Tag Archive for church at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Tag Archive for 'church'

The Role of the Holy Spirit in Church Part I: The Holy Spirit is a Person

Published by Chris A June 3, 2008 in Religion. 4 Comments

Before embarking on an in-depth study of the Holy Spirit’s role in the New Testament church, it is necessary to identify who – not what – he is. He is, in fact, God. Rather than being some abstract power or force, he is an intelligent being. While I realize the English word “person” is somewhat inadequate in describing God, for lack of a better word, the Holy Spirit is a person in that he possesses the attributes of personality. Understanding the personality of the Spirit is key to comprehending his role in the church. If we fail to acknowledge him as a person, and instead view him simply as God’s power, we will never be able to understand his present-day function in the Body of Christ. Consider what Jesus said in John 14:

16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. (NIV)

Notice his usage of the personal pronouns he and him. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that the Holy Spirit is not an it. In verse 16 Jesus says that the Holy Spirit is “another Counselor”. Some Greek scholars have said that the original language carries the connotation of a counselor of the same sort as Jesus. That would make perfect sense because Jesus was communicating this to his disciples just before he was to be crucified, resurrected from the dead, and ascend to heaven – a truth Jesus later expounded on in John 16.

5″Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. 7But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. 8When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: 9in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; 10in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; 11and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

Again, I want to reemphasize Jesus’ usage of the personal pronoun he in this passage. Here he tells his disciples that he would go away, but they would be visited by the Holy Spirit – the other counselor.

The Holy Spirit Thinks
One basic attribute of personality is the capacity to think. The Holy Spirit does exhibit this characteristic.

And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will. (Romans 8:27)

The Holy Spirit Hears and Speaks
There is no such thing as a counselor who does not speak. Jesus spoke about the Spirit’s ability to communicate in John 16:13.

But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

In Acts 13:2 we see an example of the Holy Spirit speaking.

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.”

Here the Holy Spirit is speaking on behalf of Jesus, revealing his calling of Paul and Barnabas.

The Holy Spirit can Experience Grief

And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30).

What grieves the Holy Spirit? If we read the following verse, Ephesians 4:41, we get our answer.

Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice.

The Holy Spirit can be Lied to
In the fifth chapter of Acts when Ananias and Sapphira sold land, and lied about giving all the money to the apostles, Peter said they lied to the Holy Spirit.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?”

The Holy Spirit can Fellowship with Believers

If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose (Philippians 2:1, 2).

Links: Polygamy

Published by Colin May 23, 2008 in General and Current Events. 11 Comments

A Texas court says the State of Texas Had No Right to keep the children of a polygamist mormon sect in a raid a month ago. I was shocked (well maybe not) to see yesterday that 60% in CNN’s online poll asking whether Texas Police were correct to go in guns-blazing and steal away the children agreed with the court. This, despite that fact that there was merely one anonymous phone call (which has since not been verified) which claimed that there was abuse going on. What that means in principle is that 60% of those who responded to the poll think it is perfectly legitimate for police with zero evidence to go in, arrest people and steal their children.

In another recent Poll, 75% of British Columbians say they want polygamists prosecuted. But polygamy, which is biblically abhorrent and a sin, is also a free and victimless arrangement between consenting adults. There is no crime to prosecute - no one is hurt by voluntarily agreeing to be a part of a polygamous relationship. The only crime that is proven right now is kidnapping by the state authorities.

More Politics
Fat people cause global warming. Step away from the Doritos, fatty.

What is at stake in this election? Barack Obama gives an “impassioned defense of partial-birth abortion.” Watch the video clip

Churchy Links
What you think you can’t say at church

Jeremiah 31 and Covenant Membership

Misc Links
Frogamander Discovered

We’re being talked about.

Read movies and watch books: zfter Chris R’s 2008 summer reading group.

Christian singer, Steven Curtis Chapman, lost one of his princesses yesterday.

The Seven Counterfeit Gospels - Part III

Published by Colin April 24, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 8 Comments

Before commenting on the last two counterfeit gospels, let’s look at the entire list to summarize:

Formalism
I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.
Legalism
I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.
Mysticism
I am engaged in the incessant pursuit of an emotional experience with God. I live for the moments when I feel close to him, and I often struggle with discouragement when I don’t feel that way. I may change churches often, too, looking for one that will give me what I’m looking for.
Activism
I recognize the missional nature of Christianity and am passionately involved in fixing this broken world. But at the end of the day, my life is more of a defense of what’s right than a joyful pursuit of Christ.
Biblicism
I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge.
Therapism
I talk a lot about the hurting people in our congregation, and how Christ is the only answer for their hurt. Yet even without realizing it, I have made Christ more Therapist than Savior. I view hurt as a greater problem than sin—and I subtly shift my greatest need from my moral failure to my unmet needs.
Social-ism
The deep fellowship and friendships I find at church have become their own idol. The body of Christ has replaced Christ himself, and the gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships.

