Question #4...

Things seem to be moving along fairly well so far. Since the first biographical question we've had official questions from both me and Trev. Again, any contributor is welcome to post an official question at any point and ask for replies. Also, any commentator is welcome to post in comments requesting a specific question. I will absolutely take any such question and post it officially as long as it falls anywhere near the very broad topical reach of the blog.

Conversation on Trev's post seems to be slowing down, and my kind-of-unofficialish-questionlike post seems to be pretty slow as well. As always, if those topics are still of interest to you please keep commenting in the threads. I know I check them almost daily and I think our other contributors and readers check them regularly too. That said, I think it's time for a new official question.

This time I'm going to take Jon's and Dustin's advice and go with something a little bit more specific. I'm also going to vary the format slightly. There has been some back and forth discussion about practical v. theoretical problems. Like Jon I think that the practical and theoretical are both completely necessary. I also realize, however, that they do represent two different kinds of conversations. As an attempt to let both conversations happen I'll ask this question in two ways. First as a theoretical/theological question, and second as a practical/ecclesiological question. This one arises out of several of the comments in Trev's question and the responses to it.

On the theological end:

Is the attempt to convert non-Christians to Christianity a legitimate undertaking? If so, how do you deal with questions of imposing our point of view on others who don't share it? Isn't this just a kind of colonialism? If not, how do you deal with both the extensive biblical witness to the importance of active evangelism and also the long history and tradition of the Church that values evangelism and missionary work? Has the Church always been wrong and we're just getting it right now?

On the practical end:

If evangelism is a legitimate enterprise, what should it look like in the 21st century Canadian (and if you like, American) church? What practices are in-bounds and what practices are out-of-bounds, and why? If evangelism is not a legitimate enterprise, how then should the church relate to the non-Christian world generally and to non-Christians in particular? Is it just a live-and-let-live situation or is there any kind of broad responsibility with regard to the interaction of Church and culture?

Well folks, there you are. Have at it.

The Greatest of These?

I'm throwing out another question in response to Trev's post below and some of the things said on the comments thread.  I in no way intend to shut down conversation on the other threads and I strongly encourage contributors and readers to go there and keep the conversation going.  That said:

Jesus once said that the two greatest commandments are to love God with everything and to love our neighbors as ourselves.  When those two commands come into conflict, and we must choose between loving a God who we accept by faith and a neighbor who we can shake hands with, which one is paramount?  Is it better to love God or to love neighbor?

A "post-modern" opinion.

The term post-modern is just a term that can be used to describe a variety of things and even if we don't use the term with its original meaning, it is nonetheless used to describe the current cultural climate we find ourselves in. Usage of word by the masses to describe something makes it correct. Thus, I personally use the term post-modern as a way to describe our current culture, if for no other reason but to fit in and sound like I know what I'm talking about.

I want to just touch on a couple of things regarding the post-modern Christian 'in action'. This is probably going to be really hodge podge, but such is life. Please bear with me. I would also like to begin by saying that most of what follows is just my opinion. The first thing I would like to discuss is tolerance, and specifically religious tolerance. I don't really like the word tolerance, I prefer to say acceptance in its stead. I really like this one quote from Herman Melville's Moby-Dick. Ishmael, the main character, finds himself unexpectly bunking with a pagan named Queequeg who worships a little idol. They soon become good friends, and what follows are Ishmael's thoughts when Queequeg invites him to join in his worship of the Idol.

"I was a good Christian; born and bred in the bosom of the infallible Presbyterian Church. How then could I unite with this wild idolator in worshipping his piece of wood? But what is worship? thought I. Do you suppose now, Ishmael, that the magnanimous God of heaven and earth-pagans and all included-can possibly be jealous of an insignificant bit of black wood? Impossible! But what is worship?-to do the will of God-that is worship. And what is the will of God?-to do to my fellow man what I would have my fellow man do to me-that is the will of God. Now, Queequeg is my fellow man. And what do I wish that this Queequeg would do to me? Why, unite with me in my particular Presbyterian form of worship. Consequently, I must then unite with him in his; ergo, I must turn idolator. So I kindled the shavings; helped prop up the innocent little idol; offered him burnt biscuit with Queequeg; salaamed before him twice or thrice; kissed his nose; and that done, we undressed and went to bed, at peace with our own consciences and all the world."

Personally, I thought that was brilliant. Herman Melville definitely had a certain slant in his theological thinking that was much more accepting of other religions as is evidenced throughout Moby Dick. Of course his logic is somewhat interesting, as he chooses to place the 'do unto your neighbour' commandment above the 'do not worship any other god' commandment, but then again, Jesus did say that was the second most important thing to remember, but that is beside the point. Back to my opinion.

