Integrating Missionally

Be-ing or Do-ing

Americans talk and write endlessly about what the church needs to becoming, what the church must do ot be effective. The perceived failures of the church are analyzed and reforming strategies prescribed. The church is understood almost exclusively in terms of function – what we can see. If we can’t see it, it doesn’t exist. Everything is viewed through the lens of pragmatism. Church is an instrument that we have been given to bring about whatever Christ commanded us to do. Church is a staging ground for getting people motivated to continue Christ’s work.

This way of thinking – church as a human activity to be measured by human expectations – is pursued unthinkingly. The huge reality of God already at work in all the operations of the Trinity is benched on the sideline while we call timeout, huddle together with our heads bowed, and figure out a strategy by which we can compensate for God’s regrettable retreat into invisibility. This dead wrong., and it is responsible for no end of shallowness and experimentation in trying to achieve success and relevance and effectiveness that people can see. Statistics provide the basic vocabulary for keeping score. Programs provide the game plan. This way of going about things has done and continues to do immeasurable damage to the American Church.

This way of understanding church is very, very American and very, very wrong. We can no more understand church functionally than we can understand Jesus functionally. We have to submit ourselves to the revelation and receive church as the gift of Christ as he embodies himself in this world. Paul tells us that Christ is the head of a body, and the body is church. Head and body are one thing.

“Ontology” is a word that can get us past this clutter of functionalism. Ontology has to do with being. An ontological understanding of church has to do with what it is, not what it does. And what it is is far wider, deeper, higher than anything it does, or anything we can take charge of or manipulate. The Singapore theologian Simon Chan puts his finger on our persistent misunderstanding of the church as instrumental, as pragmatic, when he writes, “When it comes to understanding the church, sociology takes over.” The being-ness of church is what we are dealing with. Church is not something that we cobble together to do something for God. It is the “fullness of him who fills all in all” (Eph 1:23) working comprehensively with and for us.

Practice Resurrection: A Conversation on Growing Up in Christ

Popularity: 3% [?]

Alan Knox is a PhD student in biblical theology at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has recently made a mini-series of posts about authority, mutuality and submission. In one of those posts, he makes this point:

In several passages of Scripture, followers of Jesus are instructed to submit in various contexts (i.e. see Ephesians 5:21, Ephesians 5:22, Hebrews 13:17). But, there are no contexts in which one believers is instructed to “exercise authority” over another believer or over a group of believers. Instead, the idea of authority is usually inferred from the idea of submission.

Then he poses a question I would like to get your input on: If one person submits to another person, is the other person therefore in authority over the one submitting? Why or why not?

Take our little poll and then comment below.

 Loading ...

Popularity: 4% [?]

Introduction
The Medicis were a banking family in Florence, Italy in the fifteenth century. In addition to their banking endeavors, they funded creators across a variety of disciplines. Thanks to this family, and others like it, sculptors, scientists, poets, philosophers, financiers, painters, and architects converged upon the city of Florence. There they met, learned from each other, and broke down the barriers between cultures and disciplines. The integration of their disciplines forged a new world based on new ideas. This period of time became known as the renaissance. Florence because the eipicenter of a creative explosion and launched one of the most innovative eras in all of history.

By stepping into an intersection where people are able to associate concepts from one field with those of another, creative new insights are born. In addition, even whole new fields are developed. Two examples are found in the field of biology. First, the integration of biology and technology created a bio-tech industry that develops technology based on biology, agriculture, food science, and medicine. Modern use of the term usually refers to genetic engineering as well as cell- and tissue culture technologies. Yet, the concept encompasses a wider range and history of procedures for modifying living organisms according to human purposes, going back to domestication of animals, cultivation of plants and “improvements” to these through breeding programs that employ artificial selection and hybridization.

Coined a term by British scientist and broadcaster Heinz Wolff in 1954, bioengineering is the application of engineering principles to address challenges in the fields of biology and medicine. Biological engineering applies principles to the full spectrum of living systems, including molecular biology, biochemistry, microbiology, pharmacology, protein chemistry, cytology, immunology, neurobiology and neuroscience. It deals with disciplines of product design, sustainability and analysis to improve and focus utilization of biological systems.

Developing what has been coined the Medici Effect requires breaking down barriers between fields. This involves a process of creating an environment where low associative barriers exist.

What are associative barriers?

