An Understanding of Evangelism in Terms of the Kingdom of God

This is the first of a series of posts I will put out over the next couple of weeks. I am in the process of working on a major term paper on my understanding of evangelism. I plan to, at the very end, propose my own theological model of understanding evangelism in the life of the Church. This is Part 1: Evangelism as a Kingdom Movement

(disclaimer: please esxcue typos and misspellings as they will be corrected upon final draft. This is a rough draft I put out because it will be part of a series)

One could spend a substantial amount of research and white space on paper defining and expanding what exactly the Kingdom of God means, describes, and implies. For the purposes of this project let me simply define the kingdom as God’s active sovereignty in the world.[1] The kingdom, in effect, stretches one’s traditional conception of God’s work in the world from within the confines of the institutional church to a more ambiguous and fluid notion of God’s work within the scope of the entire world. This definition immediately draws into question the role of the Church if the Kingdom of God refers to something larger than a specific community or body.

            Quite simply, the Church can be defined as the body of Christ.[2] According to this reference one can infer the Church also has an action as the body of Christ. The Church’s primary roles as the Body of Christ is to not only be a sign pointing to Christ but, through the Holy Spirit, also be an agent of the Kingdom of God for the entire world. In this sense the church, as an agent of the kingdom, preserves its integrity as it is always acknowledging that it, in and of itself, is not the kingdom but rather a witness to and for the kingdom.[3] In other words, if the Church is a participant in the work of the kingdom there is little room for exclusive claims of Christian Triumphalism in the work of the Church.

            One can also describe the Church as the ecclesia, or the assembly. But one has to wonder whether or not this is a truly accurate definition of the church. From an insider’s perspective this is a right characterization. But one must wonder, from the perspective of an outsider, if this is indeed the most thoroughly accurate characterization of the church. The study ecclesiology is a study done from within the church by those who work and operate from within the church. The major flaw in such a simple characterization of an entity, in this case the assembly of the church, is one of epistemological root.[4] This flaw also tends to manifest itself further within the church by becoming the basis for evaluating success through tangible means such as growth[5] in income, attendance, or other quantifiable measures.[6] If the Church is simply and identifiable entity then the natural expression of it will be self-preservation in order to remain in existence. Before one can determine and understand the role of the church as the ecclesia of God as the sign or agent of the Kingdom of God in the world one must get past such ill contrived notions of measuring the work of the church. This is why one must grow to conceptualize the church in terms of how the church demonstrates the gospel through its actions and words within the world as it participates in and helps to expand the reach of God’s kingdom. Such a view does indeed see the Church not as an entity with solidified and distinguished definition but rather as an event.[7] It is this conception of church that will eventually move us to better understand the movement of evangelism within the entire scope and life of the church.

            This action of church calls the church to act according to certain standards in order to be faithful to such a lofty calling. First, the church is called to be redemptively present in the world and yet, at the same time, always witnessing to such a way as to not be held in bondage by the norms of the world.[8] This idea may not be as clear-cut as the previous statement might indicate. This notion actually means the church may be in need of ridding itself of certain accepted norms of hermeneutics from the practices of this church-as-event model. For instance, the church must not stand by idle while epidemics such as poverty, disease, and genocide (to name just a very few) run rampant through the world while confessing faithfulness to an exaggerated eschatology. On the flip side of the statement the church must also witness to and strive to live into the standards of the Kingdom that, all too often, are not the same as those of this world. This idea offers skepticism to the idea of relativism within the ethics and beliefs of the kingdom. In other words, there is a needed distinction between the norms and values of the kingdom and those of the world. If the church lives into its witness to such distinct and peculiar norms and values then it will inevitably be set counter to the world. But this is not always a negative idea. In order for the witness of the church to be distinct and inviting to the greater world the church must be witnessing to something different than what is found in the world.[9]

