merge with articulation (in this case, the text of an accompanying website) to provide further elaboration. When art is provocative enough and engaging, it can become a powerful metaphor with which to communicate a much broader message. An image truly is worth a thousand words.

      This project will not change the world; however on a very micro scale it may have missional impact on my iPod culture. My heart is that it would be a connector for some to further seek out a God with creative intent, passion, and desire to speak to individuals in unique ways. With humble anticipation, my prayer is that this project will aid in our God’s process.

 

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 0 Comments

Practioner’s

Practitioners
      How can leaders move from being ideological practitioners in talking shop if they have never been taught to hear God’s voice? I am not proposing gaining intellectual understanding of biblical texts and dogmatic teachings; literally and specifically, I mean hearing God’s voice. There is much literature regarding inner journeys, retrospection, and the inner voice; however, the praxis and instruction to answer this question have not yet emerged, and neither have methodologies which incorporate the metaphors to accomplish this. If we are called to prophesy, where are the “how to” books of the emergent church?  The ideological thought fomenters are visible, but where are the practitioners? Who in this emerging paradigm is working through this? Who is hearing God’s voice, audibly, silently, through dreams, visions, and prophetic words of understandings? How can we as the Church have interpretation for unknown cultural knowledge if we do not know how to hear God’s voice? The concept of waiting upon the Spirit or leading within a corporate setting, which borrows from the Quaker or Brethren notion of “corporate guidance,”77  presumes that those who speak to or for the group are following the Spirit. This clearly is not normative in teaching of prominent emergent church voices. Who is equipping the church to use this vastly undernourished tool? How can we be complete without it? How can we be led if we do not know how to see the leader?

      The largest component of spiritual formation that is missing in the emerging church is the absence of the understanding that “kingdom” = “reign/rule” = “power” = “dunamis,”78 or the gifts of the Spirit. From the aforementioned emerging authors and organizations, there has been very little mention of spiritual praxis. The charismatic battle was waged and won in the 1970s, but that message is absent within both the emerging church and academia. There is much talk about community,79 heightened discussion on personal reformation,80 and recently the dialogue has begun to turn missional.81 But the voice of the emerging church is failing to train its leaders in matters of deciphering pneumatology. It is failing to teach them holistic methods of hearing from God and seeing God in ways other than reading a Bible. It is not that leadership does not believe in the practice of gifts, it is just that that leadership has no priority to fulfill that component of spirituality and has not yet given it priority. The seeker movement has had great effect on this. Recently a prominent Christian scholar, leader, and author said that “the seeker movement” (as described by Rick Warren in his stunning book, The Purpose Driven Church), was the most destructive force to yet attack the Church in the last 2000 years.”82 This comment was addressed to the perception that messages that raise controversy or awareness will negatively affect attendance and must therefore be avoided.83 A reductionist Gospel with an ear for public opinion must be radically positioned when compared with practitioners in the early church84 who were both in defiance of cultural sensitivity85 and at the same time, as St. Paul indicated, “all things to all people.”

      The Holy Spirit’s role in the emerging church86 has been reduced to a means to accomplish personal spiritual transformation. Within personal transformation and spiritual formation lie the dormant force and the next phase for healing the emerging church. However, it would seem that an obvious precursor or addendum would be hearing God’s voice. It would seem a difficult postulate to determine what God’s heart and vision for accomplishing that transformation is, if an individual had no understanding or paradigm for listening to or hearing God’s voice.87 A synthesis and marriage of these concepts need to take place within the emerging church. How is it we can be prophetic, if we do not know what God’s voice sounds or even looks like? How is it we can pray for others if we do not have a paradigm by which to see what the Spirit is doing?88 How is it we can pray to see an individual healed if we have no understanding of physical healing? How, in the middle of conversation, can we be spiritual guides and leaders if we do not know how to discern God’s voice? As guides and spiritual directors, it would seem essential to know what it is we are guiding towards and to possesses the means to determine the directions to the destination. How is it that we can gain understanding of the Spirit’s activity if we cannot see the Spirit?89 How can we creatively co-labor if we do not have knowledge of spiritual matters? How can we be signposts of the kingdom if we cannot read the sign? How can we pray if the Spirit is not heard?90 These are ridiculous rhetorical questions (in the context of 1 Corinthians. 12:29-31); however, the emerging church is encouraging these behaviors without answering the questions of “how to.”