Is it possible to be a Christian and still accept other religions? Colin talked in his post about how he will dialogue with a hindu or buddhist and not think they're stupid. He thinks they're wrong, but not stupid. I also believe that is very important. I think that truth is relative, and true objectivity impossible. I also believe that proving Christianity is the one true religion is also impossible. To believe Christianity as the one true religion is different from Christianity being the one true religion. As such, as a Christian, I think that one needs to have an accepting attitude toward other religions.

I don't think that we should be necessarily targeting certain religious groups and trying to force the gospel on them in order to turn them into converts. For me, I switch the emphasis toward social action (again this is just how I feel, and I do realize that balance is important). For me, I find it somewhat disturbing that we as Christians have large buildings with paid pastors (nothing against pastors, I love you gals/guys), large bills to pay each month to run our monsterous churches, missionaries to support who are working to convert the catholics in South America (whom, incidentally, I do not think need converting), and then when the benevolent offering goes around people are scrounging out their quarters. Of course, this is not a blanket statement for all Christians and churches, it is just the impression I have gotten from the churches I have attended. I have digressed from my acceptance rant slightly, but that's okay.

Acceptance goes beyond different religions. One specific example that I can think of is the gay community. Recently (relatively recently) Canada opted to change the definition of 'marriage' to include same-sex couples, allowing them to have the same rights as heterosexual couples. I know a lot of Christians who have found this to be the most offensive and horrible thing in the world. Regardless of where one stands on the whole 'homosexuality is a sin' issue, I believe that this is not a moral issue, but rather a human rights issue (I don't want this to turn into a pro-gay/anti-gay discussion). I don't believe in mixing religion and politics. Religious freedom in our country means that we don't impose religious beliefs on the whole of the country and that we are all free to worship in whatever way we feel. Since homosexuality is a Christian religious moral issue, it is unfair to impose Christian religious views on the gay community and deny them their rights as humans. Therefore, I was very happy when the government decided to sanction gay marriage.

Regarding how we interact with non-Christians, I do have an opinion on that as well (surprise of all surprises). I have heard very recently, even in the last 2 days, how a certain Christian was feeling quite guilty about the fact that they haven't really brought their neighbours or non-christian friends to church. Personally, if I was a non-Christian, I wouldn't want to go to Church. It's just weird. They all stand and sing strange songs about blood and other strange metaphors. Then they pray these long prayers where they say 'Lord' and 'God' and 'Just' every two words. (I'm not being critical, I'm just trying to demonstrate how the things that we Christians take as normal are really very strange looking from the outside). I first noticed this 'strangeness' after living in Japan and having not attended a large English speaking Church for a very long time. When we did go, I was weirded out.

All that to say, that it seems that as far as evangelism goes, what most of us have done in the past is put on some kind of event at the church, and bring a friend. Personally, I really dislike this. The unsuspecting victim comes to the event expecting a nice meal and hanging out with their buddy only to discover they have become a project and are hit in the forehead with the gospel. It's almost like getting a free night at a time-share-condo.

I don't believe that non-Christians are projects to be converted. Why can't we all just have real friendships with people who don't believe the way we do without having some secret agenda? People aren't stupid. They can see right through stuff like that. I personally will not invite a friend to church or to an event. If they ask me if they can come, and its their initiative, that's all fine and great. I am more interested in helping people if they need it (although I'm not always good at doing that), having conversations about spirituality (without saying I think they are wrong), and if somebody is interested more in Christianity and wants to check out Church, so be it. But again, I'm not a bean counter for how many converts a church gets. We do ourselves no favours by doing aggressive evangelism. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? This goes back to Queequeg. Ishmael did for Queequeg what he would have Queequeg do for him, and that, I think, speaks more than evangelistic events.

Moving on. I have another quote for you from the Brian Mclaren's book, Finding our Way Again. The discussion is regarding why Buddhism seems to be so popular. Dr. Senge, when talking to a book store owner, asked what the most popular books were. The second most popular books which were bought were about spirituality, and in particular Buddhism. The question is then posed to Dr. Senge by Brian Mclaren, "why are books on Buddhism so popular and not books on Christianity?" The answer that was given was this. "I think it's because Buddhism presents itself as a way of life, and Christianity presents itself as a sytem of belief. So I would want to get Christian ministers thinking about how to rediscover their own faith as a way of life, because that's what people are searching for today. That's what they need most."

It was this quote that kind of inspired me to ask the question I did. I think that it is very true that the general image that Christianity gives off is that we are a system of belief. We tell you what and how to believe regarding God and that's pretty much the jist of it. Of course Christians will argue that we are much more than a system of beliefs, but that does not negate that the world views us otherwise. How can Christianity become a way of life and not a system of beliefs? Brian Mclaren goes on in his book to discuss the Ancient Practices of the Christian faith as a way of life which I do find to be very useful. I don't really have a good answer to this question and would be interested in hearing everybody else's thoughts on this as well.

