Power and the Cross

Perhaps Dr. Wright knows what this blog is about, for he hit it all in this article. In speaking of the Christian response to postmodernity, he articulates what a world without swords looks like, and what it means. I will not do justice to it, even in commentary. I will instead leave you with a few quotes, and highly recommend you read the article in its entirety.

"The Achilles’ heal of modernity is the actuality of evil ... Under God, the role of postmodernity has been to announce the doctrine of the fall to arrogant modernity, and to say, it’s not that easy, guys, you’ve just been building the tower of Babel, and God is coming down to have a little giggle at it and to confuse your languages. "

"Jesus standing in between cynical Pilate and colluding religion, Jesus goes to the cross ... Jesus’ kingship is all about a different way of power, a different way of life, within this present world. And the evidence he gives, that it’s a different sort of kingdom, is that his servants are not fighting. Isn’t that interesting! If it were from this world, my servants would fight to prevent me being handed over. And Jesus’ kingdom is all about bearing witness to truth. And Pilate says, “What is truth?” Pilate’s categories are too small and flat. The only truth Pilate knows is Caesar’s truth, the empire’s truth, the truth of scourging and nails and crosses. Had he been born a millennium and a half later, he would have said, “The only truth I know comes out of the barrel of a gun.” Same kind of thing. And the person who gets let off at the end of the chapter is Barabbas, the violent revolutionary."

"[James and John] know that Jesus is coming to Jerusalem to become king. And so naturally they want to be sitting at his right hand and at his left. And Jesus says, listen, you don’t know what you’re talking about, actually. And they didn’t, of course, because those who end up at Jesus’ right and his left when he comes in his kingdom in Mark and Matthew and Luke are the two who are crucified alongside him. "

"And what is the price if you say no? Here is the center: The price if you say no is the cross. Romans crucified people who resisted empire. Isn’t that interesting! It took genius to see that this symbol, which already had theological and political meaning, because it meant, “We Romans rule the world and if you get in our way Caesar, who is a god, will get you,” and this is what you do. It took genius to see that that symbol could work the other way and be a symbol of the outpoured love of God, and the very redefinition and reconstitution of what power itself was all about. We need to embrace that as the deep meaning and message of the cross if we are to have the genuine Christian challenge in the postmodern world. "

“What would a Christian worldview look like in here? .... [In the University,] we are not studying facts in the abstract as though we’ve got these facts in a test tube or whatever and we can just do things to them and learn them as though they’re over against us. No, the Christian calling is to know the world with a knowledge that approximates to love, and the point about love and the epistemology which love generates is that love both affirms the otherness of the object while remaining in deep, close, and rich subjective relationship to it. Love transcends the objective-subjective divide ... Our vocation, then, is to be agents of new creation, knowing the world and one another with delight and in love and in respect, celebrating it as God’s good creation, grieving over the places where it has gone wrong, glimpsing new creation, not least through the arts and through beauty, and working to make it happen."

"Worship is not simply Christian entertainment or making a miscellaneous nice party with lots of nice music. Christian worship is humbly adoring the Creator God and thereby being renewed in his image. And image-bearing includes that love of the world which shares the love which was Christ’s, which sent him to die on the cross, renewed in his image and strengthened by his body and blood, into a transformative spirituality which expresses itself naturally and obviously in the work for new creation in the world. "

The Christian Challenge in the Postmodern World

Be Blessed, Jeff

The Evolution Debate is not about Science

As mainstream publications begin weighing the pros and cons of teaching Intelligent Design, its important to remember one thing: any time the media or apologists for "the scientific community" tell us this is a debate between science and religion, they are lying.

This is a debate about power. Specifically, should the public school system in America tell kids how to view reality: ethics, psychology, religion, human identity and value, sexual behavior, meaning, and on and on?

Isn't that a jump? No, because if one accepts the Neo-Darwinian thesis, conclusions on these and other matters follow almost necessarily. Darwinism is an opinionated fellow, and he cannot help affirming materialist conclusions everywhere he goes. In fact, to not do so is to not understand what he is saying. Darwinism is a theory about life arising without help. It is a statement about the creation of humanity and their purposeless beginnings. That is not a trivial proclamation. It is a statement which, if true, colors everything.