Take a moment to consider the following situation: Susan is twenty-eight years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in biology and minored in public policy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of sustainable development, global warming, and overfishing, and is politically active. Which statement is most likely to be true?

A. Susan is an office manager.
B. Susan is an office manager and is active in the environmental movement.

If you answered B, you are in good company; most people would give that answer. But the correct answer is A. If you are confused about this, consider another analogous question. Which statement is more probable?

A. An apple is green.
B. An apple is green and expensive.

This time the answer is apparent; clearly it is more likely that an apple is just green than that it is both green and expensive. The two questions are similar, but expressed in different ways. Yet we tend to make a mistake in the first case but not in the second. Why? The key difference between the two presentations is that in the first case our mind quickly makes a number of associations. Key words, such as sustainable development, global warming, and overfishing, are all associated with the environment. In most instances it would make sense to infer that Susan is active in the environmental movement. Therefore we are more likely to make assumptions about who Susan is as a person, rather than maintain a mind open to possibilities. These connections happen automatically and subconsciously. The effect is subtle, but very powerful. Read the rest of this entry »

Popularity: 6% [?]

Manifold Witness

Dr. John Franke is the Lester and Kay Clemens Professor of Missional Theology at Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, PA, a suburb of Philadelphia. A couple of years ago, I had the privilege of having lunch with him just to talk about theology, faith, and the emerging church. He was a gracious host. In addition, he challenged me with a question regarding the Trinity that changed my whole perspective of ministry and of God. He asked me, “What does it mean to hold to a Trinitarian theology?” In other words, what are the practical implications of a trinitarian theology? That set me on a journey that ended in me looking at all of ministry through the lens of the character, nature and function of the Trinity. I have called that concept the MIROR.

Dr. Franke has written a new book called Manifold Witness: The Plurality of Truth (Living Theology). The title is quite provocative and alone causes concern for many. However, if people will take the time to read the book, they will find a treasure chest full of wisdom, theology, and insight that can help them understand God, Truth, and knowledge. It will also cause them to consider the gospel and how it operates in culture.

Franke’s thesis is this: “the expression of biblical and orthodox Christian faith is inherently and irreducibly pluralist. The diversity of the Christian faith is not, as some approaches to church and theology might seem to suggest, a problem that needs to be overcome. Instead, this diversity is part of the divine design and intention for the church as the image of God and the body of Christ in the world.”

His thesis is an attempt to deal with this issue: “if the Bible is the Word of God, given so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, and if God gives wisdom liberally to those who ask, and if the Holy Spirit is at work guiding the church into all truth, how are we to account for and make sense of the plurality of the church? Why is it that Christians from across time and around the world, seeing guidance and understanding concerning the mysteries of life, and the hope of the gospel, have come away from their study carrels and their prayer meetings with such different conclusions on nearly every aspect of the one faith?”

The word that gets everyone’s attention is the word plurality. Franke asserts that all human knowledge involves interpretation – that is is shaped by the conditions and situations from which it emerges. However, Franke also asserts that just because human knowledge and perceptions of truth are always formed in the midst of particular situations, this does not mean that ultimate truth does not exist. God has been revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and thus the reality of ultimate or transcendent truth is to be affirmed despite the acknowledgment of the interpretive character of human knowledge. In this, Franke follows the line of contemporary brain research on how we understand ourselves and our world as well as frameworks in epistemology, though these disciplines in general ignore the metaphysical.

In the book, Franke develops this theme in the areas of church history, church tradition, and church mission. He also indicates that his view of plurality can be expressed even in the orthodox view of God. God is both plural and singular. He is plural as in the three persons of the Trinity and yet singular in the Godhead. Therefore, truth and knowledge hold in tension plurality-in-unity and unity-in-plurality. Diversity of belief is thus an expression of the Trinity.

The implications of this plurality are found in the various denominations that have developed throughout church history. It also finds itself in the very different expressions of theology within the church. Franke’s idea is that if there is plurality, the full expression of understanding about God can be found in learning and appreciating various theological constructs. This is because theology is not a universal language. It is situated within the the reflections, goals and culture of a particular people and community. White, Western, reformed people view theology from that cutlure. White, Western, arminian people view theology differently. Theology formation is born out of the experiences and stories of the people doing theology. A black man or women may have a different understanding of theology based on whether they grew up in the ghettos of New York or in the suburbia of the Midwest or the in the homes of those who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King in South. And we can learn from their perspective. That doesn’t necessarily require agreement; yet at the same time, it may open us up to a different understanding of the heart of God.

