Okay, so four and a half topics later and its almost the end of '06. We'll take on a new topic in '07, but lets gather our thoughts. As Trembling alluded to in the last topic, sometimes you have to let a topic simmer. Having had that opportunity, are there any further things you'd like to say? Just state the topic and go for it. If we hammer away at one or glance on all of 'em this month that's fine. I'll throw in a new slant on the media one for the heck of it too. But let's hear about your retractions and forgotten epiphanies!
Hell: Is there a view you can't hold? Is there a view you should hold?
Women: Should women be ordained? Should they be senior pastors? How do you go about seeking change?
Guidance: How does God guide you? Does He go before you or stand behind you and how do you know what He's saying?
Media & Christmas: Is it wrong to dislike the Christmas season? Do Christians need to do something to counter the commercialization of the event or should we ride the hype for all its worth?
Its been great chatting with you all. Looking forward to '07. Until then, let's have a great December and a meaningful Incarnation Day.
37 comments:
Before we go into the new month and re-adress former topics let me encourage us all to continue to strive for truth even if it is not a popular truth.
I will do this while also trying to steal the Gilbert Keith Memorial award which has gone to CSU for too long.
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." GKC
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." GKC
Before we move on, I missed some introductory pieces in our blogging community, so I have no idea what the criteria are for receiving the Gilbert Keith Memorial Trophy and the Topol Award for Yiddish Proverbs. (The others seem obvious) May I have some clarification so I know what I'm striving for?
Regarding Media & Christmas:
I assume if someone dislikes the Christmas season it is because of how far our current "celebration" has strayed from the humble beginning of Christ's birth which we're meant to be commemorating. I don't see anything wrong with disliking that. It's not like they're saying they don't like remembering the birth of Christ, but rather, the overwhelming load of crap that often leads to completely forgetting Jesus.
I however, am a Christmas sucker. I love the season. Though I believe our North American culture has turned it into something completely removed from it's intentions, I think it's a redeemable holiday. A December does not pass where I am not amazed again at the absurdity and humility of Jesus being born at all, let alone in the circumstances which he was. Christmas leads me to worship.
Beyond that, I also enjoy Christmas carols, decorations, traditions, chocolate, stuffing & gravy, and excuses to have days off to visit family. They're peripheral things to the main event, but I love them nonetheless. So, the month is young, but I am of the mind that we can just ride the hype, resist some of the commercialization, and as often as possible, focus on the "reason for the season." (I'm a frontrunner now for the Babywater Cliche Award...)
well said tanti, hansens. the gilbert keith goes to the person who best pays tribute to GKC through quotes, allusions, blatant plagiarism, that sort of thing. As for the Topol award, trembling made it up and there is not telling what it is awarded for.
I dislike a lot of christmas traditions. most of them i'll admit I dislike because they have become kitsch, such as christmas dramas and christmas carols. i also get very annoyed at all the red and green. i am also getting tired of the new tradition which has developed in recent years: the one where people call me a scrooge.
i find a lot what bothers me is the triteness and seeming insincerity of a lot of what we do. traditions that lost their vitality due to sheer repitition. i could do away with all of them if i could trade them for one person standing up at dinner and proposing a toast and explaining genuinely what it has meant in their life that Jesus was born into the world; why God With Us even matters at all.
that said, i love family, turkey, gifty type stuff, and some of the nostalgia that goes along with even the lamest traditions, so don't label me too much of a scrooge. In the words of a famous Christmas character, "Whatchyou talkin' bout ev'ryone!"
Christmas, I love it.
No doubt it's been ridiculously over-commercialized but that's the job of people who sell stuff and as long as there are people to buy it the commercialization will only get worse. There are whole sectors of our economy that make all of their profit for the year at Xmas, the rest of the year they run a loss to make a name for this holiday.
What do I love? Turkey, chocolate, board games at night with family, playing in the snow and ice during the day, sleeping in, wearing slippers till noon, hand hockey, baking, eating all day, the tree, laughter, seeing Fear try on all his gifts immediately upon opening them...
What don't I like? Christmas church services - contrived and predictable, boring and irrelevant, these could be the second best time of year (besides Easter) for a Christian if someone would be willing to talk about the fact that God came to earth as a poor person and was born in a barn. God came to earth and went out of his way to immediately identify with those we often look down our nose at, especially at Christmas. This should be a time of year when churches give huge amounts of food, money, shelter etc.. to their communities, I could do with no plays or carols if that happened.
As for the Santa side of Christmas, I seperate it in my mind. It's a fun time to be with family and give and get presents, just like Easter is fun time for a hunt for chocolate. The "hallmark" part of these holidays is our societies way of celebrating them and to shun that is just silly. What I want to do is also celebrate Christ in a different way.
i like the way you look at it.
one the SEEKERCHURCH topic: I have to say that I have come alot closer to Trembling's view since that topic closed off. Having done a lot of reading on the "emerging" church and thinking more on it I have to say that other than its desire to speak to culture I've come to dislike a lot of what the seeker-movement confines itself to.
By being ahistorical (tradition is useless) AND seeker-focussed only it really sacrifices a lot. I think we need to find a way to be more fully-orbed in our worship and theology and our discipleship, and to be missional without just thinking of that in terms of overseas missions or altar-calls at home.