Unfortunately, I have found myself in the 'system of belief' camp for most of my life and am just trying to work through this question for myself. I think as well, that if most of us are honest with ourselves, what we believe is more important than how we live out our Christian lives. Just look at how fast our conversations on this blog turn to technical theological issues which don't really influence how we live our lives. I am definitely guilty of this myself. I am by nature a thinker, and thus I become very analytical trying to work out my 'system of belief'' to the detriment of working on my way of life. I of course have my soap boxes (social action and acceptance being the main ones) but as far as spiritual practices go, I am very much lacking. Sorry, this post got kind of long. I thought it would be quick.

Exhortations for Postmoderns

Trevor asks, “What does a post-modern Christian look like?” As has probably already become clear from some of my other comments, I’m rather cynical about the term “post-modern.” To be candid, I think that that what is often called post-modernity is nothing really new at all. Sure, there are so-called post-modern philosophers (Derrida, Foucault, etc), and these guys are worth a read, but they really amount to a radical skepticism of the presuppositions of various caricatures of the Enlightenment. My (admittedly superficial) read of these guys leaves me with the impression that, at the end of it all, we are nothing more than prisoners of our own skulls and appetites. These are hardly new ideas and hardly ones that a Christian can affirm. Socially, however, what passes for post-modernity is really not much more than a re-vitalization of certain treads of that were already expressed in the Enlightenment (ie., Romanticism).

Apart from the mini-rant, I do have something constructive to say. This is going to sound pompous and self-righteous. I only intend it playfully; please read it that way.

I offer “10 exhortations to so-called Post-modern Christians.” You will see that they are not quite original and have been cribbed from another book:

1. Have no other Gods before YHWH. Remember, you’re identity is in your baptism and not in your location in any cultural movement. In fact, you may find that your cultural situation runs both with and against the grain of your Lord’s command (most likely the latter). Ultimately, appellations before the word “Christian” are not important. Take your guidance from that word alone.

2. Do not make for yourself an idol. There is no such thing as a “post-modern God,” nor is there a “modern God.” Stop trying to create the one and melt down the other. God is God. Postmodernism and modernism, and any other ism, is not a box that God has to fit into.

3. Do not take the Lord’s name in vain. The Modernist application of God’s name to absolutist politics, the progress of science and history, and uniformity are no worse than the application of the same name to diversity, relativity, and textual indeterminism.

4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. Rest and go to church. Cynicism is hard on the soul. Take a break and give one to others. Worship, hear the Word, and participate in the sacraments.

5. Honour your father and mother. Your spiritual fathers and mothers invested a lot in you. Yeah, they did some stuff you didn’t like all that much. Yet you actually owe them something. Don’t jump ship and don’t go around bad-mouthing your elders as “fundies.” Even the real fundies had some legitimate concerns. Honour them.

6. You shall not murder. Your interest in tradition is a good idea. Tradition, however, also went on in the generation just before you and continues to go on in the one you find yourself. Don’t kill them off. Perhaps those contemporary streams that you find so un-appealing are there for a reason, or at least hold some meaning for others. Be gentle and patient.

7. You shall not commit adultery. In your supposed freedom from the sexual moorings of your heritage, don’t forget that the body is the Lord’s. You can make a big mess of it. Perhaps, just perhaps, some of those moorings we are so quick to throw off rightly “got” the sacredness of what goes on in the bedroom of a married couple in a way we forget.

8. You shall not steal. Ancient-future faith stuff is sexy but don’t cherry-pick the Great tradition. The liturgies, rituals, and theologies of the Church are complex and integrated things. It does not show respect to them when they are cut-and-pasted at your whim. Taking a ritual from a medieval Celtic liturgy, dropping it into the middle of a worship service with a rock-band and following it up with some lectio divina is just downright superficial.

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. When you go about critiquing your evangelical forefathers, take the time to hear them carefully. It is a lie that so-called modernist evangelicals (or “fundies”) didn’t care about love of neighbour or community or thought that the Bible was only a book of propositional truths. Sometimes they acted like they did… but take the time to actually hear what was going on a generation or two ago.

10. You shall not covet. Ask yourself, “Is my infatuation with “post-modernity” a way for me to gain prominence through caricatures of the evil modernists and shock-value of debunking recent tradition? Am I trying to get the mantle of leadership from my elders before my time?”

Sorry, this is my feeble attempt to keep it light 

An Excercise in Redundancy...

Tara's and Jon's posts on Trev's question are both better than this is going to be, thus the title.