We now only have therapism and social-ism to deal with. Like the other two divisions I made in this exposition, these two counterfeits really do go hand in hand. Let’s take a look:

The Counterfeit Gospel of Therapism
Original Description:

I talk a lot about the hurting people in our congregation, and how Christ is the only answer for their hurt. Yet even without realizing it, I have made Christ more Therapist than Savior. I view hurt as a greater problem than sin—and I subtly shift my greatest need from my moral failure to my unmet needs.

In many ways, Way of the Master and other biblical evangelism tools have been formulated as a reaction to this “ism.” In this counterfeit, the emphasis on a person’s spiritual needs are transferred away from repentence, moral deficiency, sin and justice and towards various “life enhancement” needs: peace, happiness, wellness, health, fulfillment and so on. Again, the “Four Spiritual Laws” evangelism method is a perfect example of this - where people are encouraged to have a “relationship with God” because:

“God has a wonderful plan for your life”
We need to “experience abundant life.”
Experience “God’s love and plan for our life.”
He can “Make me the kind of person You want me to be”

This is therapism 101 - “Oh God, I’m just so sad and unfulfilled - I need another goofy, platitude-ridden, experience-based set of feel-good motivational speaking lectures to make me feel happy again.” No, you need a saviour because you will go to Hell, in spite of the fact that God loves you, because you refuse to repent from your sin and trust in Jesus Christ to forgive you.

This is not accomplished by willful deception, but by genuinely caring Christians who have let the cares of the world gradually replace the power of God to save from sin. The have moved from obedience to the bible to vain sacrifice. Christianity becomes less about God’s sovereignty and supremacy, and more about the believer and what he can manipulate from a wealthy parent. God is not someone we submit to, but a genie who grants our wishes, both physical and spiritual.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Social-ism
Original Description:

The deep fellowship and friendships I find at church have become their own idol. The body of Christ has replaced Christ himself, and the gospel is reduced to a network of fulfilling Christian relationships.

Many good things can become idols, getting between God and man - the bible, the name of God and even the body of Christ. The bible commands us to have genuine fellowship with the body - to “love one another.” However, we are also warned not to put family and friends above Christ. In fact, our Christian faith will likely cause our relationships to suffer (Matthew 10:21).

Christians get weary of the world, and in the exact opposite reaction as activism (changing the world by Christian means), social-ists seek to completely remove the world and focus on their “church family.” They build church schools, colleges, singles groups, marriage groups, youth groups, elderly groups, day-care, co-ops, businesses and so on until their entire life is one giant clique. They attempt to create heaven on earth by complicated networks of Christian communities, on which they rely more than the bible, more than the Holy Spirit - more than even God himself.

Because the gospel becomes relationship-based, keeping people happy becomes essential. Sin, hell, repentence and judgment do not make people willing to join these little Christian clubs - so therapism is usually adopted. In a church, this might mean that more concern is placed on “people comforts” such as the air conditioning, decorations, technology and programs rather than the teaching, fellowship and discipline.

Groups like campus life have this down to an artform - making fellowship about holding tanks with pizza, rather than genuine Christian fellowship. Real fellowship always supports the individual believer - it always comes back to the idea of the group empowering the individual, rather than the individual conforming to the group (Romans 12:4-13).

Conclusion
I hope this short series has been informative. But even in considering these seven places where Christians go astray - it is evident that there are many more “isms” that can be a trap. Feel free to continue the discussion in the comments - are there other “isms” that were missed, or were these ones discussed incompletely?

The point of this is to evaluate one’s self to ensure that key elements of Christianity are not being left out, or over-emphasized to the detriment of other equally important aspects. Christianity is an all-encompassing, balanced faith that is relatively simple in its practice. Complicating it through counterfeits like those mentioned is only going to lead the church astray, making it ineffective and impotent to accomplish that for which it was created.

The Seven Counterfeit Gospels - Part II

Published by Colin April 22, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 2 Comments

The counterfeit gospels we looked at last time were fairly obvious. Today’s get to the meat of the matter, and are not easily shrugged off and converted into judgmental thoughts about other people’s faith. In fact, I want to encourage the reader to consider himself while reading this list, and to shy away from using these explanations as a means to evaluate other Christians. These counterfeit gospels are traps waiting to ensnare all of us - we become easy prey if we don’t utilize these thoughts to cultivate personal reform of our own faith.