In a book I'm currently reading Donald Bloesch talks about the Holy Spirit's role in our coming to faith and he distinguishes several stages to "conversion" or the pilgrimage, calling them "anti-Christian", "pre-Christian" and "born-again Christian". He says we go from disinterested to seeker and from seeker to born again and growing. There is a fourth stage, which is heaven.
Point is, what damage do we do when we cater the church as a corporate entity to the seeker stage? Do we end up with a church of "pre-Christians"? (I know you hate that term tanti but understand its use in this context)
Reminds me of Keith Green's statement that the church is full of unsaved Christians. We definitely lean that way when we keep it shallow, costless, and omit the great commission.
I agree Frenzy, I use to cringe when terms like pre-Christian were used. It sounds kind of funny but it does represent a truth that we need to stress; that every human is on a journey in their relationship to their Creator. Using terms like Non-Christian and Christian misrepresents this journey.
Turning to thoughts about Christmas, I used to love Christmas even the secular elements of it but I am realizing now how much of it is secular. The problem is the way we celebrate Christmas in North America takes away from Christmas at least Easter isn't about all the commericalization that Christmas is. Easter has its problems too but Christmas has been so distorted. The problem is that people believe everything that goes on during the Christmas season is tied to the church. Santa and Jesus have been packaged together and even Christians don't know what we do because we are Christans and what we do because we are North Americans. I don't think we should stop celebrating Christmas but we do need to clarify what we are doing. It might actually be easier if we moved our celebration till the end of January or some other time. I know this sounds wierd but it would get the message out that Christmas is more then buying gifts, singing songs, family gatherings, and the whole lot. These things are not bad but they are not what Christmas is about.
Question for Fear, are we using the terms "seeker-sensitive" and "emergent" as synonyms? Just curious, i hear the word emergent thrown around alot in alot of the books i've read recently and I've never really bothered to figure out what they're referring to. And is this loss of tradition and liturgy intentional in a seeker-sensitive church or does it just fall by the wayside. I'm just wondering if the issue is not with seeker-sensitive churches but with poorly executed and thought out seeeker sensitive churches.
Tanti, I'm curious about your issues with the term "pre-christian". Is it just a matter of not wanting to categorize people?
Also I think we should add a new award called the "Wanderlust Prize" to be awarded to the most geographically inconsistent poster. Secretly i'm just angling for more trophies to heal my highscool aches for being in band and not getting any sports trophies.
It rained in the Sahara today, who knew?
Eucalyptus
coldstorage: I love the Wanderlust idea. Make sure you have some Tea in the Sahara while you are there and report back on the experience.
seeker-sensitive and emergent can be the same thing, it depends. a lot of so called emergent churches are just seeker-sensitive churches with new clothes on. (basically seeking GenXers instead of boomers).
but what really sets the best of the emergents apart is a return to ancient tradition, an emphasis on real Acts 4 type community, a missional focus in the local area, and less glitz more sacrament. you really owe it to yourself to read something out of this "movement". There is a lot of hot air out there and lots of it is seeker stuff (which isn't all bad) but there is something really new and refreshing there too.
i recommend "The Younger Evangelicals" by Robert Webber. Or the new one my Dad picked up by Conden or Corden or something like that looked really good. Something about Churches in Transition. (ANd yes, if my dad is ahead of you on this then props to him and sucks to you!)
Also for emergent thinking read "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell.
I love most of what I've read about the emergent movement. There is a balance being attempted between tradition and relevance as we realize that tradition can be relevant.
CSU, my disdain for "pre-Christian" is mostly to do with labelling and this labelling being negative. I guess for me I sometimes feel like we label too much especially considering the dire warning in the Bible about belief with no actions. If we seperate the world into categories that relate back to the goal of being labelled a Christian then we miss the fact that "Christian" is a bit of a BS label in itself. We have no clue and no right to attempt to have a clue about who is really a Christian even in our own pews.
I understand that in the context of theological discussion labels are helpful and I'm not too worried about the context Fear quotes it in. "Follower of Christ" is a label too and it's one I prefer because everyone follows something so "non-Christians" can be called "self followers" or "Buddha followers" etc...
It's just semantics though.
so ... what do you think?
If there was no Fall, may there still have been an Incarnation?
I don't know fear, maybe. That would seem to imply that something was missing in the relationship of God and humankind before sin.
Some further thought on the women issue. I've come to a place where I think this may be the
single biggest issue facing the church today. To illustrate my point let me tell you a quick story. My wife is getting to know a couple of her classmates at SFU and in a conversation with one of them the other day it came up that she is a Christian. This other girl had respect for that but proceeded to tell her about a conference she read about in Langley where the Mennonite denomination held a weekend conference aimed at affirming the limitations on women in leadership roles.
This is a missional issue. The church is 40 years behind our culture on it and the Bible doesn't even teach it the way it's being done so we're alienating Christian women and our own culture so we can appease people who've interpreted the Bible the wrong way.