That is why this is not a debate about science. It is a debate about how things are. It is a debate about reality at its most Raw. The use of language in this debate--suggesting that one side is scientific and the other is religion--is ridiculous. This debate is actually about power. It is about whether or not public schools should prescribe ideologies: religious or non-religious. It's about who has the authority to tell our kids what is real. Neo-Darwinism is not so much a fact to be reckoned with. It is much more, a set of glasses through which to see all of reality.

Now on the other hand, neglecting to teach Neo-Darwinism to our youth would be a tragedy. It is very important for this ideology to be understood by young people. But that is just it; it needs to be understood as an ideology. It is a worldview. It needs to be placed in the same realm as all ideologies taught in schools because it is a systematic statement about what reality is like at its most fundamental levels, and as such it is a religiously weighted viewpoint. (Suggesting that Neo-Darwinism makes no religious claims is absurd.)

And this is the crux. Neo-Darwinism is a worthwhile theory about reality, and may in fact be true. But how will we know it is "true"? Well not by crushing all dissenting opinion (as one editorial this morning in the USA Today suggests). How often has indoctrination advanced human thought? It would seem that truth shines brightest when paired against competing alternatives (as the other editorial in USA Today states).

What is the solution? One writer suggests that, "Students should learn the scientific arguments for, and against, contemporary evolutionary theory ... Teaching scientific controversies and arguments helps students understand the nature of science. Contrary to the "men in white coats" stereotype, with scientists as data-collecting automatons, scientists argue about how best to interpret evidence."

Write it on your hand. Tattoo it on your forehead: There are no neutral facts, only interpretations. Forcing kids to bow in school to any ideology is immoral, and runs counter to our separation of church and state. The priests of materialism should stand down.

Postmodernity, the Gospel, and the World

"While global economies are converging, cultures are diverging, and the widening cultural differences are leading us into a period of conflict, inequality and segmentation." So writes David Brooks in his NY Times editorial this morning.

Part of our postmodern reality is that nation states--a modern phenomenon--will evaporate in significant ways over the coming centuries. Humanity has a tendency to unite--to tribalize--in order to protect itself, but our spheres of safety are continuing to shift from geographical regions to ideological communities. And global conflict, propaganda, and power are shifting accordingly. The most dangerous force aligned against the US today is not Russia and its hundreds of nuclear warheads. It is two dozen ideologs who live in the US, and have the knowledge to make small, deadly weapons. We are living in an era in which the walls of the world are evaporating. I now may have more in common with a 35 year old mother of two in Kenya than I do with my neighbor across the street.

Geography is becoming irrelevant. Ideology is becoming everything.

Philip Jenkins in his incredible book The Next Christendom, notes that Africa, South America, and Asia will begin to see more and more conflicts especially between Muslims and Christians, as tribal religions are abandoned for Monotheism. Secularism requires a certain kind of background to thrive, and this will not be available in such areas. But Monotheism will sweep into these cultures given the evangelical flair of both religions and their desire for worldwide propagation. As these religions enter a highly-populated third world, Islam and Christianity will conflict in bloody ways in small chaotic areas. Because of how African nations are laid out, it is horrifying to note that these conflicts will take place in uncontrollable pockets.

So what does this mean? Christians around the world need to be prepared for a new era of religious wars, and we must do what ever we can to repress it. The world is set to explode, but we must learn to love and teach our new brothers and sisters in the developing world how to love first. We must affirm always, Jesus counter-perspective which says that we are made for each other. All people are made to worship God together through eternity. Differing ideologies must not become an excuse to kill. We must find a better way in a world full of swords.

I did a study on St. Francis of Assisi who also lived at a time of great conflict between Islam and Christianity. During the Fifth Crusade, Francis decided that the best way to gain the Holy Land (if that was important at all to him...doubt it) was to go and speak to the Muslim people and share with them the good news of Christ. Francis was imprisoned and (in serving the battle torn armies) infected with an eye disease he carried for the rest of his life. But Francis had many opportunities to talk with even the highest-ranking sultans about Jesus, displaying the reality of God through his own service and willingness to suffer for the good of others. (Here is a great talk on St. Francis by Brian McLaren--scroll down to talk '1883'.)

How should Christians wage an ideological war? In the way Jesus taught. We will battle through a bold love against the force of hell. We will give when all hell can do is take. We will bless when all hell can do is curse. We will proclaim freedom when hell offers bondage. We will employ the power of God to overcome all that destroys, and in so doing we will partner with Jesus in restoring the world.