            Secondly, the church lives into such a calling as agents of the kingdom through all of its practices within the life of the church. Taking the previous paradox a step further one must come to the conclusion that limiting the activity of the church to a particular genre of practices is, in particular, an example of the church not being faithful to a God that calls the church to be ever expanding and ever reaching to the wider world. This is to be done despite partisan political ideologies that have helped shape the work of the church recently. Bryan Stone makes a powerful argument (with much credence to the work of John Howard Yoder) on this topic saying the reach of the church is ever expanding in political and economic terms when he says:

The politics of evangelism stands in contrast to (and offers salvation from) a politics of domination, exclusion, national idolatry, and individualistic rights, while its economics stands in contrast to (and offers salvation from) an economics of scarcity, consumption, greed, utility, and competition[10].

It is these kinds of societal realities the church should navigate towards throughout the realm of its practices in response to a God who calls for such action and a world in need of such actions. One can go so far as to affirm along these lines the thought found in the writing of the Letter to the Ephesians describing Christians as a people who are striving to be “no longer strangers and aliens” but “citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God[11]”. This is the work within the wider world and not to be limited to the institutional church. One can go so far as to suggest the household of God be a reference to God’s Kingdom and its activity.

            The point should be made here this is not an attitude or way of being the church constructs within its own perception and faculties. If it were it would surely be lacking of the range of impact deserving of God. This action is only that which is ordained and empowered by the Holy Spirit. Without getting too in depth in the parameters of Trinitarian theology one can agree the church often does not do an adequate job defining and understanding the third person of the Trinity, namely, the Holy Spirit. In terms of the role of the Spirit in the evangelistic action of the church one must first acknowledge it is a power but one that is not owned by or domesticated within the church. The Spirit is also not guided by the church so as to propagate the motives of the church. The Spirit is the active force that rules, guides and goes before the church into the world. It is, as Lesslie Newbign puts it “the free, sovereign, living power of the Spirit of God[12].” By the very nature of the Spirit one cannot limit of it as the mere presence of the Kingdom of God within the world today. One must gain some sort of conceptual understanding of how the Spirit transcends linear time. On the one hand, to speak of the Spirit does not mean one speaks of its presence in the church now as though it is a unique event. This presence and activity has been present in the world since the creation of the world (cf. John 1:1). This helps explain the historical nature of the Spirit as not something that happened “back then” but rather in a way that helps one come to an understanding of how the Spirit is present in the here and now. On the other hand, one must also further this understanding to gain some sort of idea of the presence of the Spirit in the future. This understanding is guided by a directed understanding of the Spirit’s presence both historically and in the present time. All of this is to say the Church and the evangelistic activity of the Church is guided by and perpetuated through a Spirit not constrained by time but whose presence can be understood throughout all time. It is this Spirit that guides now as it guided before and will continue to guide the work of evangelism through the Church in the world as the activity of the Kingdom of God.

            If evangelism is the practice of a body united by common activity, inspired by a common story, and guided by a common Spirit one can understand the linkage between evangelism and mission. If boundaries establish the parameters of community and membership is understood as the intentional marker of such a community what is to be said of mission and the ecclesia of the Church[13]? Quite simply, mission attempts to extend those boundaries beyond the known into the unknown. This idea of mission can be best understood as the proclamation, presence, and provenience of the Kingdom of God within the world[14]. But there is a tension in understanding mission as an activity of the Church. One must attempt to understand mission as uniquely of God within a world that advocates very similar (often the very same) types of activities in the form of social and welfare service. Many outside of (and frankly some inside) the Church see mission as being more effective for society if it remains a neutral activity of the state so as to not perpetuate a particular religious leaning. Some more conservative opponents of mission see it as distracting from and inhibiting of the activity of evangelism. I argue that mission is both an activity distinctly of God as revealed through Jesus Christ and is inseparable from the activity of evangelism. In other words, mission without evangelism is nothing more than charity and lacks the theological impact of the Kingdom of God and, equally so, evangelism without mission nothing more than petty words about God lacking the theological impact of the physical demonstration of the work of God through a life devoted to the work of the Kingdom of God. If the dual nature of mission describes the work and inspiration of such activity then the dual nature of the work of the Kingdom of God is both missional and evangelistic. If one is faithful to the call of the Kingdom and inspired and guided by the Spirit then there is no separation between the two concepts. This, in essence, describes the relationship as a synthesis under the idea of the Missio Dei. This term meaning the very “sent” or apostolic nature of God and then expected of God’s people (i.e. the Church). This nature also references to whom the message of the Kingdom is to be sent to. Mission Dei, by traditional understanding, refers to the sending of the message of the work of God in the Kingdom of God to all people (cf. Matthew 28:16-20)[15]. By more fully understanding the relationship between mission and evangelism it helps one understand better the scope and reach of the Kingdom of God. This relationship also offers a more comprehensive insight to the expansive and inclusive activity of the Kingdom. One only hopes that through the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit the Church can better find its place in such a large context of understanding and activity.