This friend of my wife's(and she's not the first woman she's heard talk about this outside of Christianity) would never set foot in a church where she was automatically limited no matter how much good they were doing. This is a big deal.
on women. all of us have to die to self and recieve Christ, so in the end women and men have to step aside from our own "rights" even if we understand that in Christ we find life. that said, I agree with you that we have a huge stumbling block to our churches that should not be there, and is costing us in missional ways, because we either can't talk about it or we haven't followed the Bible to its proper conclusions.
on this incarnation question which I raised: tanti, I've been thinking long and hard about your "objection" ("That would seem to imply that something was missing in the relationship of God and humankind before sin"), and here is my response:
So what? What difference does that make?
Creation was very good, but it doesn't seem to have been perfect. Am I wrong or is implicit in creation that there is more to be done. The very fact that humans before the fall were instructed to subdue the earth and rule over it tells us that there was a process of stewardship to maintained. Is it wrong to think that in God's plan there was always an incarnation in mind, where God would come to dwell fully with man and woman? Not that creation was bad, but it was on its way. And the fall was our usurping of that process, and so in the incarnation we have Christ being obedient, obedient even unto death, as the Bible puts it.
Point of all this is: we think of Christmas as the entry point of God to fix the problem. And it was. But it was more than that. This "God With Us" was the point all along.
I don't know. I'm thinking out loud here. I think the incarnation is huge.
further on this point: when Paul says women will be saved by childbearing is he not referring to the fact that when we fell instead of making all women barren and pulling the plug on creation God allowed it to go on, alowing for the planned lineage to take place and for the pre-planned seed of the women, the incarnate Christ to still come into the world? The fall did not end or begin the process of childbirth, it made it difficult. But the process remained. An act of God's grace that procreation would continue, and by taking part in it men and women (in a special way) would take part in the plan of redemption.
i have no idea if I am making sense but I'm still going to hit "login and publish" anyway because the conversation on here is sparse and we must keep our hungry readers (namely myself and tanti) happy.
I am also hungry
fear, I certainly don't think there's anything wrong necessarily with believing the incarnation was always part of the plan and thus believing that the relationship of God and humankind was not fully complete in the Garden. It's an intriguing thought and one that brings value to Xmas as well as to God's plan in general.
I was just saying that to believe the one you have to believe the other, I think.
I'll touch on God's guidance as I've thought about it a lot more since our discussion due to an incident with a family I know. Without giving too much detail basically there is a young kid in this family who had an accident wherein he nearly drowned and in the process of being treated at the hospital they discovered that a cancer he'd fought off a few years before was back. More than a few well-meaning Christians came to this family and told them that the near drowning was God's way of alerting the doctors about the cancer.
I say this is a ludicrous way of looking at God's guidance of our lives. God is all powerful, I'm sure he could have come up with a way to alert the doctors to this boys cancer without him having to nearly drown. I'm also pretty sure the doctors would have found the cancer in a regular checkup. I wonder if God isn't saddened when people try and give him credit for nearly drowning and inducing a coma in a young boy.
tanti, i got what you were saying, i was merely admitting that your question perplexed me to the point that in the end I had to say, wait a minute, is that a big deal (if pre-fall conditions were incomplete)?
about that situation. good illustration. I have to admit as I was reading I thought, wow, maybe God wanted to alert the doctors, but I agree with you that this is sort of silly to assume (even if it is possible). However, is it not fair to say that this is an example of God perhaps taking an ugly situation (a near death and drowning) and not only helping the boy recover (which I assume happened?) but also using it in His "efficiently redemptive power" to also alert doctors.
In the end what an awful situation that boy is in and Christians should maybe stop trying to find the bright side and just lament along with this family?
Easy to say from the outside.
A word about my term "efficiently redemptive power". I like thinking of God's sovereignty this way. I don't know if he plans everything in advance or if he just has certain plans and "works with" the rest, but either way I see him as sufficient in his efficiency. i don't know if that makes sense.
This Sunday we talked a lot about Peace and I think we missed some key truths. I think all of this ties in to the incarnation, if it doesn't well I think it is something that needs to be said so I will say it. The world mocks the Christmas phrase of Peace on Earth. Clearly there is a lack of peace in our world, the evidence is all around us. I was thinking this morning I got upset that God didn't bring lasting peace. A peace that would stop all wars, and stop all the pain that is around us. I joined with the world in crying out, what does Peace on Earth mean. The Holy Spirit gave me some insight, and this might have been something you already figured out but for me this was something new. If Jesus would have brought the kind of Peace that people are crying out for then that would have been the end for humanity. Gentiles would be forever kept from the kingdom of God and all those who were lost would be lost forever. To establish full Peace on Earth means that there are no second chances that there is no grace. Jesus did bring Peace by destroying the power of sin and death and giving us an opportunity to recieve the full rights as heirs. There is Peace on Earth for those willing to give their lives to Jesus. We do wait in anticipation for the full outworkings of this Peace. For wars to come to an end and for death to be no more. We should though be thankful that this full Peace hasn't come quite yet that we have the opportunity to ocme to our Father. As Christians we need to let people know that there is Peace out there for those who are willing to recieve it.
Sorry for the rant, I just needed to get that off my chest.
Good rant Tuna. So the full Peace on Earth doesn't happen til it's over and there are no more chances to choose God, is that your contention?
Fear, I like what you had to say. And I agree that god can and does use things like this incident with the boy but like you I wish Christians would keep their comments about finding the purpose in suffering to themselves and just lament.