As relatively affluent Americans, we should continue to support need-based organizations that go into areas of turmoil with medicines and technology for clean water and sanitation. We should continue to fight, not Muslims, but AIDS, malnutrition, and ignorance. We need to love people where they are, and joyously serve our Muslim friends as readily as our Christian brothers and sisters. Let us love first and speak second, and not think that the good news means that someone hears four spiritual laws. The most effective missionaries in the world to come will not specialize in presenting the Gospel. They will specialize in healing the broken. They will specialize in caring for the dying, and orphans, and refugees. They will enter into the sphere put up by ideologies and show a better way through who they are, not what they say. Consider, again, Mother Teresa.

The Brooks article points out that in our new world people will begin to create bubbles around themselves. They will seek out (on their 500 channel televisions and 5 million website internet) writers and reporters who "Think like them." They will get their information from overtly biased news agencies. They will ingest only those things written or composed or directed by a good Christian/ Hindu/ Muslim/ Libertarian/ Green/ Progressive/ Idaho-ian. (The phenomenon of Fox News and Al Jezerra are perfect examples of this.) The tendency of the common person will be to seclude themselves from other ideologies, unless they need to throw a punch.

How will the gospel break through? It certainly will not come through the debates on MSNBC. It will not come through TBN and their plush golden chairs (or any other possible Christian TV network). It will not even come through on mainstream editorial pages or the university. In a postmodern world, there will be no neutral ground for the debate of ideas before the masses, and only a select few will read the opposition. Everything that is written, filmed, or composed will be biased. Everyone will know it, and they will stay in their safety zone: within their ideological community: their sphere of safety. They will trust the priests of there tribe, and venture no further.

Thus, the Gospel will thrive only when it can enter these bubbles. Jesus will be real to dead people only when we suffer for the sake of the gospel, leaving our own bubbles of comfort and entering foreign lands. The strategy is laid out in 1 Cor. 9:19-23, "Though I am free and a slave to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jew I became like a Jew to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the Gospel, that I may share in its blessings."

With the exception of the strip of land between Libya and China (the 10/40 window), the Gospel is thriving in every geographical area on Earth. It is ideological pockets that are the new frontier for missionaries. Reaching them will entail Christians entering completely foreign worlds right down the street, worlds where Christianity may as well be a country on the other side of the earth. The great commission entails Christ followers entering such worlds as servants to love boldly. It is love, not well composed arguments, which is the only force on earth capable of changing the human heart.

This may even mean doing something odd like going downtown, next to a university, and buying a bowling alley. (May God bless the Atlas project.)

Hell as a Present Condition

I suggested last Sunday, and in a recent post, that Hell is not simply a future state, but that Jesus often uses the word to describe a condition we experience now. Some of Jesus' words make hell sound like a virus that is thriving inside us. Other times he says that by doing some small (seemingly harmless) things, we are walking on a slippery slope, and may soon be rushing toward fire. Fron these passages, Hell seems to be more than a place. It is better described as a spiritual condition in which our destructive tendencies, pride, and animal-wants overpower our souls, make us into something we are not meant to be, remove us further from the life of God. They do in fact remove some forever.

There are 12 uses of the word "Geenna" GK. (translated 'Hell') in the New Testament. 11 of these are uttered by Jesus; the last by James. "Geenna" refers literally to a place of burning trash in a valley outside of Jerusalem. Now Jesus does use this word to describe a place the wicked go after death, see Luke 16:23 and Matt 10:28. However, it seems to me that Jesus also uses this word to describe what is going on inside someone who is far from God.

Look at Matthew 5:27-30. Hell is used here twice. After commenting on lust, Jesus says, "If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." He repeats the idea and references one's hand as the instrument that should be amputated.

Now, it seems to me that Jesus is talking about a present state here. That staring and lusting, or habitually masturbating (come on--why else would you need to cut off your hand in response to lust?) is self-destructive in deep ways. Might we bring in the idea of "Geenna" and say that lust is not simply a fire; it is a burning trash within you, and Jesus is calling it what it is.