      Where are the visible models that radically intersect sin? Perhaps if one has a problem with addiction, one can pray for guidance and wisdom, ask for help and, of course, thank God for one’s prophet, the psychologist. If one continues on, one can eventually get to the sin motivators of that issue and, through steps and guidelines suggested by their counselor, eventually one is able to control one’s addictions. Perhaps a prescription of self-help, a peer group, and even accountability structures are set in place.  This is wonderful, amazing, and glorious, but where are the models of divine intervention and why is it that those “prescriptions” are not brought about, demonstrated, or written of with more regularity?

      In the recent book, Stories of Emergence: Moving from Absolute to Authentic,91 written by a diverse group of Christian leaders whose purpose was to comment on culture and direction of the Emerging Church, there was not a single account of pneumatological expression. Not one! This wasn’t a surprise; in fact, it only took a perusal of the book to predict this. It is a message that has simply escaped this group of leaders. How sad! How “absolutely unauthentic!” There is much literature on the praxis of inward journey, but very little on the praxis of the apostolic. If the Church is writing on hearing and finding a voice, would not a precursor to that be hearing God’s voice? The Holy Spirit’s activity has become atrophied; in many of these circles people are desperate to understand more.92

      The emerging church is asking its congregations to be girl scouts without giving them the cookies. This has to change. We desperately need practitioners who can articulate and demonstrate the Kingdom. We need forums, chat rooms, and places where this can be discussed. Most importantly, we need demonstration theology that supports this agenda and provides accessibility for those who wish to learn. 

      The books have been written, the research has been done, and information is overwhelmingly abundant. In the words of St. Francis of Assisi, “Tell as many people as you can about Jesus and if you have to, use words.” We have to do both show and tell. I want to be part of the generation that tries it. I want to see the emerging church dabble in, play with, and consume this Kingdom mindset and way of living. I want to see it move from rhetoric and ideology to praxis. I want to see radical demonstrations, monuments that engage a marketplace culture, entire exhibits pointing to the stories of God’s wonder, like the twelve stones brought from the Jordan River by the tribes of Israel forever to stand as a metaphor for the stories of God’s love for a people. We need cultural iconographies that are both personal and purposeful demonstrations of God’s heart.

 

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 0 Comments

Normalacy, What is the norm?

Normalacy
The experiences of Moses, Jesus, Paul and many other biblical heroes and heroines were not only exceptional within their own context,

“The saga continues up to  our own day in the lives of those recognized as leaders in the spiritual life.  When, coming through the ages, we consider St. Augustine, Theresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, George Fox, John Wesley, C.H. Spurgeon, Phoebe Palmer, D.L. Moody, Frank Laubach, A.W. Tozer or Henri Nouwen, we see in each case a person who regards personal communion and communication with God both as life changing episodes and as daily bread.  Untold thousands of humble Christians whose names will never appear in print-who will never preach a sermon or lead a crusade-can testify equal well to exactly the same kinds of encounters with God as are manifested by the great ones in the Way.[9]                          -Dallas Willard, Hearing God Pg.23”

but were also historically significant.  It is perhaps more important to incorporate the notion that the experiences which they had were normative .

If this premise is true, than by inference the pneumatological things that these individuals experienced (ie. speaking with God on a regular basis,  having experienced paranormal expressions, having participated in miraculous signs and wonders, having participated in the healing of the sick, and the raising of  the dead, and experiencing personal transformation. . . to name just a few)  than we should be having and experiencing the things that these individuals were[10] .  If these are Christian practices, Christian expressions,[11] and Christian experiences that are normal,  then to not experience them or make efforts towards their influence, may infer that we are being disobedient.