The boy has some hope but is not out of the woods yet. It's not my place to give more details on here but prayer would be welcomed from one and all. God will know who you're talking about.
Sufficiently Efficient, I like that.
hope the best for that boy.
i want to pick up on tuna's point.
i think too much at christmas and all year we sing about our "already" and not our "not yet". today we sang in chapel "Did you feel the Mountains Tremble?"
My answer was no. SO how do I sing the rest of the song? Amazingly, and for the first time in singing this song, I began to sing it as a longing for "the day of jubilee" for the God of justice to make us dancers on injustice, etc... (it also inspired me to work to that end even in the "already")
I remember listening to one of Regina's worst pop radio stations (they are all bad) the morning after 9/11 and they played U2's Peace On Earth, and I had to cry. Crying along with secular radio in longing for the fulfillment of the incarnation promise. This was the most powerful experience of Advent I believe I've ever had. It was September and it was pop radio.
With Tuna's point, I don't want to proof-text, but a verse I find myself constantly coming back to as I wrestle with all this:
2 Peter 3:8-9
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. THe Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."
So what should we be up to these days? (Celebrate the already, but we have a mission and a genuineness to reclaim because of the agonization of the not yet. This may be our most common touch-point with those outside the church)
Hey folks,
Sorry for the lack of responses: Last week I had some large deadlines for clients, and a final exam for my class. This week I took an early Christmas vacation with the Mrs. out to see her family.
Got back late last night (or rather, "early this morning" would be more accurate). Still recovering from family, Christmas dinners, lumpy guest bedroom mattresses, and economy-priced airplane seats.
I'm rather bleary-eyed today and currently procrastinating from 120 emails in my inbox. I'll finish reading the blog and add my 2.5 cents when I'm done.
Just thought I'd give you a quick update lest you thought a selective rapture had left you all behind.
-Trembling
In the spirit of good excuses for absence from this fine forum:
Like trembling i just pulled myself out of an economy class seat of a vintage 40 yr old airbus A320, good times but i'm still not home. Get to rinse and repeat tomorrow.
Speaking of which, Fear you can add London to the wanderlust list, and the libyan town is called Ajdabya.
But now that i have some reliable ether I will start posting some more....starting tomorrow when i get home.
Curious, being in a muslim country i have completely missed the christmas hype this year. I almost forgot about it. I guess the some of the stuff we hate about the cooptation of christmas does atleast help bring to mind the stuff we need to remember.
A merry christmas and happy incarnation day to you all.
Merry Christmas to everyone. I love this time of year, media and all.
One topic I've thought about a lot since our discussion is the seeker sensitive church. I still don't know where I fall but I've been struck lately with how little unity there is in this Christianity thing we're all doing. What bothers me most is that there is so much ignorance out there. Evangelicals who think Catholics have it all wrong and vice versa. There are babies being thrown with bath water all over the place. I guess I just thought that though it is great to be constructively critical, there is a fine line between that and just being a wet blanket on people who are really trying to make a difference in all sincerity. I think I have leaned too far to the wet blanket side of it too many times and I want to be less critical of those who are actually doing something.
That's not to say that we can sharpen each others iron and that criticism doesn't have its place, because I strongly because it does and that in the context of a relationship we are responsible to hold each other accountable. I guess I just feel like the seeker sensitive critique's I have are an example of more of the wet blanket side of it. I don't have to go to that kind of church if it's not the style I like but they're reaching people and I'm ok with that.
Oh, by the way, I've posted from Our great capital, Ottawa, fairly recently. For your new wanderlust feature.
Anyone see "7" on the National the other night? In case you don't know what it is, the guy spends seven days in someone else's shoes and films it all.
This week he was spending seven days with Christians in the southern US. Not a good idea.
Well it was a good idea, my only question is why he went all the way to the US for this one? Certainly he could have found some Christians in Canada? Maybe not. It does seem that the media wants to play off of the worst Christian stereotypes though doesn't it?
I find this on Jon Stewart and Colbert too. I groan, because most of the satire is true, but not true of all of us. SO it is funny and sad and maddening at the same time.
Anyway, this guy wasn't doing satire, he was really trying to understand.
His conclusion was that he didn't think these Christians had a chance of saving the world, but he at least understood why they wanted to.
Having watched his seven days though, I don't know where he got that idea.
The highlight was him at Holy Land watching Jesus get crucified (every day at 4:15). He was mesmerized, everyone around him was crying, and he said he never felt that before, and then someone's cellphone went off and it "snapped him out of it".
The other highlight was his interview with Pillar, a "Christian" rock band who played at Aquire the Fire (these festival things always look so lame on the news). Pillar was very unlike the rest of the people the guy met and he was quite impressed with them it seemed.
The most interesting thing on there was that he sensed Christians were more "scared than scary". He praised Pillar for their "confidence" which no one else seemed to have. That was very interesting to me.
Fear, I saw a bit of that. It was well done I thought. I didn't see the Pillar interview though so I'm glad to hear he talked to some less agressive Christians at least once.
You make a good point about him going to the US. Canada and the US are so different culturally and our versions of evangelical Christianity are as different as anything else. It bugs me when people blur the lines between the US and Canada. That being said though, the report was fair.