---

[1] I am beholden to Howard Snyder for his definition meaning the reign of God in the world. I reword only out of sensitivity for the fact that the term “reign” could infer militaristic connotations for communities (often outside of the Western world) and thereby be a critique of what is otherwise a comprehensive and powerful theological definition.

[2] See 1 Corinthians 12:12-14

[3] Snyder, Howard. “A Kingdom Manifesto” (Downer’s Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1985) p. 80

[4] Gregory Leffel, Churches in the Mode of Mission: Toward a Missional Model of the Church, ed. Howard Snyder (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), p. 73

[5] See the work of Peter Wagner and Donald McGavran and other Church Growth Theorists for more on this emphasis on material growth and measuring success and failure within the Church through such tangible means.

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid, 75

[8] Snyder, Howard. “A Kingdom Manifesto” (Downer’s Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1985) p. 81

[9] Stone, Bryan. “Evangelism After Christendom: The Theology and Practice of Christian Witness (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press 2007) p. 176

[10] Stone, Bryan. “Evangelism After Christendom: The Theology and Practice of Christian Witness (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press 2007) p. 176

[11] Ephesians 2:19

[12] Newbign, Lesslie. “The Open Secret” (London: Eerdmans Publishing, 1995) p. 56

[13] Smith, Luther. “Intimacy and Mission” (Scottdale: Herald Press, 1994) p. 118-119. Smith uses this definition to further describe the issues of initiation into a particular faith community. I felt this was a telling definition that was universally applicable to all faith communities.

[14] Newbign, Lesslie. “The Open Secret” (London: Eerdmans Publishing, 1995) p. 91. Newbign makes a most comprehensive argument for mission within the life of the Church and the Kingdom of God.

[15] Karl Barth, An Exegetical Study of Matthew 28:16-20, eds. Robert L. Gallagher and Paul Hertig  (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2009), p. 24-26. Barth’s understanding of Missio Dei remains the standard conception of mission

 

Reflections on a Mentor and a Friend

As I stated in my last post, my mentor and good friend, Rev. Joseph Roberson, was killed last Saturday in a car accident. This is a tragic loss for his family, the community of Columbus, GA, the South GA Conference, the United Methodist Church, and countless friends he had all over the world.

I met Joe 12 years ago when I worked at the first VBS his church had in over 30 years. Joe kept up with me over the years and when I was in need of a candidacy mentor for ordination he volunteered himself to the DS to be my mentor. Over the next year or so I learned a lot from Joe-directly and indirectly, spoken and unspoken. At the end of our meetings he would always remind me, “Ben, my friend, you know I’m just a phone call away if you need anything!” Below I would like to share in short bullet points some of those lessons for ministry he shared with me:

• Never read your own press clippings- This was Joe’s way of saying that one should not spend too much time measuring their public success in ministry. He took a church of 40 members and turned it into a 700+ member church. the largest African-American church in South GA, in 15 years. He did this located directly across the street from government housing projects. He established day-care for working parents and provided many other services of noteworthy value to that community-one many in Columbus would consider the “ghetto.” But through it all he never spent too much time talking about his success. If he did, it was always in the context of the success of the community. A good lesson to learn for many of us in a society driven off celebrity status and a need to garner attention.
• The Church’s problems are not unique; after all, the Church is nothing but a microcosm for the world- I would complain to Joe about how nasty people in the church could be. I always said the problems seemed to run much deeper in the church-maybe because of the passion of the conviction? He would give me trademark smirk and quickly inform me the church is not unique in its problems. It is a microcosm for the world. The problems of the world infiltrate the church every time the community meets. Maybe he knew this as an African-American pastor of people who life seemed to always kick when they were already down? Maybe he was right, after all, what is the Gospel if it does not address the very problems of the world around us?
• I am here to be your cheerleader-Joe told me early on that the process of ordination was a painful one where many would see it their job to critique me to no end in the hopes that I become an effective pastor-at least to their standards. Joe, as my mentor, told me that was not his job. He felt he would better serve me by building me up instead of tearing me down. Now many might say that he was leaving out an important role of a mentor but during this process I needed it. On the one hand, I did have many who felt it necessary to critique me-often bordering on over-critiquing. I was already unsure of my call in that I didn’t feel worthy of such a task as the vocation of pastor. So when I went to see Joe and had him always tell me how gifted I was and how he just knew God had big plans for me and that God was going to take me far in ministry it meant the world. His edification held me up when I wouldn’t hold myself up sometimes.

I must admit that his funeral was an amazing experience. 4 hours of gospel singing, reflections, and a eulogy from Bishop James Swanson that lit a fire in St. Luke UMC that I have never witnessed in a worship experience was a tremendous experience. But I came back home, and my mentor and friend Joe is no longer a phone call away. I have learned the truly difficult lesson that it is often when life intersects ministry that being a pastor becomes tough. I thank God for Joe. And, in my honest moments, I am still deciding how I feel about all of this. This is not easy and, frankly, it’s not fair. Though I can now, in a new and fresh way, speak to how God will show up in the whirlwinds of our lives-even when we don’t really want God there.

Paralyzed Man in Vegetative State is Found to be Conscious

Coma Recovery Story

This story is about a man who was thought to be in a vegetative state and, after 20+ years, has come out and is able to communicate by guiding a speech therapist’s hand across a keyboard. What is also fascinating is the under-story here. Modern science seems to be in disagreement with itself. On the one hand, it was a modern form of a brain scan that revealed that this man was actually in a coma and not in a permanent vegetative state. They think for a good while he was actually conscious inside of a totally paralyzed body. Miracle? Well, the counterpoint is that modern science also says this is not possible and they are doing “guided communication”  with this patient.

I find this a bit intriguing that many in science are okay with science as long as it stays out of the miracle business. Or, at least if it does venture into miracles, it better be able to explain exactly how they happened. I wonder if this is not God demonstrating that science begins not with us as advanced humanity but with, dare I say it, with God. What if this was a miracle? Do we believe it? I’m guessing we don’t-it’s much easier to write God off then actually stop and try to unpack the depth of such a thing. Thoughts? Comments?

 

**as a side note I want to ask for prayer for the family and friends of Rev. Joe Roberson. He was tragically killed Saturday night in a car accident. He was a husband and father of 4. He was a leader and mentor. He was my mentor and my very good friend. I will be posting soon on some thoughts and feelings of losing someone close to you-I’m just not ready to do so yet.**

Emerging Evangelicals?

Last night my student group at school sponsored a lecture by Will Willimon. In the course of this lecture he illustrated various characteristics of what it means to be an Emerging Evangelical.