Jon and Chris might be right that I'm oversimplifying when I say postmodernism and Christianity are like oil and water. If Tara wants to call herself a postmodern Christian then that's really fine with me. The reason that I get hesitant about using the word is because I don't think that the Church should be postmodern. I don't think it should be modern either. It's probably some of both and I should just get over it. But for the record I think the Church should be the Church.

What does a postmodern Christian (okay, I'm caving, fine) look like? Well all I can really do is what Jon and Tara did and tell you about why I'm still a Christian.

I believe in God. The word believe is the key there. I honestly and truly don't know that there is a god in the universe, and I honestly and truly don't know what he/she/it is like. I believe in God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I mean this as an attempt at humility (you all know how good I am at that). I'm happy to dialogue with anyone about anything related to faith. If you're an athiest, if you're a Muslim, if you're Hindu, I may disagree with you about God and how the universe works, but I don't think you're stupid or ridiculous or evil or any of that. I do think you're wrong, but since you think I'm wrong too let's not get too pissed off about that okay?

I believe very deeply in the importance of Christian community. As a great man once said, if nobody's going with you, you're probably going the wrong way. I don't believe that Christianity can be just a personal religion that you live out in your heart or even in your actions. We all need specific, and preferably local, communities in which to believe. Why is a community so important? Because I need to be told when I'm acting or thinking in a silly way or a way that's inconsistent with who Christ is. I do it all the time. Like Tara I'm a disaster a lot of the time. I do and say stupid, immoral, unkind, unChristian things all the time. If I was all on my own how would I know that's what was happening? Also, and this is at the heart of how the Bible works for me, how do I know that the way that I understand Christianity is the right way? I need other people who call themselves Christians to tell me how they understand Christianity and Christ. I need Colleen and Lola and Dustin and Chris and everyone else here, and my wife and my family, and all the people in my church (if we ever find one in Hamilton, sheesh), and all of my friends at school, and all of the dead people who wrote the books I read. I need, to put it more briefly, a "great cloud of witnesses." How the hell else am I going to keep running?

One of the important things that I think underlies Trev's question (tell me if I'm wrong here) is another question, How is postmodern Christianity different from modern Christianity? Well there are some differences of emphasis I think.

First, I'm not all that concerned in creating a subculture that looks totally different from the rest of the world. I drink wine and beer and scotch (and really anything except Gin...ick! who can stand that crap?!), I watch R rated movies, I watch television, I read non-Christian books, I do all sorts of things that would have had my youthgroup laying hands on me in the 90s. Is this all just me selling out and conforming to the culture around me? I hope not. When I drink a glass of wine I honestly believe that my enjoyment of it, my love of the flavour and the company sharing the bottle with me, honours God. When I watch Pan's Labyrinth yes I see terrible violence, but I also try to reflect on the story and what it means in relation to my understanding of God. When I read Eco's Name of the Rose I'm reading a book by a man who doesn't believe in my faith, but his insights about Medieval Christianity, and about exclusion, and about the nature of evil are all powerful and meaningful and important critiques that I need to hear. I absolutely refuse to shut myself away from the culture in which I live. In fact I go so far as to completely remove myself from Christian sub-culture. This is maybe a little reactionary, and probably as much about snobery as anything, but it's also at least partly about being in the world consciously and intentionally.

Having said all of this, there are things that I think are uniquely Christian. I read my Bible. I read books that are specifically about Christian theology. I started this blog, and I maintain (rather haphazardly) my own blog in order to encourage discussion about Christianity and what it means to be Christian. I've been baptized and I've baptized other people. I take communion and I've served it. I pray, though like Jon I'm not always sure how and I've tried lots of ways. I try to find ways to worship Jesus Christ. These are some of the things that make me and other Christians "not of" the world. The framework of all of these things might be cultural. I speak English, I baptize in a very Western way, I take communion in a very Western way, I generally worship using tools like modern music or even reflective techniques. The content, however, is unique. I proclaim, and read about, and think about, and pray to, and worship, and submit myself to Father, Son and Spirit.

Also, to reiterate something Jon said, there are all sorts of things that are integral to the working out of my faith that look like capitulation to culture but are really Christian things. I try very hard to be environmentally conscious and careful. I think I'm a steward of the world by the grace of God, and I'd like to try to do a good job. I try very hard to be just in my politics and my economics. Like Jon said, this is Isaiah and Micah and the Sermon on the Mount more than anything else.

A lot of what this question is about is boundary markers. Who's in and who's out. This has always been the most difficult question about Christianity for me. I'm sure there are boundary markers. I'm sure there is a point when a person just isn't a Christian anymore. The difference between me now and me 10 years ago is that I'm less willing now to try to define those markers. I believe very deeply in God's statement "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and compassion on whom I will have compassion." But there still have to be boundary markers of some kind. Dustin and I were talking about this over coffee yesterday. If a church flattens itself out so much that you can't tell why it's different from the rest of the world anymore, then what the hell is the point of that church?