It is not unreasonable to recognize that it is our duty and job to participate to devoting ourselves to the study of story, and biblical accounts.  When preparing for study we encourage others to seek out a means of education and support structures which enable them to understand the story better.  Perhaps they take necessary steps to accomplish this ie.  downloading an application, applying to a learning program, attending class, participating in lectures, doing assignments and getting graded on them. Or perhaps attending a conference or seminar, participating in a class, attending a weekly study.[12]… We have no rational problems accepting the notion that this is normative in our proactiveness towards education.  However it seems that when we apply this same level of expectancy and exuberance to pursuing the Spirit, or even attempting to encourage pneumatological events, there is a gentle hushing by mainstream Christianity.  Why is being proactive in terms of the Spirit skewed as unnecessary or reserved for extreme Pentecostalism?[13]

Worldview
Does our mundane worldview inhibit learning from being evidence of miraculous expression?  Are we so empiricalized and rational that we cannot accept learning and pneumatolgocial expression as being normative?[14]  How is it that so much has been lost in terms of applying the same pragmatics of Aristotelian analysis[15] to things of the Spirit?  Just as Descartes set out to understand new ways of discovering the existence of God in unfamiliar places by THINKING, so too must we seek out ways EXPERIENCING God in the ordinary by DOING.  We must be proactively engaging with the spiritual and kingdom worldview, which we know,[16] and juxtaposing it within the matrix of worldview that we are continually barraged by and culturally enfolded into.[17]

In the famous words of my hero John Wimber when asked, “When do we get to do the stuff?”[19]  ,  John always loosely this “articulated and’  answered-“Whenever we get out there and do it”. 

By no means is this to an attempt to limit the Spirit to moving in new ways, or accomplishing things the same way twice.  Clearly the Spirit is not bound to steadfast rules of orderliness that we are often confined to.  However it seems that many people are able to hear from God in consistent ways that they recognize as being participatory.[20]  Perhaps these come in terms of: a voice of conscience or reason;  an audible voice ; or a sense of understanding /assuredness of direction that is physically felt perhaps within  the voice of a friend, stranger, or child, and /or  the emotions of a pet, a dream or hyper awareness that God is leading .  It could be the assurance  that God is guiding, directing ,and conspiring to speak to you, and teach you something new.  The goal of this material is to discuss this, grapple with and apply the notion that God can and does speak in relevant ways today.

 

Bibliography

[1]  Eric Keck. The Crucible of My Heart Spring 2004 Comments 2004 <http://erickeck.com/stats/mostReadMessages>.

[2] Dallas Willard, Hearing God: Developing  a Conversational Relationship with God (Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varstiy Press, 1999).

[3]  Eric Keck. The Crucible of My Heart Spring 2004 Comments 2004 <http://erickeck.com>.

[4]  Theology-online, Spring 2004, Theology-Online <www.theology-online.com>.

[5]  Google, Search Engine, spring 2004, Googlle <www.google.com>.

[6] John Wimber, The Dynamics of Spiritual Growth (London, England: Hodder and Stoughton, 1990).

[7] Willard, Hearing God: Developing  a Conversational Relationship with God.

[8] James Randi, An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural (N.Y., NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1995).

[9]  Dallas Willard, Hearing God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1984, 1993,1999).

[10] Carol Wimber, The Way It Was (NY, NY: Hodder & Stouhgton Ltd., 1990).

[11] Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994).

[12] Anthony III Campolo and Brian Mclaren, Adventures in Missing the Point (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondrvan, 2003).

[13]  Robert Todd Carroll, Online Resource, Spring 2004 <www.skepdic.com/glossol.html>.

[14] Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994).

[15] Robin Waterfield Aristotle, David Bostock, Physics (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 350 BC, 1999).

[16] Rupert A. Hall, Henry More : Magic, Religion and Experiment (Oxford,England: Oxford University Press).

[17] Anthony III Campolo and Brian Mclaren, Adventures in Missing the Point (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondrvan, 2003).

[18] Theology-online, www.theology-online.com.

[19]  Christy Wimber, Doing the Stuff. Daily Theology, Spring 2004, Doing the Stuff <http://www.doin-the-stuff.com>.

[20] Gordon Fee, God’s Empowering Presence (Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1994).

[21]  Houghton Mifflin Company, The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (NY, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000).

April 16th, 2008 - Posted in E-Say's | | 0 Comments

Speaking in Tongues

Speaking or Praying in tongues
gift of tongues n. The ability or phenomenon to utter words or sounds of a language unknown to the speaker, especially as an expression of religious ecstasy. Also called glossolalia, speaking in tongues. [From the Apostles' speaking in tongues in Acts 2:4.].[22
It seems like the most appropriate way to discuss this particular gift from God’s Spirit is through story.  This is a personal account of limited understanding through the eyes of a spiritual nobody.