Look above at Mt 5:22, "But I tell you anyone who is angry with his brother ... who says, "you fool!" will be in danger of the fires of hell." Might we also characterize Rage as trash burning within as well? Certainly throwing someone into Hell for eternity for an angry outburst seems a bit overboard (no pun intended). But saying, this is the reality of your rage--you are inviting heaps of burning waste into your soul--this seems to follow better.

Now, look at Matt. 23:13-15: "Woe to you...Pharisees...You travel over sea to win a single convert and when he becomes one you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are." The phrase "son of hell" here is interesting. What would it mean to be born of hell--a hell-spawn--if hell is only a future state? How can you be born of somewhere you may or may not be going? Odd? However, what if you are born of the flaming trash heap inside you, and then in danger (v.33) of being condemned to hell--this time without hope of return. Again, the duel use (present and future) of this term makes more sense to me.

My favorite verse on this is in Matt 16:18, "I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Hades is the greek word for the place of the dead and is generally equivalent to hell. But note, how can the church overcome hell if it is some future state? How, once we are in heaven, do we lay seige to hell? But if hell is a present condition, if phrases like "hell on earth" are apt, then certainly the church may assualt the gates of hell.

Now, move to the passage in James 3:6, "The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the course of his life on fire and is itself set on fire by hell." 'Hell' in this instance sure sounds like a present force. So in both the gospels and the lone epistle, we see hell referred to as a present reality.

What strikes me in all these passages is the idea of one's body literally being set on fire by a boastful tongue, a lustful eye, or a rage filled heart. We can all sympathize with what this means: to be overcome by a fire of sorts: a fire which--if we were to step back and smell it--is fowl and repulsive. Yet we know that some live in that state. They are in fact consumed by the flames of their flesh. They live out the flaming trash inside of themselves. This is Hell. There is no better description for bondage of this sort.

Link to Art Work by Cornelis Monsma

Arguing with Love

Sunday, I referred to Mother Teresa and the manner in which she led her life as reflecting how things really are. That in living as she did, no arguments were advanced, but the revolutionary perspective of Jesus was presented: perhaps as powerfully as it could be.

I didn't put enough meat on this observation, but it's something that I--having got a master's degree in arguing about God--have been thinking about a lot recently, and wondering whether or not the money I sent CU was a waste.

In the documentary made by Malcolm Muggeridge that brought her international fame, Teresa is consistently telling Muggeridge how things are without being argumentative. In one scene, she is holding a small abandoned baby, and says to Muggeridge, "Look, she has life in her eyes; the life of God." "Yes," Muggeridge, a self-confessed atheist, repeatedly says--seemingly convinced.

Later, Muggeridge--Britain's leading journalist--became a Catholic and said it was his experience with Teresa that really moved him to thinking about Jesus. (His book "Jesus Rediscovered" is worth reading. Though it is out of print.)

In Teresa's life, reality--Heaven--was breaking into our world, and the illusion put up by centuries of man's rebellion could not trump it.

Note, in a country that had had a Cast System in place for thousands of years, Teresa didn't come out asking politicians to change their laws, nominate supreme court justices that would do something, get grass root support and all. She simply acted, and started a revolution. The revolution carried through her country where Indian women from across the nation came to help the Sisters of Mercy--many of whom were not Christian when they came. But she became the reason for many to seriously consider Christ's counter-perspective on life.

In a country with a massive Hindu Population, and vocal Muslim minority, a frail Christian woman from Albania often represented India on the global stage. When she spoke all India listened. She gave commencement addresses at Harvard (where she spoke on abstinence of all things). She spoke with any world leader she choose. Her influence was extraordinary, and yet her power came from doing nothing the world actually pursued as valuable. (There aren’t long lines to gain power by starting leprosariums.)

Looking at pictures of the woman, you notice a posture deformed by consistently loving those in beds, gutters, or on the sidewalks. The deformity is beautiful in live films where she moves easily picking up children and cleaning off the desperate.

She backed up her outspoken critique of abortion saying, "A child is a gift of God. If you do not want him, give him to me." She was not playing the game from the bleachers, reading her script in a power suit on CNN and going home to her cozy life. In speaking about such hard issues, she volunteered to be the solution.

We might do better to study how one small woman, in a simple white cotton sari, didn't bother much with arguments; instead, she simply went out into the world and changed the lives of millions.