Can anyone help me with this?

Tara's ramblings

I am going to try and tackle both the Scripture question and the post modern question in one post. My answers will be entirely non-academic in nature. I think the guys have that end covered.

First:
"What is the Bible? How does it work? In what way is it meaningful (or is it meaningful)? In what way(s) is it true (or not true)?"

I was raised to believe that the Bible was just one of MANY spiritual texts that one can use to learn about God. Although I agree that there are good points in many of the world's religious texts I really do believe the Bible is unique. I have read parts of the Hindu writings, excerpts from Buddhism, and almost the entire Quran. It is my personal opinion that the Bible is the only truly unselfish text. The Biblical writers were trying to point us to God, not to themselves.

I believe that the Bible, in it's original text (language), is the absolute word of God. I think that we have likely lost some aspects through the translation process. I think that God knew most of us would need a hard copy of His teachings since we are such bone heads. The Bible is another proof of God's graciousness to us. He is reaching out to us in a tangible and incredibly obvious way.

The whole point of the Bible is that it is a TOOL God uses to help us get to know HIM better, to help us build greater relationship with Him and with those around us. It is NOT a purely academic text. When you take the intrinsic spirituality of the Scripture out of it you are simply left with another religious text. I really believe that Scripture is from God.

Obviously I think Scripture is meaningful and true. As a person who has often struggled to "get anything" out of daily Scripture reading, to truly feel connected to God, I know it is my own darn fault. The problem is not with God's words to me... the problem lies with me. MY selfishness and self centerdness and "issues" distract me from truly hearing God's voice in His words. The fact that I EVER get anything out of reading the Bible is truly a testament to God's goodness and His willingness to meet us where we are at... selfish morons that we are.

so.. now for question number 2

What does the 'post-modern christian' look like in action?

Well... I'm a post modern Christian. I look like a frazzled mom who is trying her best to teach her kids about God without sounding like a cheesy religious commercial. I look like an imperfectly odd pastor's wife trying to understand what the point of the religious sub-culture is. I have SOOO many questions about why we do church the way we do it ( churches in general as well as our church specifically). It is so clear to me that people crave relationship and yet so many of our religious practices prevent true relationship.

Why do we try so hard to sound perfect? Why do we act smarter than others? Why do we act as though we have the corner on truth? Why are emotions dismissed as the trappings of our flesh while logical intellectual thinking is upheld as the way to find God? And really, if we are all so darn post-modern in our thinking why the heck don't I fit in better?

I feel like half the time we are simply chasing after whatever the "new" thing is. Right now it is cool to be "different"... cool to "rebel" against the traditional church. And while I completely agree that church needs a full overhaul I do NOT agree with my generations penchant for simply ditching when things don't go their way. If you are not a part of a local body of believers in a regular and meaningful way than you simply do not have the right to complain about it. HOW you participate is up to you but don't bash other's honest attempts to serve God.

I know there is plenty to complain about but being a judgemental ass goes both ways. Christians are accused of judging those outside of the church but I PROMISE you as one who grew up on the other side that the judgement goes both ways.

We are human. We pretty much suck. But God loves us anyway inspite of our failure to really figure things out. I am an introvert at heart. I worship best when I am alone. The corporate worship experience is challenging for me... at best. But I believe that God created us for community. I know that our individualistic Western culture does not help with that. But still I try. Not because it is a "rule" but because I know that God has called me NOT to be a complete hermit.

I think that post-moderns are more concerned with social justice issues and environmental issues than the generations before us. I think we are striving for authenticity. I think we are slowly changing church. I think our natural disposition toward relativism causes a lot of us a good amount of confusion.

And I think that is enough ramblings from me.

Postmodernism?

I realize that the push is for practical answers to Trevor's question, but first let me talk about postmodernism for a second.

I don't think I see postmodernism in the same way as Colin. I guess there is that aspect which includes the rejection of one over-arching belief that governs all cultures, all people, but I'm not sure that's even the case anymore. I think postmodernism has lost that overt feature and turned to a sort of pluralistic humanism. But that's a term we don't need to get into.

I think there are some great things about our times we would do well to integrate without selling the farm for:

Ecological concern: Genesis had the inconvenient truth way before Gore.

Social concern: Isaiah had it a long time ago, and more extreme than many have dared.

Community and dialogue: Better and more appropriate ends than personal piety and isolated and presumptuous certainty.

Future-orientation: We are working toward something, longing for something.

Suspicion of power and the always potentially manipulative nature of language: Let's not play those games.