The seven counterfeit gospels are:

Formalism
I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.
Legalism
I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.
Mysticism
Activism
Biblicism
Therapism
Social-ism

Let’s continue with three more subtle gospels - mysticism, activism, biblicism.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Mysticism
Original Description:

I am engaged in the incessant pursuit of an emotional experience with God. I live for the moments when I feel close to him, and I often struggle with discouragement when I don’t feel that way. I may change churches often, too, looking for one that will give me what I’m looking for.

This “ism” probably begins with a misunderstanding of the ministry and effects of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life. Many people take verses about the sovereign power of the Holy Spirit and presume that this power must be cultivated by the effort of the believer himself. Thus, instead of coming to worship seeking a movement of God by his Spirit and subsequently bearing the effects of that movement (which can be manifest in emotion - understanding the truth of God’s love for an example, is quite an overwhelming experience) the mystic will actually utilize emotion to generate a “spiritual experience.”

In ancient religions (and even in modern worship, albeit not formal worship) this was enhanced by the use of drugs, hypnotic chants and other devices to basically create a mystical climate. Mysticism relies heavily on man-made emotionalism.

Since mysticism is rooted in a person’s feelings - they are inconsistent in ministry (whether in the church, their family or their own bible study and prayer life). They are also a constant burden to others, who often have to deal with the fallout caused by their recklessness. This manifests itself in everything from relationship issues, to dropping the ball in ministry and even dealing with sin binges (when it feels good) and overwhelming depression and guilt (when it feels bad).

The problem is that the emotions of man are fickle (Jeremiah 17:9) and can easily turn from elation about God, to fear and worry about all manner of things. It is no coincidence that much of the New Testament epistles speak about the believer’s mind, self-control, order and wisdom.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Activism
Original Description:

I recognize the missional nature of Christianity and am passionately involved in fixing this broken world. But at the end of the day, my life is more of a defense of what’s right than a joyful pursuit of Christ.

Much of what has been called the social gospel would fall into this camp. This is probably obvious to most people. What is less obvious is the essence of this counterfeit gospel, which can be applied in many ways: the knowledge, commission and power of the church is to be manifest through the secular arena. This is a tremendous danger in the modern era, because we live in societies that are highly political and highly secular. Whereas the work of the church through the church is hard to understand, obey and unify around - the work of the church through the world is easy, available and encouraged.

I’ll give two examples from both extremes. It is easier to proclaim that drunkenness is sin and should be outlawed through secular law, then it is to tell a brother that he is sinning, needs to change and then exercise church discipline if he does not. It seems more just to set up welfare programs for the poor via taxation, then it is for Christians to volunteer for Christian charity work or give of their finances/labor to see this work accomplished.

At the heart of activism is a desire to to good, but a lack of biblical discipline, wisdom and application. It can also betray a lack of faith in the power of God to keep his promises and do what he has said he will do. God does not give us a task like the great commission, and then leave us without the means or power to accomplish it. But as God has layed out the mechanism for bringing real change to people’s lives - it is up to us to be obedient. God desires obedience more than sacrifice (1 Samuel 15:22) and while we may think God approves of our passion, hard work and sacrifice for his kingdom, he has made it clear that he is more concerned that we obey.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Biblicism
Original Description:

I know my Bible inside and out, but I do not let it master me. I have reduced the gospel to a mastery of biblical content and theology, so I am intolerant and critical of those with lesser knowledge.

Biblicism is the idolizing of the word of God - to the point of an almost academic relationship with God based on knowledge, rather than the more complete relationship and fellowship we are to have. But it’s not just knowledge or intelligence that marks biblicism - it’s when that knowledge becomes an idol, and inserts itself between the believer and God. This guy is the one who gives a funny look or a sarcastic remark upon being asked an innocent question. Biblicalism breeds impatience and dismissiveness.

Ever wanted to form your own perfect church out without the unwashed, ignorant masses who slow you down, waste your time and need constant help with basic biblical teaching? You’ve met your counterfeit gospel.

Like activism’s misguided desire for justice, biblicism is an overzealousness for knowledge - to the ignorance of the more foundational aspects of Christianity. Activism idolizes the secular world - biblicism idolizes biblical knowledge. Unfortunately, the zeal of biblicism - rather than leading towards enlightenment and truth - actually contributes to ignorance, because the believer becomes less concerned with other mechanism for God’s instruction - mistakes, experiences, trials and so on.

Nest time: The last two counterfeits of therapism and social-ism, and a final benediction.