It also finds its expression in the gospel. The gospel is an enculturated story. Franke agrees with Leslie Newbiggin who says, “Every interpretation of the gospel is embedding in some cultural form”. (118) The challenge for faithful Christian witness is not to arrive at some form of unenculturated gospel or theology but to be able to discern between legitimate and illegitimate enculturations of the gospel and theology.

The church engages in the task of theological reflection through the development and articulation of models of Christian faith. The sources of construction for these models “are the Bible, the thought-forms of the contemporary setting, and the traditions that make up the tradition of the church. The intent of this constructive process is to envision all of life in relationship to the living God, revealed in Jesus Christ by means of biblically normed, historically informed, and contextually relevant models and articulations of Christian faith that communicate the Christian story and its invitation to participate in the reconciling and liberating mission of God.” (120)

I do have a couple of criticisms of the book. First, I would have appreciated Franke giving us some examples of legitimate and illegitimate enculturations of the the gospel and theology. I understand that this was not primarily a practical theology book, but some practical expressions of this thought would have been helpful. I appreciate that he may want us to do the hard work of figuring those out for ourselves, but an example or two would have been nice.

Secondly, Franke notes the following:

The Spirit engages in the ongoing work of speaking to the church in its varied setting through the appropriation of the text. This does not eliminate the importance of exegesis in an effort to engage the voice of the author, but it does point to the idea that the speaking of the Spirit is not bound solely to the original intention of the biblical authors. Literary theorists note that one an author writes a text, it takes on a life of its own as it is read and interpreted in new and constantly changing situations. The speaking of the Spirit through the texts of Scripture means that while the intention of the author is an important concern, it is not the only concern. It does not represent the fullness of the speaking of the Spirit, since this always involves the response of the reader. (77)

I find this statement discomforting. In part because I have been taught that it can’t mean today what it didn’t mean when it was written. That was the mantra of my New Testament professor. I would have appreciated Franke unpacking this further, providing some practical expression of this that would enable me to get a more complete picture of what he was trying to communicate.

Overall, I think this book has great value.

Note to the FTC: I bought this book myself!

Popularity: 14% [?]

I really do enjoy the writings of N.T. Wright. His book, Surprised by Hope was, to me, a masterpiece in understanding Heaven, Hell, the New Heavens and New Earth. His book on Evil was just as well received.

I have also read his book on Justification. I found it well written and insightful. His arguments were a refutation of John Piper’s claims about what Wright believes on Justification. Most people do not know that Piper sent Wright a copy of the text before Piper published his book. Wright, in turn, wrote a 14,000 word response to Piper, indicating how Piper had misunderstood Wright in the arguments. Unfortunately, no changes were made in Piper’s book.

I don’t agree with everything NT Wright states. However, I have to come appreciate him greatly. His, and Michael Gorman’s arguments for the “faith of Jesus” versus the “faith from Jesus” are compelling.

One of the great criticisms of Wright has been his attraction to and participation in the New Perspective of Paul. It is an attempt to revisit the understanding of 2nd Temple Judaism. Instead of seeing Judaism as a religion where they were trying to earn their salvation through works, Wright (an others) believe that understanding, developed by Luther, is a misunderstanding of Judaism. They see Luther as seeing Judaism through the eyes of the Catholic theology, whereby one practices rituals in order to earn salvation. The do not see Judaism as a religion whereby one earns his/her salvation, but that because they were people of the covenant, children of God, they acted and reacted in a particular way. They were to live through a ethic that demonstrated their participation in the covenant.

Recently, a faculty forum from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary skewered Wright on his view of Justification, even to the point of pronouncing that he had distorted the gospel. They placed him very near Catholic theology of works-based salvation. In doing so, they demonstrated how they misread Wright and misunderstood what he said. I suggest that you read Wright’s book on Justification and then listen to what these men say. You will find their misunderstandings.

St. John’s College in Nottingham (UK) is working on a project on Christian Theology and Intellectual history. Part of their multimedia project has NT Wright and James Dunn discussing the New Perspective on Paul. Here is part of that project.

Instead of listening to what others say about them, I think it would be good to listen to these men in their own words and then make a decision. I’m not stating, necessarily, my agreement, just that we need to let them speak instead of relying on what others say.

Enjoy!

Popularity: 13% [?]