Even the loss of "metanarrative": While I agree with Colin that it would be un-Christian to let go of the idea of an over-arching "story", there is still something refreshing about the postmodern realization that this story does not begin and end with the "development" of the Western world. There are many facets to this over-arching Christian story. The Triune God likes diversity in unity.

In the end, what do I think the postmodern Christian looks like in action? In the areas Trevor referred to, if we could be more like the ancient one would be fine by me.

Devotions? Back in the day they didn't have their own Bibles. They read the Bible together. We have our own Bibles now, great, but we should still read them together. Bring your insights from personal "devotions" and prayer, but bring them together. Talk about them on the streets, in the church. For God's sake let's talk about the Bible again in the church.

Prayer? That's a tough one. I'm still working on prayer. I like the Lord's Prayer and I value thanks and confession. That's about all I got.

Missions? I think evangelicals are pretty good at this. I don't like that altar call based mission, which is all about the hit and run for the quick conversion prayer, but plenty of evangelicals past and present have transcended that and I think this is a strength that bears continuing. Plenty of organizations combine social gospel with spoken gospel and that's great.

Living around 'non Christians'? I'm all for it. Enough hiding and sheltering. Get in there. Don't even be too sure you've got your label right either. Talk with people about life. What matters. Expect to hear from the Spirit at work around you. Love. Live. Don't pretend to be something you are not. Lament with people. Discuss the hope you hold. Apologize when you suck. Forgive. Seek to be an ambassador of reconciliation, not your own righteousness. Period.

The Post-Modern Christian in Action

I'm not sure whether or not I have the authority to start a new question, but here I am doing it anyway. If he doesn't like it, Toffelguy can just delete it. My question is this: What does the 'post-modern christian' look like in action? As a fundementalist Evangelical, my main thoughts were generally always focused on evangelism and missions, missions, and more missions. The general feeling I get from fundamentalist evangelicals (even today when I went to church) is that evangelism and missions is pretty much the main focus of our action in the world. Would this be any different for the post-modern Christian? Also, what does the post-modern christian look like as far as spiritual practices go? Do we still do devotions, how do we pray, how do we relate to 'non-christians', how do we teach our children about God, in what ways do we worship? This is a somewhat less technical question, but one that is very important as we hit the ground.

Trevor's Garbled Point of View

I have already fielded this question somewhat on my blog with the post called Divine Inspiration which you can all read if you like. Since most of my thoughts are already there, I will be brief here and add only a couple of things.

In a nutshell, I believe that the Bible is God revealing himself to us through the writings of the authors. I also believe that since the Bible was written by humans, it is inevitably fallible and susceptible to each particular author's point of view and bias. I believe that one must be careful to interpret the text within the cultural context that it was written in, including the religio-cultural context. I believe that God did reveal himself to the people of the time of the writing of each particular book of the Bible and that he may have even used the particular religious ritual preferences of the culture to reveal himself. Thus, I don't think that all of the rites and rituals laid out in the Bible (including NT stuff) are prescriptive for how we should practice Christianity today.

Not to say that we can't use those things, but I would not say they are truly necessary. For example, I see the rite of baptism being analagous to the near death experience initiation rite of the mystery cults of the time. However, I believe God used this common ritual that was well understood by the masses to speak to and relate to humanity. Another example would be the sacrificial system of the Israelites. This again seems to be God using a common ritual that was already in place to speak to his people.

As for what I do think the Bible is useful for, please see the aforementioned post on Divine Inspiration. Although, perhaps my view has changed since then, as it seems to morph daily.

As an aside, I am currently reading (or rather very quickly perusing) a book by Roger Oakland called 'Faith Undone'. This book is basically his attempt at convincing Christians that the emerging church movement is an "end-times deception." One point of his that fits in with this discussion was regarding yoga. He said Christians should not practice yoga at all, as it has its roots in Hindu religion. He views the idea of using yoga for Christian purposes (ie: thinking about the Holy Spirit entering you while you breathe in, and exhaling all those things which are impure) as having no part in Christianity. To this I would respond that the history of Christianity, even in the Bible, is fraught with borrowed religious practices. If a certain thing, such as yoga, brings a Christian closer to God, I see no problem with it. This is only one example, but throughout Oakland's book he uses scripture again and again to prove points about specific examples in our current culture (like yoga), using verses that really have no bearing on the subject. That's my rant about Roger Oakland.

Having said all that, I do believe that the Bible is important for our faith and can speak to us and help to shape our lives. However, I would not call it ultimate truth by which all things in life can be measured. It is subject to interpretation and I would never presume to be the one with the rights to the mind of God by which my interpretation is the interpretation.

Disclaimer: I am currently battling some sort of illness, thereby I would imagine that some of my thoughts here are not entirely coherent or possibly entirely wacked out...niner... double pumper turbo the other....

Sorry for being so late to this question. I have this bad habit of remembering that I want to do this.