The Seven Counterfeit Gospels - Part I

Published by Colin April 21, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 1 Comment

My wife and I came across a remarkably concise listing of counterfeit gospels over the weekend. I wanted to take the time to explore these in slightly more depth than where I originally saw them (Between Two Worlds). I should note here that I haven’t read the book where these originated, and my interpretation may be completely different than the author’s intent.

The seven counterfeit gospels are:

Formalism
Legalism
Mysticism
Activism
Biblicism
Therapism
Social-ism

The Counterfeit Gospel of Formalism
Original Description:

I participate in the regular meetings and ministries of the church, so I feel like my life is under control. I’m always in church, but it really has little impact on my heart or on how I live. I may become judgmental and impatient with those who do not have the same commitment as I do.

Formalism boils the gospel down to loyalty to the church as a organization. It is notably different to legalism in that, rather than commitment to rules and precepts, formalists conform and support the organization of the church. They are probably people-oriented and talented (but as an ends to political and organizational fulfillment, not merely relationships).

I would suspect these people also long for the approval of their pastors and ministry leaders, and are at least mildly authoritarian. They need the constant approval of authority and use this to measure the effectiveness of their ministry.

They say “Hi” to as many people as they can, and have trivial knowledge of probably most of the people in the church - without pursuing the depths of genuine fellowship. The exception to this, is authority - with whom successful relationships may bring more opportunities to participate.

This type probably has trouble with competition and cliques. Again, these people are most loyal to the political aspects of a church as opposed to the people - so people represent a necessary evil. For example, they will serve and help people, but to the ends that it demonstrates their commitment to the church, not because they actually care about the people they serve.

The Counterfeit Gospel of Legalism
Original Description:

I live by the rules—rules I create for myself and rules I create for others. I feel good if I can keep my own rules, and I become arrogant and full of contempt when others don’t meet the standards I set for them. There is no joy in my life because there is no grace to be celebrated.

These people, especially in the modern seeker-friendly church, have a tougher time going about it - but they still exist in less traditional areas. They are also markedly different than formalists (who value commitment to the organization) in that they are committed to rules. The legalist is the guy who stares down the people who come in late, put their feet on the pews or wear shorts.

It has been my experience that legalists were often saved out of very licentious lifestyles. They overcompensate for their past behaviours by instituting a regiment of rules. These people do not trust freedom and liberty, and believe that churches (and usually society) need lawmakers and enforcers to keep everyone in line. If they encounter a brother sinning, it is because there was not a rule in place to prevent the sin (self-made or formally). The idea of conversion - that people can actually be changed an be governed by God and his Holy Spirit - is probably one they don’t really understand.

One of the biggest caveats to legalism, and how it is easily camouflaged is in a altered definition: Legalism is a lot of rules when really, legalism is rules apart from the bible. In other words, those who are overzealous for grace to the point of abuse are technically legalists - they have redefined grace to a rule apart from the bible, that means “I can do what I want.” It is very possible to find legalists who have created rules based in anti-legalism as a knee-jerk reaction. Freedom and liberty may be glorified to the point of becoming a rule unto themselves - which is also unscriptural.

Next time: Mysticism, Activism, Biblicism.

Some Important Questions On The NT Canon

Published by Bryan April 15, 2008 in Religion and Theology. 3 Comments

When one sits back and really thinks about the NT canon, several important questions should come to mind that are not often addressed. Too often, one jumps to questions such as; what was the criteria for including a book, why was book X not included, and why is the canon closed, before actually considering the concept of canon. That is, one starts their investigation of the canon before considering if there should be a textual canon or not.

To question if there should be a canon or not may seem strange, since there has been some kind of NT canon for much of the history of the church, and perhaps it is a silly question since nearly every Christian alive today would agree that there should be a textual canon. But to start an investigation of the NT canon with this question will force us to examine what we believe the place of the canon is in the Christian life, and to look deeper at why it was formed, even if we all agree on the answer already. Much like in math where you are required to show your work on a test to prove you have thought the concept through and are not simply copying what you have memorized, I think this question will force a person to think through beliefs that they may otherwise take for granted.

I am not sure my answer to the question of why we have a textual canon is correct or not. I think it would be difficult to definitively give an answer to the question, and I think more then one answer may be correct. What I will do in what follows is then only lay out my thoughts on the question of the necessity of a textual canon and invite the discussion of canon to make this question one of it’s starting points.