Emerging:

This refers to two main characteristics. One is that those born after 1980 are referred to as the Emerging Generation. This notes the age of many who are lumped into this category. It is a study of contrast when one compares many of the religious tastes of Emerging folks vs. Boomers or Gen Xers. Emerging Generation folks don’t seem to as consumed by that which makes us different. The idea of diversity is more than a buzz word for emerging folks-it’s often a reflection of reality. In terms of church, being ecumenical is also a reality and more than a mere program name as it is for those of older generations. Willimon pointed out to us that often this characteristic comes from the notion that Emerging folks know they don’t know it all.

The second connotation of this term refers to the reclaiming many of this generation are trying to do with the older, traditional liturgical styles. It’s often funny to me how many Boomers want to advertise “contemporary” worship in their churches and they are singing songs that are 20 years old. This is NOT contemporary. This is not hip or cool either. I am encouraged that many in the Emerging generation have figured out that the church should not be in the business of trying to be “relevant” in terms of music and worship. We know there is better stuff on MTV. We don’t come to church for a concert or to be entertained. This reclaiming of historical liturgy, I believe, comes from the compelling notion that we need something different in church from that which is found in society.

Evangelical:

I will not spend a huge amount of time writing on this term as it is a favorite subject of mine and I will be writing more and more on this over the coming months and years. I will say that Willimon pointed out (and I agree with him) that we are seeing a reaction now to what can be called Traditional Evangelicalism. The works of Charles Finney, D.L. Moody, and Jerry Fallwell have finally been disputed to the point their fallacies have outnumbered their merits. Being evangelical is becoming something, I hope, that is not exclusive both in polity and practice. Newer writings of William Abraham, Will Willimon, and others advocate a more inclusive sense of the term to better mirror the nature of Jesus Christ himself. People like Howard Snyder have reclaimed the notion of Missio Dei to link the ideas that mission and evangelism are intertwined and not easily separated.

All of this to say that I am encouraged that we may be turning the corner into a new day of theological reflection that would choose to reclaim traditional terms rather than merely concede and attach “neo” or “post” to the beginning of that word to denote a difference. I am biased but being evangelical (note the “e” and not “E”) is the very essence of living a Christian life. It is a life that seeks holiness A ND reconciliation with all that this life has separated by human sin. It seeks to live as something different from this world but not justified on the terms of being SEPARATE from this world. It is the idea that we are to GO and MINISTER to ALL who we come in contact with. It means we are to LIVE Jesus Christ just as much as we SPEAK Jesus Christ.

Adam Hamilton: “The Church offers what is desperately needed”

Hamilton does a great job expressing the relationship between the social and evangelical gospel as the total mission of the church never to be separated from one another. Great stuff. Reflections to come…

In Defense of My Institutional Choice for Education

Ever since I made it public and have begun attending Candler I have, inevitably, had conversations with well-meaning people about their “concerns” with my choice for graduate education institutions. The other day I had a very similar conversation with a current first year student who seemed to voice the very same “concerns” with Candler. So I think being almost halfway done with my 3-year seminary experience it is time to reflect on my experience of Candler as a school and the culture of Candler and whether it lives up to or defies the “myths” that are spread in so many circles.

“Candler is a liberal school that will take your Jesus away is you aren’t careful“-

This is a favorite of many well-meaning people who seem to be concerned that seminary will make one think too much and, inevitably, seek to destroy someone’s faith. I remember comments that Dr. Brent Strawn made at my orientation last year before my first day at Candler. He said something like “If a school can ‘take Jesus from you’ you probably didn’t have much of a relationship to begin with.” He went on to implore us to not only seek academic and intellectual endeavors in graduate school but to also open our faith lives to new lessons and revelations of God. Often, if someone has a major crisis of faith in seminary it can be attributed to a lack of continuing to cultivate one’s faith life. In other words, we are not at our home churches anymore, we are not in youth group, and we are not here to have our faith lives spoon fed by professors. It is up to us to seek to find God and to have eyes to see where God is seeking us.