More scared than scary, that's a great insight. Though that theme park freaked me out.
the theme park freaked me out too, which is why i found it quite amazing that he was actually moved by his experience there. it seemed cheesy to me.
i guess you can't underestimate the power of the cross, no matter how diluted or cheesy or distorted or one-sided our representations of it can be.
Well, as we approach month- and year-end, I have a few things I've been wondering about that I'd like cleared up:
coldstorage: I've been wondering how an MK came to believe in second-chance universalism and what your parents have to say abou that? Doesn't it reduce the vitality of mission?
trembling: Have you seen your way to a defence of the belief in hell as everlasting torment?
by the way, i am reading an INCREDIBLE thesis paper written by a CBC grad entitled "The Great Debate: A Study of the People and Factors that Influenced the Discussions on Women as Elders in the C&MA Church in Canada, 1982-2000".
How does that title grab ya?
It is amazing and interesting. If interested I could give you a link to a place where you could buy it for like $2. Really really worth reading.
Looking forward to topics from Underacheiver and then Hansens and Tuna in the new year.
Happy Incarnation Day to you all.
I imagine that guy from the National went to the southern US because they knew he would find more "extreme" Christians per capita than anywhere else. Better ratings. Better contrast between evangelical Christians and non. It is maddening because it means the average Christian who truly believes and lives their faith, but in a much less culturally disgusting way, gets a bad rap along with the others. (By the way, I didn't see the show, so I'm not basing this comment on that in particular.)
I thought that conclusion he drew was interesting where he didn't believe Christians could save the world, but he understood why they would want to. I often think about this when I want to share my faith with someone I love. I don't expect that everyone I talk to about Jesus will understand or accept the gospel, but at the very least, if they knew what I really believed, I would hope they would understand why it was important for me to share it. Evangelism should be an act of love- love for our Savior and love for those who are perishing. I wish that people hearing the message would understand that. Mostly, I wish that people sharing the message would communicate that.
WARNING: BIG COMMENT TO FOLLOW
Hi, I've scanned through the comments, written some responses and now I'm putting them all in here right now while I'm on the phone, on hold, (with wait times up to 15 minutes). These comments reflect an entire month of retractions and epiphanes for me.
Re: The Topol award.
Waaaay back in an earlier post someone used a Yiddish proverb to illustrate their point. I was looking for a seemingly random award to add to the list of awards and I thought a Yiddish proverb award might be just the ticket. I named it after Topol, the actor who played the father in Fiddler on the Roof (one of only two good musicals ever written). Since then, the Topol Award for Yiddish Proverbs has become a clearinghouse award for Fear and myself to arbitrarily present to anyone we deem to be deserving.
Re: Christmas.
About 15 years ago I went through a period where I became terribly disillusioned by Christmas trappings. More Claus than Christ, more presents than Presence, etc. I can't point to a single moment to say when it changed for me but I'm enjoying the season right now. I still get incredibly cynical with the marketing hype and the need people have to fill a Christ-less existence with gifts. Today's Christmas is not so much about giving something that has meaning to someone else but rather just accumulating stuff. Still, I look forward to the season (although I abhor the process to get there, like putting up the tree). This is a time for me to enjoy family and friends: we all seem to have whirlwind lives from January to November but in December it's a time to get together and enjoy each other's company. I love that!
I suppose I don't celebrate Christ's birth enough but I don't feel as bad about that because I think we need to celebrate his life 365 days of the year (of which I am the chief of sinners). One of the reasons I may be less excited than others on this blog about celebrating Christmas as Jesus' birth is because I think I'm slightly annoyed at the focus the world has on Christ during this season. Yeah, I guess that sounds strange. To me it's like the same thing as when you're hanging around a nonbeliever and they discover that you're a Christian so they try to swear less and when they do swear they apologize. As if I care about their swearing. In my opinion, Christmas is like that: nonbelievers live debauched and hedonistic lives for 11 months but for this one month they think of the baby Jesus (while ignoring the work he did for them) and they show up to church and stare thoughtfully at nativity scenes. It's all crap to them the rest of the year but for this one time of the year, it has meaning... but not life-changing meaning... just sentimental meaning. I hate that.
Re: Seeker Sensitive churches.
Wow, I'm honored the Fear is coming over to the dark side of seeker sensitive churches. Perhaps he doesn't view them with as much disdain as I do, but I'm glad that he sees my angst: it's a church that has turned its back on the things that make church valuable in favor of filling chairs. Numerical growth without spiritual depth, as (I think) John Stott said.
Re: Incarnation.
I haven't read everything in the blog posted about the incarnation so I may be repeating someone here. It was asked early on: if there wasn't a fall would there still be an incarnation?
I think there already was an incarnation before the fall. We know God spent time with Adam and Eve (i.e., walking through the garden in the cool of the day) and it seems to be the fall where that ended. What would be the need for another incarnation apart from the one we would already be enjoying if it weren't for the fall? So my answer is no, there wouldn't be an incarnation, because we would already be enjoying one.
Re: Hell.
Fear asked, "Have you seen your way to a defence of the belief in hell as everlasting torment?" No, I haven't. But here are my thoughts on the matter:
I understand where the annihilationism idea comes from and they make some good points. It was well argued in the last blog post.