Who Created the Cannon: God or the Church?
Unlike a great majority of Protestants, I believe that the church created the textual canon. The canon of scripture is above all things a book of the church, the book of the church. The authority that scripture has in the life of the believer comes from God, but not directly. God set up the church as His instrument on the earth, and it was through this instrument that the textual canon was decided. This is in opposition to the view that the church merely recognized the books we have in the textual canon as scripture. I believe this view is neither historically nor theologically defensible.

If the church only recognized what was obvious, then why was there the contradicting lists, the debate, and the need to set a textual canon? Would it not have been so obvious to the church that one would not need to set a list? No, there was discussion and disagreement, true there was also much agreement that certain books needed to be included, but it was not simply because a book had some innate quality that made it scripture, but because it was a true and trustworthy account of what happened that agreed with the teachings of the church.

The textual canon did not come down from heaven like the Ten Commandments did, but it was the authority that Christ gave to the church that allowed it to come into existence. The commands to watch over and feed the sheep/flock (John 21 Acts 20:28) gives the church a general authority. The creating of a textual canon, something to hand down among the sheep to keep them on the straight path after the first few generations begin to die out, can be seen as one way (among many) the church has attempted to fulfill this authority. There really is little other command or prediction to produce such a book.

Defining “Inspiration”
The response to this line of reasoning would be to affirm that although there was not a prediction of scripture, or a command for the church to create a canon, the fact that it is inspired by God (pointing to 2 Timothy 3:16) places it in a category not unlike a gift to the church, but definitely not decided upon by the church. The argument ignores the historical context of the creation of the canon, but also relies on a very specific understanding of what the word “inspired” means.
Continue reading ‘Some Important Questions On The NT Canon’

Some Introductory Thoughts On The Anglican Church

Published by Bryan February 5, 2008 in Religion. 18 Comments

At the moment I am seriously considering starting to regularly attend a local Anglican church. I have been to one Sunday morning service, eight or so Sunday evening services, two guest lectures, and many morning prayer services hosted by the church at the university I attend, and now need to weigh the pros and cons of making it the church I regularly attend. There is a lot I like about the Anglican church in general (and this church particularly) yet I still have some reservations.

So what is it that attracts me to the Anglican church? In no particular order:

The Pros
1. Liturgy - There is a lot left to preference (unless you hold to a strict RPW) when speaking of how a worship service can be performed. I prefer a higher liturgy Sunday morning then the free for all format of a typical evangelical church, but both have their usefulness. Different forms of worship emphasize different aspects of God’s character. The liturgy in my experience emphasizes the holiness, beauty and mystery of God, things that I have missed in other church services and want to explore more.

2. Preaching - The preaching I have been exposed to has been tremendous. Although the church has a reactor, many different staff members and church members preach in the various services. This allows for a variety of perspectives on a variety of topics. Although I do not always agree with what is being said (do I ever?) the sermons are well thought out, biblically based, and have both theological and practical elements.

3. Intellectual Element - One thing that has really impressed me has been the commitment to intellectual life. I am not sure if this is unique to this specific church, or part of the Anglican character overall, but it is definitely pronounced in this church. They have a yearly lecture series that brings in a well known and knowledgeable speaker each year (Two years ago was Stanley Hauerwas, and Ian Hutchinson this last year). This commitment can also be seen in the small groups that they are starting up, other speakers they often bring in, and even simple things like publishing an announcement in the bulletin when a church member receives a Ph.d in philosophy.

4. Tradition - The evangelical church, except for a few exceptions, have lost all concept of tradition and nearly all of history. This is a huge loss, not because these things are essential to be a Christian, but because they provide a connection to our past and helps to regulate our future. The Anglican church still holds on to tradition through the creeds, prayers, and liturgy. Unlike the contemporary evangelical church, which is often afraid to look at history since they have a suspicion they will not see themselves in it, the Anglican church in my experience is not afraid to look at church history.

5. The Sacraments - Since beginning to seriously consider baptism and the Lord’s supper, my views have gone from Baptist, to Reformed, then back to Baptist but for the past year has been moving toward what I believe Anglicism teaches. Baptism of infants with baptism not only being an outward sign but a means which God uses to effect a spiritual change within us. Likewise, I believe that God uses the Lord’s supper to impart grace to those who receive it in faith. The topic of the sacraments is much to big for this entry, but one the fact that the Anglican church teaches (or at least allows for) a view that I believe has more scriptural support then other views is very attractive.

The Cons
What concerns me? Once again, in no particular order:

1. Homosexuality - The Anglican church is currently tearing itself apart over the question of homosexuality. It is not clear where the communion will go on this issue since there are major voices all over the map on it right now. What is for sure is that the firestorm over the issue is intensifying (See JI Packer explain the issues) and it will eventually come to a head. I hope and pray that homosexuality will not be embraced, but there is a strong possibility that it might be.