As a generalization: within the Emerging Church tongues or praying in the Spirit seems to be an unusual spiritual act.  Perhaps it is the broad based thread of those included and their wide array of Spiritual DNA[23] that make up post evangelicals.  But unlike many other gifts from the Spirit, tongues has gone relatively unmentioned without either loaded dispensational dialogue, or fervent Pentecostal passion.  In beginning dialogue about tongues, there are pertinent points to denote about the action of tongues and the individuals who are requesting.

Tongues seem to rely on the physical actions of the individuals who are praying in conjunction with the Spirit[24]To the exercised this wonderful gift is usually imagined as a nuclear blast of the Spirit, which possesses and ratifies itself to the inner core of Nirvanic bliss rendering the individual incapacitated[25] to deliver normative speech.  But from a personal vantage point the aforementioned is the exception and not the norm.  Gauging dialogue, discussion and omission of mention from books currently being suggested by emerging Church leaders, speaking in tongues appears to be an unusual spiritual act.  But again, this is only inference from omission of mention, a difficult criteria measurement for specific determination.

The first time I remember hearing a person speak in tongues, I had just become a follower of Jesus in a community church in Santa Barbara, California.  I was sitting in a pew with some friends, and it was the tradition of this church to have a time of silence reflection and silent prayer.  Since I had my eyes closed and my head down (I pretty much thought this was the proper posture of prayer), I was more or less waiting for the silence to be over.  The place was crowded and from time to time people would get up and pray out loud, or say things that they were thankful for and sit down.  Throughout this time I heard the man sitting next to me about four feet away continually making sounds.[26]  To some degree, the sounds sounded familiar but in another capacity they were completely foreign.  In this particular case, I remember listening intently although it was a very low murmur, and trying to decipher what the man was saying.  At this time, I had no idea he was praying in tongues, and certainly had no theological or experiential paradigm to understand what it was that was transpiring.[27]  But the man kept praying, and praying.

Without glance, I assumed he was from another country and although I wanted to look over and see if I could detect his ethnicity/nationality, I resisted the temptation, and didn’t raise my head.  I remember listening, just listening to the most unusual dialect, I had heard.  Having lived in many countries, having had the opportunity to hear many languages, this one was stumping me.  I couldn’t even get a continental fix on what it was he sounded like. Assumably to most the man was in no way distracting, (because I doubt most could hear him) and in many ways his hush of voice was a lullaby to listening ears.  I could hear in it’s low murmur that he was passionately saying something.  It was obviously a prayer of some sorts, but again his tone or dialect was of no revelation to me.[28]

After that portion of the congregation’s time together I remember being shocked as I looked over to see that man.  He looked like a stereotypical Del Playa[29] surfer.  Bleached blond long hair, a surf t-shirt, shorts and sandals.  I purposely said hi to him trying to [trap] him into revealing where his dialect or accent was from.  To my confusion, he spoke perfect English.  I said “man you speak good English, where are you from originally?”  “Santa Maria”, he replied… “Ah, your south American?” ( I felt absolved) “No Santa Maria California, born and raised”!

I remember just being so confused at that point, I wanted to find out more, but we were asked to return to pews. Comment [2][30]

This experience left me confused, and although I had just witnessed something directly related to pneumatology, without a theological grid, or explanation, I had no idea what it was that I had witnessed.  It wasn’t until about two years later that I had even figured out what it was that happened.  I remembered and figured it out when  I had been attending a Sunday night class taught by John Wimber[31] . I was really enjoying it, especially all the discussion and teaching in a particular series around gifts from the Spirit.  After a brief teaching, John simply said “all you who would like to speak in tongues, please come up front and we will pray for you.”  I think I was the first one up there, scrambling past as many as possible, for some reason in my thinking that if I was nearer the front I would get more or whatever it was the Spirit was giving out.  I ended up standing in the front and off to the side in a cleared area in the front of the gathering room.  A man named Bill Twyman approached me,[32] prayed for me and simply told me to relax.  As I stood there with my eyes closed, I began to pray silentl