Ahhh, the Bible - beater of people, backer-uper of personal hobby horses, proof-texter and conversation ender.... what an incredible animal you are. Oh right, I forgot to mention the good uses....

Working in a church, or with Christians, or in North America, I'm a bit tired of how others use the Bible. It seems to me that many misunderstand the purpose of the Bible (just call me captain obvious), or at the very least, have gross misunderstandings of how it is to be read and applied. How often do I find myself wailing and gnashing my teeth, blubbering the words "CONTEXT.....Context....context." I'll try and put my jadedness aside for a while - althought this is getting harder with time.

I find myself less concerned with the question "Is it true", although I only mean this in certain regards. Hmmmm....to expand - does it matter if Genesis 1-3 was a poem or fact? Or if 2 different historical accounts of how many people fought are congruent (I just used congruent so I could sound smart - I've got to find a way to keep up with all these PhD's)? I find myself agreeing with Dustin and Jon in many ways. Does the human element of the Bible detract from its inerrancy? What really is inerrancy? I find more in life I'm taking a bigger and bigger picture view. More like life at 30,000ft instead of 10ft (which I'm already pretty close to at 6'2"). I find the Bible to be a lifechanging book. It challenges me to the core, or rather often I ignore what could be a challenge to the core. I guess this is what the "proof" is for me - that the Bible, or God through the Bible, challenges and changes me immensely (when I take the time to allow it to). At the end of the day, I find living closely to what the Bible teaches to make me better in every regard. More caring, loving, better husband, more generous, more faithful, better father.

That is all I have in my brain today....

Scott

Further Thoughts on Scripture

Commenting on Scripture is tough. It is tough because we are so used to treating a doctrine of Scripture and a hermeneutical theory as a foundation upon which we might construct our belief and theology. I think that the last two hundred years of biblical criticism have shown that to be a dead end. And so, the first thing that I want to say about Scripture is that my convictions about the Bible are derived from much broader convictions about God, his self-revelation, his Spirit and his people. These broader convictions, within which I come to an understanding of the Bible, owe themselves to the fundamental witness made by the Bible itself to its subject matter, God in his self-revelation. Thus, I view the Bible primarily theologically, as Holy Scripture, rather than philosophically/hermeneutically as a “text” (though it is that), or historically as a “source” (though it is that too).

At the risk of appearing overly simplistic, I continue to believe that the Bible is best understood as “God’s written Word.” To this short definition all sorts of nuances and clarifications can and should be offered. Regardless, I think that the description of the Bible as “God’s Word” is absolutely essential. It means that God addresses himself to us in Scripture in a way not done through other means. In Scripture we hear something more than an echo of ancient culture, outdated ideas, or even our own voices (though we may hear these things too). Rather, in Scripture, the Church hears, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, God’s Word. Apart from this conviction, the Church, and indeed each individual, is thrown back upon themselves and their own meager spiritual resources in the knowledge of God and his grace. This I cannot accept. To do so would compromise God as “wholly other,” the conviction that humanity is finite and sinful, and, ultimately, the mediation of Christ.

I also want to echo something that Jon mentioned, though I think I may be a little more sympathetic to the term sola scriptura than he. When I read the great defenders of sola scriptura (Luther, Calvin, and even Zwingli), I find myself agreeing with them that Scripture is indeed the sole authority in the Church. But it is specifically the Church’s Scripture. That means that the Bible is still the final measure (canon) by which all belief and practice must be measured, but it is so for a particular people: the Church. I quite like Jon’s note about how Scripture came to us through the Church (canonization) and is transmitted to us by the Church (tradition), rather than in a vacuum. These are important qualifications. Yet even granting these qualifications, it is God speaking his Word through Scripture by his Spirit that functions as the definitive communication of God to the Church.

This is where I find myself disagreeing with the idea of a “norming norm.” God speaking through Scripture is not, in my mind, one authority among others. It is in fact the sole authority around which the Church gathers to hear God’s Word. The Church is important, not as a second “lesser” source of authority alongside of Scripture but in its entirely different role as “hearer of the Word.” In the Church we hear with the hearers who have gone before and accompany us. In this good company I have help, though not a guarantee, that my own voice does not become substituted for the voice of God. In practice, this means that I read Scripture with a “bias” to the creeds and confessions of the Church. Before I dare venture my own “improved” reading of Scripture, I want to be sure that I have exhausted the potential of readings that have been found compelling by my fellow hearers. Perhaps that makes me rather conservative. I'm okay with that. But I’m not shutting the door to new light coming from God through the Scripture. I just want to do my best to admit that others before and around me have seen that Light too.