2. Women Priests - The Anglican church has allowed women priests for a while now. Although it has been several years since I examined the issue (I soon plan on examining it again so it is fresh in my mind to discuss) I am a complementarian and have never been convinced by the arguments in favour of women priests. Although among heavily conservative members of the Anglican church this is still an issue, it appears for my brief reading that among most this is no longer an issue.

3. The North/South Divide - On a whole the more northern churches (Europe, and North America) are liberal while the southern churches (Africa) are much more conservative. This is coming out full force on the homosexuality issue, but the divide seems to be much deeper, and will no doubt continue to arise. This is concerning because it shows a division within the Anglican communion that will not be going away soon.

4. Certain Members of the Anglican Church - Some members of the Anglican church have become so liberal they should have been excommunicated long ago. John Shelby Spong is really the best example of this I can think of. I do think the Christian tent should be a big one, but there are essentials to the faith that if you give up you are no longer in it. There are of course those in all denominations who should be excommunicated for giving up essentials of the Christian faith, but it is a concern when bishops in a hierarchical church can give up essentials and still hold on to their position.

My Conclusions
What does all this mean? There are things I really like in the Anglican church, and things that give me pause and caution. The particular Anglican church I have found seems to be a little bit on the conservative side, has an evangelical emphasis, and embraces traditional liturgy. There have been two question that have weighed on my mind regarding all this these last few months:

1. How much error can I tolerate in a church I attend? When saying that I understand that there is no doubt error within my own theology that I do not see, and that no church or denomination is without error. But what is a position that I view as error that I can live with, and what is one that stops me from regularly attending a specific church?

2. Correctness of theology is important, but so also is church practice (evangelism, missional living, discipline, accountability…etc). So although theology must be weighed in any decision to regularly attend a church, so must how that theology is lived out be weighed. Does the Anglican church (and this one in particular) meet my requirements in this regard?

Note: Since I began thinking this entry through and writing it I believe I have come to a decision on regularly attending this church or not (writing helps the thinking process). However the points and questions raised in this piece are still important and should be discussed and thought out.

Philosophy, Theology, And The Church

Published by Bryan October 30, 2007 in Religion, Emerging Church and Philosophy. 14 Comments

As a philosophy student, I often have conversations with friends regarding the place of philosophy in the Church. This week the topic has been on my mind once again after one of my philosophy professors commented in class about the lack of theologians doing philosophy on the academic level today. I was able to bring up the counter example of John Milbank right away, and after some thought Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolferstroff. There are a few others but not many.

Christian today don’t care about philosophy. I hate to say it but it’s true. Have you heard of these three people I mentioned? Have you read anything by them? I’m studying philosophy and although I know a bit about two of them (I know nothing about one of them besides the name), have read a book about Milbank’s Radical Orthodox movement, and listened to an interview with him, I myself don’t know much at all about the current “Christian philosophical scene.”

Reactionary Theology
The only place for philosophy among most evangelicals is when it is proved wrong by Christian apologists. We have more then enough of these in the church; those people who are not willing to give a sympathetic reading to any philosopher, but instead read what other Christians have written about them, and then go on the offensive against them. There have been some good Christian apologists who understand the philosophical systems out there and can interact with them, but walk into a Christian bookstore and the books your likely to see are usually surface treatments of philosophy that take a few potshots at a particular philosopher and then assumes nothing by them (or their followers) could ever be said back in response.

I’m not sure if this is a result of the lack of interest of philosophy in the church, or if the lack of interest in philosophy in the church has caused it’s superficial treatment among Christian academia. One thing for sure however is that if you mention philosophy in many churches you get weird stares.

I don’t bother trying to discuss philosophy with people in my church anymore, it seemed like a loosing battle. When I tell them that one of my majors is philosophy I often hear; “Why would you ever take that?” which in and of itself is not an usual comment as most people in and outside the church don’t understand the allure of a degree that will not directly lead to employment, but when it’s said in the church there is the hint of disgust with the whole discipline.

A similar disgust exists with theology. Although in this case it is less pronounced it is still noticeably there. It manifests itself in comments such as; “Well I don’t care what who and who said, I just know what my bible says.” or “You can believe whatever you want, but I’ll follow the bible on this…” The idea that a well thought out, logical, position on a biblical doctrine doesn’t matter. Somehow if one reads theologians and thinks through biblical doctrines they will cease to take the scriptures seriously and be lead astray by men. Christians should attempt to understand scripture in a vacuum.