Still, I think that God's justice is no greater or lesser than his mercy so while those who believe can look forward to an everlasting life, those who do not believe can fear an everlasting death... everlasting death being a conscious consequence of their earthly decision. I think it gives great significance to what happens here on earth (more significance than we realize -- which I suspect is part of Satan's lie) in that we choose now where we want to spend eternity in relation to God (i.e., near or far). I feel that annihiliationism is a divine "get out of jail free" card that gives non-believers a chance to no longer experience the significance of their decision... so it becomes either worship in the presence of God or nothingness... thus, the nonbeliever can regret for a short time that they did not believe in God then poof, they're gone: no worries anymore because they cease to exist. A grim earthly comparison might be whether the victim of some kind of painful disease would rather live with their constant pain or die to no longer face the anguish. So (in my opinion) annihilationism becomes a divine euthanasia offered by God as a final act of mercy to nonbelievers... I can't buy into that. Just to clarify: I understand how annihilation is a punishment. However, 2 Th 1:9 talks about an everlasting fire and to me that's different than annihilation. I get the sense when I read this that everlasting fire doesn't burn things that disappear then continue burning. Lastly, it seems that we're just arguing about the definition of words like "destruction" (is it eternal suffering like the opposite of eternal life or is it eternal death in the sense of ceasing to exist?) from passages like 2 Peter 3:7 or Philippians 3:19. We will really never know until we're there. For me, I have a greater sense of urgency in evangelism to snatch people from a fire knowing that they will suffer forever, resenting my lack of effort than if I thought "oh, their consciousness will just wink out of existence and they won't care anymore".
I guess that was more of a rant than a defense but I can live with that.
Re: depiction of Christians on TV.
I used to get frustrated by how Christians are depicted on television, both in the news and on TV (like on Studio 60, for example). Now, I really only get most frustrated at fictional depictions of Christians. The news, I've come to realize (as a former news writer) is all about hyperbole: the news needs hyperbole to exist. No one ever reports on regular life (that's not news)... they write on the best of or worst of or craziest of or whatever. And there are some whacko Christians out there and they get the news. Billy Graham rarely makes the news. I think he's happy with that and that's something I can appreciate about us non-newsworthy Christians.
-Trembling
Congratulations to Eric DeBruyn on his wedding!
I didn't get a chance to add this to the women in leadership debate but this seems like a good place to put it. It was given to me by a good friend who is also a fairly strict complimentarian. He reads our blog from time to time and after reading the women in ministry blog we went out for coffee for a couple hours and he gave me this three page document on his thoughts. I've faithfully copied it here but blogger.com doesn't give a lot of space to make it outlined in the same way I received it so you'll have to do your best to read it. My brief comments follow.
COMPLIMENTARIAN CONSIDERATIONS
1.1 Human & cultural assumptions about God are a dangerous thing...
** When we start to assume what God wanted, or intended, we begin to bring God down to our level.
1.2 There is a significant difference between genders and therefore not only should the differences be celebrated but also the roles that go along with those differences
**1 Thess. 2:5-7 & 9-12
**No doubt that this subject has been influenced by a number of different issues
The rank and clearly disobedient interpretation, application and abuse of “authority & submission” in past (maybe present) Christendom
The secular and godless attempt of feminism to tear down any sort of gender differences that God has established!
1.3 Not an issue of equality but of role responsibility
**Galatians 3:28
**Jews and Greeks are equal in the economy of God, but, it was the Jews through whom the Oracles of God came to this world (Romans 3:1-2) and it was the Jews who first received the gospel (Romans 1:16)
1.4 Not an issue of women in ministry or even women in leadership, per se, but of the role of eldership/pastoral leadership (the highest level of church leadership) and of household leadership.
Theological convictions:
2.1 The equality and hierarchical nature of God...
**Phil. 2; 1 Corinthians 11:3;
Jesus... clear submission to doing the Fathers will...
Holy Spirit... John 14:16-17; 15:26-27
2.2 The significance of the order of creation
**Romans 5:12-1 4; 1 Corinthians 15:22 (sin of the world being attributed to Adam)
**1 Timothy 2 (in context of corporate worship and leading into the qualifications of elders);
**Genesis 3:9 (God calls Adam to account; also a hierarchy established in Genesis 1 & 2 — God then man then woman then creation... in Chapter 3 the order is clearly reversed — creation (serpent) calls the shots then Eve responds then Adam and then God enters the picture and calls them all on it)
**Genesis 3:15 — the curse on the devil — clearly establishes another male as the one who will ultimately defeat the enemy
2.3 The nature of the curses
**For the woman — applies specifically to her and the women who follow her
**For the man — the effect is on all of creation (the earth itself) and beyond that to all human beings in the form of physical death (Gen. 3:19)
2.4 The attribution of the sins of the father
**Exodus 20:5; Nehemiah 9:2; Daniel 6 16;
2.5 The commands of submission & “Christ-love”
**Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-1 9; 1 Peter 3:1
Although the command to submit is universal for all believers (Eph. 5:21) and the command to love sacrificially is also universal for all believers (Ephesians 5:2), nonetheless, there is a specific command given to the wife and husband in a marriage relationship — which differentiates their roles — not their equality
2.6 The subject of headship
**1 Corinthians 11 (cultural practice vs. universal principles); Ephesians 5 (Christ is the head of the man/church and man is the head of the women...); I Peter 3:7
2.7 Role of the father in the family
**Children commanded to obey both parents (not just the father) but significantly, it is the fathers who are called on to not exasperate or provoke the children to anger (which can happen (easily...) in his role of leading his children). This issue is laid on him as the leader/head of the home.
Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21
2.7 Exegesis of the Elder/Deacon passages
**1 Timothy 3 & Titus l
**Clearly addressing men for elders and men & women for deacon
2.8 Significance of Jesus appointment of men as apostles
**Was Jesus an egalitarian?
Yes... what then? (Jesus really dropped the ball in His appointing of His only male disciples) Slavery?? Much different topic (gender is anchored in creation itself and by God through creation. Slavery (and many other social structures — employers v. employees) has it’s beginnings in the mind and heart of man. Slavery (“doulos” — voluntary or involuntary [because of capture in warfare or because of indebtedness]) in 0T & Jesus’ day was vastly different than the “race based” slavery of the South.
**Jesus, who stands in stark contrast to any sort of injustice or inequality (social [blind and sick], economic [the poor, moral [prostitutes, adulteress, tax collectors]) decisively chooses men to serve as His leadership team
**The apostles had (in establishing the church) and will have a significant role
Matthew 19:28; Revelation 21:14
SO WHY?
3.1 I don’t know...
**Not because men are smarter or wiser or more discerning or better at leading...
**But at some point I need to be willing to concede to what God has established and be willing to let Him call the shots and simply submit myself to what He has established in His creation.
Lots (maybe even most) of things about God and His ways that we embrace with faith and confidence that He knows what He’s doing.
**In regard to gender differences and roles — although the argument can be made that we are different and therefore have varying roles — the issue isn’t so much about us figuring out why
**God has chosen men to give overall leadership in the church and in the home, but rather to embrace what seems to be the plain imperatives in the Bible on this issue.
**I’d rather have my conscience dictated by what I see in Scripture and stand before God with that defense than stand before God and defend my beliefs and convictions based on my own thinking and wisdom.
We need to be careful when we argue from culture (there is a place and need to consider cultural context in the Scripture — but we need to be cautious).
The fact is, that over time, present day, contemporary culture, embraces and condones and even pushes issues that have been, up until then, clearly wrong from a Biblical standpoint (pre-marital sex, abortion, homosexuality pluralism, etc. — we’ve already done that in evangelicalism e.g. materialism with the “health & wealth, prosperity gospel — and I believe also with the role distinction).
When the world around us starts winning and the stand on the Scripture becomes uncomfortable and maybe even tough, or becomes a sort of disadvantage to us — we may tend to feel obligated to find the possibility in Scripture, that maybe God didn’t really mean something on a specific topic to have lasting value from one generation to another, and that He was speaking simply to the culture of the day.
So — we need to take a stand (1 Corinthians 16:13~14) and not be pushed into the mold of the thinking of the world (Romans 12:1-2)
My comments on Complimetarian Considerations
The paper was written in response to the Women in Leadership blog; it was written by a good friend who I respect very much and that friendship is important to me. We both know how the other feels on the issue and I think we're both certain that the other won't back down no matter what our arguments are.
While I do appreciate the arguments put forward in the paper, and in particular find the order of creation and order of punishment particularly interesting, I think complimentarians are in danger of the very same crime they would accuse egalitarians of: bowing to a particular reading of Scripture that is influenced by culture. I think the only reason that complimentarians tend to win using that argument is because traditionally, their culture has dominated... so when today's "secular" culture recognizes that women can do more than make babies, we egalitarians are held up as being too influenced by secular culture. Sadly, it makes our churches seem out of touch.
I also think it's easier for the person at the top of the heap to say these things than the person at the bottom of the heap. I simply don't hear these things as forcefully spoken from women as much as I hear them from men. And although I know my friend wrote this with the best of intentions, I question the unconscious intentions of many complimentarians who like the power of having something over someone else. Because, let's face it, people are like that and true faith is all about putting others before yourselves and yet we don't want to let go of that "I'm better than you" mentality (which is why churches are accused of being judgemental and cliqueish). Again, I don't believe that my friend feels this way (so when you're reading this, SJ, don't drive over to my house and kick my ass).
My last comment on the paper is this: While my good friend says that he'd rather stand before God and point to Scripture as the basis for his beliefs, I'd rather stand before God, point to Scripture as the basis for my beliefs and celebrate that more people had an opportunity to hear the gospel because we didn't impede 50% of the believers who were skilled to lead but held back to do the dishes and change diapers.
After SJ reads these comments, I may have a new opening for a friend. Any takers?
Trembling: Your points about hell are well said and compelling. I must admit I've waffled back and forth on this one. There are passages for both views. Why does God allow that?
Also, re the incarnation. I think the point is that God always wanted to commune with people and it was always going to be through incarnation. Maybe the person in the garden was incarnate, but not the same way Jesus was. So was Jesus different in that his was a "fallen" body or was it different the way it was always intended to be different: as a bodily fully human incarnation. Maybe that was always the plan.