I am also reminded of some words I heard Fred Craddock say once when he said he found his studies not only influenced his thought but also his faith. He said he was tired of reading materials that might be an inch deep in theology in the spirit of keeping one’s studies always separate from one’s faith life. I have always remembered this and have found there are actually some very influential materials that have greatly influenced my faith and helped shape me in new ways-materials I would not have read if not assigned in a class to read them.

“Candler is just a liberal school that will push liberal ideals on you-you can’t go back to South GA preaching that kind of stuff”-

Well many at Candler are liberal. I won’t act like that’s a myth. Many do have liberal agendas they use to approach their various areas of ministry. But the real question I have is “should one keep out that which one does not agree with?” I mean, are we that weak-minded that we can’t use the God-given gift of discernment to weed out that which we don’t agree with? And even more, can we not make friends with even those who we don’t always agree with? I have over the last year and half sought to champion views that many consider “conservative” and “evangelical.” I have found nothing but support from Candler administration. In fact, I have had more conversations about how glad they are the view is being represented and have not yet had a conversation to the contrary. I have also met wonderful people who love God and don’t always agree with me-nor I with them. But they are good people and friends the same.  This is the real world and we are going to have to learn to live with and love even those we don’t agree with. I will not let differences silence my voice to those views I feel deserve voice in theological discussion. But I will also not let differences keep me from learning valuable lessons-even lessons from someone I don’t agree with. I have found that in many respects my views to the contrary of that which is the majority at Candler have been strengthened by my minority status. I understand the “other side” in a way I would never understand had I chosen a school where I was in the majority. Not to mention I get to enjoy being someone’s “token evangelical friend”.

It is a sad thought that we feel we have to be in a majority all the time. It is as though we feel the compulsion to be justified in everything we do. And if we risk being wrong then at least we have a majority to fall back on.

Yesterday, in a sermon in Chapel, Dr. Tom Long made a statement that just stuck with me all day. He said, “Sometimes it seems we would rather be right than free.” Whether one is liberal or conservative I think this way of living and thinking is symptomatic in our petty arguments over right vs. wrong. In the middle of our seeking to lobby for support for our various views and in our efforts to dispel that which we don’t agree with I wonder if God is not sitting right next to us in class, at Brooks Commons, in Chapel, in Pitts Library, and in the halls of our school seeking to set us free. Free, not to our own beliefs, but to new beliefs. Free to new understanding of what biblical text says and what the Kingdom of God looks like. And, most of all, free to live abundantly as a child of God-even a child of God in the setting of a liberal seminary.

The Mission of the Church: As exemplified by Paul’s Vision in Ephesians

A particular passage in Ephesians was brought to light this morning in New Testament and I wanted to reflect on it because it has, I feel, a lot of merit especially considering the state of the Church in our modern era.

Ephesians 2:11-22 says:

¹¹So then, remember that at one time you Gentiles by birth, called “the uncircumcision” by those who are called “the circumcision” —a physical circumcision made in the flesh by human hands— ¹²remember that you were at that time without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. ¹³But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.¹⁴For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. ¹⁵He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, ¹⁶and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. ¹⁷So he came and proclaimed peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near; ¹⁸for through him both of us have access in one Spirit to the Father. ¹⁹So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God,²⁰built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. ²¹In him the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; ²²in whom you also are built together spiritually into a dwelling place for God.

I had a friend mention the statement they hear all the time earlier today: “I love God, it’s the Church I have a problem with.” Oh if I had a nickel for every time I have heard that myself.  When did the church get out of the business of reconciliation?  Well some might contend around the time Constantine made Christianity legal and it became the national religion of Rome.  Others may even contend, as I do, that the Church never quite got into the business of reconciliation if we use Paul’s other letters as our evidence.