I don’t want to get into all the things that is wrong with this view (as if someone can interpret anything in a vacuum) but to point out that this fear of both philosophy and theology is founded on the fact that the church has come to believe that it will lead away from the truth of scripture and to the lies of man. There is a general sense the all “academic” disciplines (theology, philosophy, history, science…etc.) will lead a person away from the truth.

An Anti-Intellectual Environment
This view has lead to the shattering of the church along the academic line. Many who are within these disciplines feel (and likely are) removed from the rest of their church. I’m speaking of philosophy and theology here since they are my areas of interest, but those in the universities who are studying sciences face a similar fate. The Christian who studies biology is continually questioned as to their “orthodoxy” on creation/evolution and is always eyed with suspicion that their science may replace their bible. There is of course reason for the church to be cautious about academia, but it’s gone past caution into full bore paranoia in many cases. Christians should be leaders in all these fields, but instead the church more often then not shows through its attitude that it wants a separation from them.

Because of my studies I have spent a lot of time questioning the Christian faith. Since I began to study theology on my own my theology has been shifting away from the typical baptist theology I began in and toward a more Reformed/Anglican/Emerging Church understanding (when I understand exactly what that means I’ll write about it), and my philosophy classes at University have often caused me to question common Christian answers to really complex problems.

As I’m struggling with philosophical and theological questions I should go to my church and ask for advice, but rarely do I do that anymore. When I do the questions are often dismissed, brushed over, or at worst cause a heated exchange as they don’t understand how I could even be questioning such a thing. This does not hold true for everyone in my church, there are some I can discuss theology with, but I keep the circle of people that I do discuss with small and often shy away from discussing the underlying questions that I struggle with. Sometimes this is to protect myself (if my theology is moving away from what my church teaches) and sometimes this is to protect others (I don’t think they have ever considered this before and have no idea what this kind of question will do to their faith). This all however leads to a real rupture in community. The church is the place where theology should be done, where philosophy should be discussed, and where questions from all disciplines should be looked at. The anti-intellectual environment in many evangelical churches has stopped this.

The Intellectual Divide
I’m not sure how this rupture within the church can be fixed. It’s a question I have spent a lot of time thinking on over the past few years because it’s a personal and practical question. If I feel out of place in the local church, that the questions I am asking are not ones that the local church wants to hear or wants to try to find answers for, will I ever be at home in that church? If the local church wants a “no creed but Christ” attitude, and is willing to look with suspicion on those who embrace academic disciplines that may lead to looking at the world in different ways, can there ever be true community?

There is an intellectual divide in evangelical churches. I know I am not alone in feeling it, others I attend University with feel it as well. After years of thinking on the topic I’m still not sure how to go about trying to fix it. At least the Emerging Church is willing to ask questions and seek answers, even if some in the movement get the wrong ones. If there is one thing evangelicals can learn from the Emerging Church, it’s the importance of asking questions and being able to have open discussions on nearly every subject without passing judgment while the conversation is still ongoing.

Changing Church Part. 6

Published by Bryan October 16, 2007 in Religion and Emerging Church. 4 Comments

This is the final part of the Changing Church series. For reference see: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5.

Due to the size of this topic, the previous entries in this series have been all over the place. We began in the first part by identifying that a shift is taking place and pointing to some examples of that shift particularly in the Emerging Church. Then in part 2 we looked at how the historical church can be used as a critique of the modern church, and finally we have been examining some ways the evangelical church has begun to embrace its past; looking at its history (part 3), using creeds (part 4), and prayer (part 5). In this entry we will return to the to the beginning of the series and attempt to wrap it up by examining an underlying reason for this shift from an a-historical evangelical tradition to the embracing of a historical understanding of the church.

Reconnecting with Church History
Although there have been various efforts in the last couple hundred years to reconnect with church history, the current trend that we have been discussing has, for the most part, been the recent emerging church attempt. Why has the Emerging Church spearheaded such a movement? I believe there are two answers to this question.

The first was dealt with in the second post in this series; they use earlier church tradition to critique the current evangelical landscape. However, this is still only a surface level answer. There are many ways to critique the current evangelicalism without bringing in church history to the extent some in the Emerging Church wish to. Dissatisfied Evangelicals have critiqued the Evangelical churches philosophy, practices and theology often without really offering a historic critique. The deeper answer appears to lie in part with the postmodern worldview that the emerging church has (depending who you believe and look at) either adapted or is responding to.