Your hell comments are a good reminder to me of how much perhaps it possible to water down our view of justice. But then again we are in constant danger of watering down the mercy. I don't know. That hell topic was our toughest yet.
Okay, if SJ is who I think he is, I must say I respect him greatly as well (especially for being willing to have his comments copied on an entirely egalitarian blog) but now I will disagree:
1.1 I agree with Trembling that much that is compelling about egalitarian arguments is that they expose how much we've ALREADY read our culture and our fallenness into Paul's letters and the creation order. I think God intended for His Word to be read into each and every culture, and for the Spirit to apply it appropriately. I think that's what I am trying to do with Paul's letters. We are clearly in a time and place where women are not fitting into traditional roles and I believe the Bible speaks into this culture quite comfortably and its power to do so is being held back by our insistence on tradition that is more cultural than purely exegetical.
1.2 There is a significant difference between genders BUT WHAT IS IT? Feminism got it wrong. Hierarchalism has it wrong. What's the diff? That's what I'd like to know. No, I don't need a birds & bees lecture here. I don't think we understand gender very well, as exemplified by the stereotypes and jokes we tell and how alienating those feel for so many women and men, girls and boys, today. I am scared for my boys growing up in a culture that will tell them to consider homosexuality and a church that won't have much to tell them about being a man.
2.1 I don't see hierarchy in God. I see submission all around, but not hierarchy.
2.2 It is interesting that Adam is given responsibility for sin and so on, but I'm not sure the Bible tells us that is because of some Creation Order so much as it reflects the creation order (notice my capitalization) and the fact that Adam did not help Eve--did not help his helper--to avoid disobedience and so has responsibility for what resulted. In 1 Timothy you have a similar problem. The women need teaching and the men have dropped the ball and false teaching is spreading and so the women are to be silent and get teaching ... presumably so that like Priscilla they'd be ready to teach. So it isn't so much an order inherent in gender as a requirement to not just have women teaching for the sake of egalitarianism or feminism or whatever trend comes along, but so the Word can be taught well by those gifted to do so.
2.3 The nature of the curses. I have to admit this is an argument I've never heard. I'll be looking into that.
2.6 The subject of headship is debated and even convoluted in the Bible isn't it? I find arguments for "source" or "support" as compelling as any.
2.7 I talked about exasperation before and I think it speaks into hierarchy rather than promoting it.
2.7 Same thing here with male language for elders.
2.8 I agree slavery was often different in Hebrew days and Jesus days but not entirely it wouldn't have been. And Jesus clearly had women in his discipleship entourage. The 12 apostles as men is a compelling argument and definitely should remind egalitarians that the point is the spread of the gospel moreso than it is "equal opportunity employment". That said, I think we have Jesus breaking the conventions of his day and leaving the church to continue on with a progression in that regard.
I agree with not buying into culture of today hook line and sinker and this is why we need discussion between tradition and culture, centered on the Word. This is why we need to be careful. But culture has affected tradition too, and so there isn't always a trump card there.
Thanks to SJ for allowing his comments to be posted. I think maybe we need more disagreement on this blog. I appreciate it. I would love this to be the home of healthy dialogue, even in disagreement. So I offer my disagreement with all due respect.
Thanks for the feedback, Fear. Not sure why God allows for disagreements on these things. Perhaps we're making it more complicated than it needs to be, although I do appreciate that a thoughtful dialogue, even among dissenting views, makes each of us better.
As for your incarnation thoughts, I'm not sure I agree. Christ's "man/God" incarnation served a purpose: humbling himself to take our sins upon himself a la Philippians 2... what would the purpose be if we lived in a pre-fall world? How would his presence be different than the presence of God already was? It seems to me that God's purpose for an incarnation in a pre-fall world would be to enjoy his creation, which he was already doing. Maybe there's something I'm missing here.
well, to be clear i'm not arguing for this so much as exploring the idea. the idea is that the Son humbles himself to enter creation and through this humanity is able to draw humans into a communion more vital and intimate than is possible otherwise. i'm not sure the person walking in the garden in the cool of the day was the goal of the whole scenario. humanity also seems to have had much to learn about God and such, with much to do on earth to, subduing and such. i'm not sure pre-fall was perfect in a static way but in a situational way.
this is all a sidebar to a larger discussion i'm in about election. Who does God elect? Does he elect some to salvation and some to damnation? Karl Barth's proposal is that God elects humanity in Jesus Christ from before the foundation of the world (and this lends to the idea of incarnation no matter what).
re: hell and justice. maybe i'm buying into satan's lie a bit here but i look around the world and it seems a lot of people don't even get a decision between Christ and not Christ. And how many make a decision to reject Christ on the basis of a bad representation of Christ? I imagine God to be just enough to give everyone the lucidity to make a decision and to judge based on what was available to them, but this is foggy stuff and I don't think it is outlandish, or necessarily even a lie of Satan, for us to consider the possibility that justice means a temporal punishment for a temporal decision. Maybe hell involves a time of suffering, but to have eternal consequences for an earthly decision in a world so tainted seems ... unjust.
i don't know, i believe this world is depraved and that the best of us deserves the consequences of that, but annhialation doesn't seem a bad option, especially with all the biblical language of perishing, destruction, consuming fire, etc. that lends itself to it.
Post a Comment