Positive Trends and America

I found this article encouraging. It documents a change in American social conditions which we should all be thankful for, such as a huge drop in domestic violence, alcohol related car fatalities, and violence by teens. The author proposes a set of four reasons for the shift:

"The first thing that has happened is that people have stopped believing in stupid ideas: that the traditional family is obsolete, that drugs are liberating, that it is every adolescent's social duty to be a rebel.

The second thing that has happened is that many Americans have become better parents. Time diary studies reveal that parents now spend more time actively engaged with kids, even though both parents are more likely to work outside the home.

Third, many people in the younger generation, under age 30 or so, are reacting against the culture of divorce. They are trying to lead lives that are more stable than the ones their parents led. Post-boomers behave better than the baby boomers did.

Fourth, over the past few decades, neighborhood and charitable groups [Read Churches] have emerged to help people lead more organized lives, even in the absence of cohesive families."

In his book "Theology for the Community of God" Stanley Gretz paints salvation as a communal experience. Our choices are never made in a vacuum; we bring Jesus to one another. God has made our world, not for you and I individually, but for the community of God that will exist forever. The image Jesus often uses of heaven is a banquet or marriage, not a walk alone with God. Some day I will rant about "The Me Generation" and their propensity to make erratic choices at the cost of their neighbors and children (among other shameful things). But for now it is good to focus on news that our world maybe reflecting Heaven a bit more.

Good Things

Today I'm just thankful.

Found a picture that says it.

Be Blessed.
Jeff






Visit the Artist's Gallery.

Intellectual Status

Here is an article from the Washington Post on the President's recent remarks that Intelligent Design should be taught along side the theory of Evolution. Set aside the debate, note the tone in this article.

Obviously, Christians can't keep folks from speaking badly about them. This won't change any time soon. But we should not be criticized as irrelevant on fronts where we should be leading.

The authors of this piece obviously have no respect for I.D. because of the community which is promoting it. The skeptical voices can throw out assumptions about the intelligence of religious folk, and have the reader count them as valuable critiques.

If Christians were known leaders in our top universities in areas of science, history, philosophy and the like, the backwater assumption would not stand. It would come across as odd, unlearned, and...well...backwater. For a solid perspective on the road back to intellectual distinction and respect see Moreland's "Love Your God With All Your Mind".

The Next Reformation by Carl Raschke

Here's our first book review. Intially we'll have a conversation about the book. If you desire to contribute - feel free! Once we're done I'll do a full review here at the top.

Here's a link to the book: The Next Reformation by Carl Raschke

Is Postmodernity a Lame Duck?

For those interested in the Emergent conversation, I found this article by Sam Blair ('Why be Postmodern' )helpful.

Recently, many thinkers I have listened to have been talking about Postmodernity--not as the world's predetermined course--but as just another step (and most-likely a very short one) in history's march. Reading this article, I was reminded that the deconstructionist perspective (if you can even designate it as such) has brought some needed critiques and perspective to the Church, but we should not give postmodernity more power than it actually possesses. We should remember, PM does not offer anything substantive. Its most important work is as a (necessary) critique of Modernity, and its excesses. The question is: once the criticizing is done, what fills in the void left by a dead modernity?

Instead of this being somehow a rebuke to the Emergent conversation, our questions need to change just a bit. Instead of only asking how we can react to the coming Postmodern wave, we should be asking how we can best create the language/atmosphere/persuppositions assumed by our culture as it moves from modernity into something else. PM will not do the work, and will not be stable enough for any culture to hang its hat on. In short, PM will soon outlive its usefulness be discarded.

So, what does that mean for us as the Church? What would it mean for us to build a new epistemology, a new set of presuppositions that--rightly and restoratively--acknowledges the Lordship of Jesus over thought and experience and knowledge.

Here is an article worth reading on this front by Historian NT Wright. There aren't too many more answers here either, but it may spur on the conversation a bit.

Doing Things Right

The church I grew up in had been saving for ten years to buy a building. When they finally had the money put aside to build, they invited all the other church pastors in town to pray over them and their new home. Instead of viewing my home church as a threat, the pastors in the Roaring Fork Valley wanted to see them thrive. Is it just me, or does this feel unique?

For all interested, this church's website and the content are wonderful. Visit: www.churchatcarbondale.com . The page of pictures is fun, and the audio/video of sermons are wonderful.