The Post-Modern Issue
In a recent entry on this blog, Jasen discussed the relationship between post-modernism and the Emergining Church. Although it is difficult to understand what one means when they say “postmodern” these days, for the purposes of this entry I will define it simply as: “The lack of faith in meta-narratives” which follows Lyotard’s famous definition. What does this mean? Taken in a descriptive sense it means that people no longer believe in grand-overarching stories of the world. No longer for many people, particularly those younger, does communism or capitalism make sense of the world anymore. They are recognized as stories that try to make sense of the world, but can not be held universally true.

Christianity is a meta-narrative. It is a grand story that explains how the world works for everything and everyone, and because of this, it is facing a new attack. The point here is not to judge if the rejection of meta-narratives is correct, but to simply point out that this is a current challenge to Christianity. It is also not to judge if the response to this current attack on Christianity is correct. Christianity has always been under intellectual attack, and has always been devising responses. Some of these responses have done damage to the faith (consider the removing the mystical from Christianity in response to modernity), while others have often upheld it (the scientific research into Christianity also in response to modernity).

If people have begun to believe that there is no over-arching story of how the world works, but all stories are local, what are the Christian faithful to do? How are they to respond to this? There are two possibilities; one is to fight against post-modernist assumptions and show that Christianity is the only true and valid meta-narrative , or one can embrace the destruction of meta-narratives and yet try to maintain their Christian faith.

Moving Forward
If one chooses the second, as many (but not all) in the Emerging Church have done, how can they proceed? One way would be to make Christianity local. Remove it from it’s worldwide position and place it in the local context. This process was begun by Stanley Grenz (See his Renewing The Centre) who sought to make the local church the locus of Christianity. It is still unclear at this point what exactly the results of placing the local church at the forefront of Christianity will entail, but if one puts the focus on the local church, what is each church’s connection to the others? Placing emphasis on the local church disconnects it from the universal church which is how evangelicals view churches as connected.

A way to solve this, is to emphasize the historical connection between churches. This keeps Christianity local in context, but allows for meaningful connection with other local Churches around the world. Although some types of Christianity have done this throughout their history (think of Eastern Orthodox), the evangelical tradition has never emphasized its history as a way of connecting their local churches; it has always relied on a universal notion of the church to create unity.

This, I believe, is the underlying reason for the growing historical interest in the traditions of the church among evangelicals. The need to find a connection to the universal church has come to the forefront for evangelicals, and with the new challenge of post-modernism - evangelicals can no longer fall back to the common line that the universal church provides this connection. For a Christian movement that has never had a robust theology of the church, this new need to discover/create (depending on your view) this process will be slow and difficult. But it has begun and will move forward as long as people continue to lack faith in meta-narratives.

Changing Church: Part 3

Published by Bryan September 4, 2007 in General, Religion and Emerging Church. 15 Comments

Would someone from the church that existed in 400 AD recognize it today? What about someone from 1300 AD? 1700 AD? What would they think if they walked into a modern church service? If the language barrier was removed, could they understand what was happening in the service? Besides the practice, what would they think of the doctrine being preached? These kinds of questions make one stop and consider just how historic the Christian faith professed today actually is.

As more and more Christians begin to question how the society around them has influenced the faith that they believe, they begin to turn to resources that have not been affected by our current society to see the differences in the faith from one to the other. The most important of these resources is, of course, the scriptures themselves, but there also seems to be a growing interest in what the early church believed among evangelicals. Books such as Evangelicals and Tradition and the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture are the first two examples that come to mind regarding evangelicals investigating this area of their history.

What will come of this new interest is hard to tell. One thing that should arise from it is a re-examination of doctrines that were at one time considered “too catholic” and laughed off by evangelicals. One of the easier early church fathers to read (therefore most likely to be read), and one that is likely the most respected among protestants, is Augustine. Yet, when evangelicals begin to read a work of his such as The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love they will quickly realize that many of the beliefs he held to are vastly different from what evangelicals believe. His understanding of the church and the sacraments is not one that would be allowed to be taught in evangelical churches today. One will very quickly begin to question how someone so well respected in the church could believe in baptismal regeneration, and if a person such as he could make such a mistake (as evangelicals say he did), what kind of mistakes have been made in belief by evangelicals today who are not fit to be compared to Augustine?

The investigation of the early church is mainly an investigation of another Christian tradition. As evangelicals have explored other protestant traditions through ecumenical relationships, it seems they are now more willing to explore the early church through research and study. Although Luther had hard words sometimes for the early church fathers, he (and the other Reformers such as Calvin) were well aware of their beliefs and understood them quite well (look at who Calvin quotes in his Institutes all the time). More and more, evangelicals may wish to see how the faith that they hold to has been influenced by the culture we live in. By looking at the faith in a totally different culture, we will see many differences - but also much in common.

Zeal For Truth