So what does reconciliation look like?  Well for Christians it is the very essence of our salvation.  Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ we are reconciled into a relationship with God that, before that time, was never quite possible in the same way it was after.  How ironic it is, then, that Christians and the Church seems to forget this fact so quickly.  We establish our institutions.  We build our steeples and set our rules and we’ll be damned in we are going to let anyone in who does not first adhere to the arbitrary conditions we set.

Now please keep in mind that I am not advocating for a free-for-all in terms of Christian conduct.  I don’t think Paul would either.  Opening the doors of church wider does not mean we say we can behave however we please in hopes of not seeming judgmental.  But it does mean we choose those standards, as Paul did, that matter to God.  I don’t think hymnal singing vs. projector and screen singing was one of those standards.  I don’t think organ music vs. live band music was one either.  I really don’t think political ideology was a standard.  And I know for a fact (as attested to by many of Paul’s writings) that racial, ethnic, gender, social, and even (yes, even) sexual orientation was meant to be a standard which one had to adhere to a “correct” policy before they could be in the community of Jesus Christ.

We are called as the Church to build one another up in love and seek to serve each other in the spirit of mutual edification (cf. Eph 4:1-3; Rom 14:19; Gal 5:13; 1 Thess 5:15).  As Luke Timothy Johnson said this morning, “If the Church is not in the business of reconciliation it’s doing anything.”

It is an interesting idea that our primary job as the Church could be to work to reconcile the world to God.  If we are called to be the body of Christ then how shall this body behave?  What are the primary tasks of existence in this body?  If God seeks to reconcile the world then I do believe the Church is one of the primary vehicles of this mission.  But this means attitudes within the Church must change.  We can not be about building up our institutions.  We can not be about “converting” everyone to our way of doing things.  We must be about reconciliation if this passage is to be taken seriously.  Self-preservation is nothing more than an attempt to continue the existence of the institution in a statement that we lack the faith that God will preserve the Church to do the very work of God.  Reconciliation is the Missio Dei and the Church is summoned to be the vehicle of this radical love God has for the world.

And the ironic thing is, I can’t think of anything more Evangelical than this!

Implications from a New Testament Lecture: More Questions than Answers

So the other my New Testament professor pointed out a text from Paul used in both Romans and Galatians. In Greek it is Pistis Christeou. Translated it is “Faith Christ.”  Now the debate is whether this text refers to “faith in Christ” or “faith of Christ.”  And the implications of the translation could be very meaningful to the text and its interpretation.  ”Faith in Christ” refers to the traditional Xhristocentric claim that salvation comes through belief in Christ alone.  But if one translates the phrase to mean “faith of Christ” then universalist claims could be given more validity.  In other words, if we are justified by the faith of Christ then is that exclusive for Christians alone or for everyone?  And what is the nature of our understanding of salvation?  I will say that I don’t know and don’t have a clear stand on either option.  The discussion served to raise more questions for me than answers.  But it did make me reflect on a couple ideas:

1. What is salvation? For Paul it definitely was not “going to heaven when you die” as we have come to understand it.  Throughout his letters he argues that salvation is inclusion in the community of saints and the inclusion into God’s holy community (i.e. the Church).  There was a definite tension for the communities Paul writes to.  Some are too focused on the “already” aspect of the Kingdom of God and are not living holy lives as examples of this faith (remember that Faith = obedience for Paul).  Some were so focused on the “not yet” aspect they were fearful of what would happen to them and their loved ones who died before Jesus’ return that they retreated from community life and stopped living as examples.  But there are not really texts we can point to for Paul that define salvation totally as the notion of one’s going to heaven when they die.
2. Why are we so threatened as evangelicals (or orthodox) if Paul does not make exclusive claim to salvation meaning one’s going to heaven? I fear that for too long we in the church and as Evangelicals have used this notion of heaven=eternal reward and hell=eternal punishment as a bullying tool to manipulate people into a one-time experience of “being saved.”  Now I know I am breaking from tradition-especially the one I grew up in as a United Methodist in the South.  But I am beginning to think we have really missed the mark by stressing such notions and especially by neglecting to stress other and more important notions pertaining to salvation.  Salvation means life with God right now and that life is lived out in community.  This life is required (not merely suggested) to be lived seeking and working to bring the Kingdom of God to earth through holy living where we seek to edify one another with the love of Jesus Christ.  This notion of limiting salvation to ONLY mean where one might spend eternal life has, I’m afraid, given Christians the permission to be soft on issues of justice and righteousness right here in THIS LIFE.  We turn a blind eye when injustice happens because, after all, at least we know where we are going.  We turn a deaf ear to issues of life or death for others because, after all, we are banking on being swept up in the “by and by” before things get too bad-mainly because of a bad reading of Revelation either by ourselves or Tim LaHaye.
3. Does salvation “happen” when we “accept” it or “ask God” for it? I have a real hard time with this idea of the transactional nature of salvation.  I would love to think I can simply ask God and he grant me something as large as my salvation.  But then we are reminded that it is but for the GRACE OF GOD that are included in God’s holy community.  When Christ died he died for ALL of us then, before, and those to come after (which is us).  This inclusion comes to ALL-and even us.  We can’t limit it nor can we act as gatekeepers to the Kingdom.  And thank God because I’m not sure if I get in if anyone other than God is gatekeeper.

I know for some this may anger you that a self-avowed Evangelical Christian writes such things that go against the very tradition of Evangelicalism.  I know for others you may be glad to hear that maybe I think a more universalist notion of salvation is in order-well don’t put me over there either.  I wonder if the real answer here is the non-answer?  Maybe the beauty of this particular debate is that we aren’t the ones who have to give the answers?  Maybe we shouldn’t worry about the after-life nearly as much as we always have.  And if that’s the case, then what does that mean for how we live the life we have RIGHT NOW???

When a sermon humbles the minister…

Sunday served as a great reminder of how much a preacher needs God and how easy it is to forget that. Please note before continuing reading that I am not in need of encouragement nor am I feeling uber discouraged after my sermon Sunday.  I am actually very excited at what seems to have been a great learning opportunity.

Right after I finished my sermon Sunday I knew something didn’t feel right.  ”It was rushed”, I thought.  Even my ultra-honest but so far very impressed with my preaching wife said, “You seemed off…were you nervous…I didn’t follow it well.”  My Con-Ed supervisor and Associate Pastor even asked me when the last time I preached was.  ”A few months ago in my home church,” I responded.  ”Well it was a bit academic,” he said.  Now don’t get me wrong.  He said it was good.  I hit he text hard and didn’t go for the easy answer in Job.  I left it open-ended as any good Job sermon should be.  But it was lacking a personal touch.  It was lacking that personal invitation to the listener to join me in the text.  Instead, I kept the distance there and did the best I could tell them what it was like in the text-rather than inviting them there with me.

Over the last few days I have come to the conclusion that I really envy student pastors in this area.  Sure, they do have to work harder than those of us not serving a church.  But they never have to make that awkward transition from seminary to the “real world.”  And most in seminary would probably argue that seminary is very far from the “real world” or even the “real church.” But student pastors continually keep one foot in the church and one foot in seminary.  They never really run the risk of losing their zest for relevance in the church.  They don’t normally become cynics of the church as many in seminary do.  And most of all, they don’t normally fall prey to the trap of never inviting their listeners to where they are.

I am convinced this is a gift all preachers must master.  This doesn’t mean we water down the gospel to “meet people where they are.”  But it does mean we don’t get too haughty in our assumption that an M.Div automatically makes us the smartest person in the room.  After all, “the last shall be first and the first will be last.”  And “all of us are to be like a little child.”  It is this lesson I am thankful to have had taught to me after this past weekend.

Hauerwas and The Implications of a Christian Academy in Higher Education

Interesting article from Hauerwas on Christian Education in the Academy. Curious to know what people think of this one.