Preliminary Thoughts on the Bible

I do believe in one sense in sola scriptura and I do believe in the authority of the Bible. But I don't think it is so simple as that. I think sola scriptura was a useful thing in its time (fighting the abuses of church authority and the oppressive measures of holding church rites over people's heads in a manipulative way because they felt they needed those things for salvation). But I'm not sure how useful or helpful it is now.

There is no such thing as sola scriptura, really. It didn't show up from outer space or appear in a vacuum sealed tube. It came in the Church and is passed on in the Church and is heard and listened to in the context of an interpretive community and always with the aid of reason and experience.

Which leaves us asking about authority. But the Scripture itself points to Jesus as the authority, so that's sort of a no-brainer isn't it? Except He isn't really here in the same way the Bible is. I do believe that the Bible is our "norming norm" (Grenz) of all those other potential authorities mentioned above. They work together within Christ's authority as a witness to him. Clearly Scripture is the best and most reliable one we have.

As for infallibility, I have a hard time understanding how words themselves can be infallible. I do think the Bible a reliable and true witness and that it is sufficient. All that doesn't diminish but exclaims how amazing it is. It is this living and active presence of God to us, it is a gracious miracle of God's communication to us, and is as sacred a thing we have.

Even though we do not have the originals, it has been a point well made that we probably have something better: enough ancient documentation to piece together a 99.8% degree of accuracy of what the originals said without giving us the chance to be idolaters of some 2000 year old parchment (we have enough bibliolatry today as it is). I think the very transmission of the text into our hands is something of a miracle befitting the way God wanted us to get it (through Church participation and through sincere effort and collaboration). We can't read the Scriptures without entering in some way (even unconsciously) the dialogue of thousands of years. That's awesome.

I do feel that I encounter God when I read the Bible. I look to it as the standard bearer for truth, and consider it the book of books. It is a gift from God. I do not want to say it is fully human and fully divine (because it is neither a human nor a god) but as a descriptor I think it has those connotations. It is the Word of God in human words; the best ones possible. As words, they require Spirit, church, reason, and experience to understand and live.

This is our best and most reliable witness to Christ. I think translators (into other languages) are doing some of the most important work around.

Question #2...

My apologies for being scarce the past week or so.  I have been alternately deathly ill or crashing deadlines (or both).  My brief intro is below, feel free to peruse it at your leisure.  The real business of the day is, however, Question #2.  I've hummed and hahed about this a fair bit, unsure of which can of worms to open first.  All in all this is the one that I think touches on the widest variety of problematic issues.  So here we go:

What is the Bible?  How does it work?  In what way is it meaningful (or is it meaningful)?  In what way(s) is it true (or not true)?

into something rich and strange...

Like Jon and Trev I'm a lifetime evangelical Christian.  Trev and I actually grew up in the same church so if you're looking for a sense of my early years, feel free to read his opening paragraph or two and just extrapolate.

For most of my life I had it in my head to be a pastor in a church.  I never really had any other goals.  So I went to Bible College when I was 18.  I simply assumed that Bible College would be a breeze and that I'd know everything that needed knowing.  Anyone who knew me then will be able to tell you that I was an arrogant tool an awful lot of the time (and anyone who knows me now will probably say little has changed ;) ).  In any case, I did not expect to be challenged in real and meaningful ways.

I expect that most non-Christians or Christians from more liberal traditions would be surprised to know that the professors that work at an awful lot of conservative Bible Colleges in North America are very talented, well educated, and insightful people.  That was (and is) certainly the case at Canadian Bible College (now Ambrose University College).  I discovered at college that a lot of my firmly held beliefs about the world were not so monolithic as I had imagined.  It's hard to say for sure, but I think that had I gone to a secular university I would have become very defensive about many of my fundamentalist beliefs and would not have been challenged all that much.  At Bible College, however, my defenses were down.  My professors and friends were all Christians and so I expected them to agree with me about everything.  When they didn't I found the experience very, very unsettling.  There are simply too many stories from that first year or two to tell here, but I will tell the one that I think changed me in the most profound way.

I can never quite remember if it was my first or second year, but I think it was year one.  For some reason the issue of the role of women in the church was a really big deal to me then.  I was, at the time, strongly convinced that women should not teach, or have any authority at all in the church, and that women should be subservient to their husbands in the home.  I felt this very strongly.  It seemed to me that any other position represented a departure from the Bible as inspired truth, and that was unacceptable.

One morning at breakfast in the cafeteria I was sitting with a group of friends from my home church.  We were talking about our friends back home and the Bible study group they were forming now that they were finished with high-school youth-group.  My friend K (for so I shall call her for this post) was so proud of her friends, two young women, who were leading the group.  Naturally, as a budding hierarchicalist I found this idea appalling.  Those two women shouldn't have be leading the group, one of the men should have been.  So that's what I said.  I was completely astonished at the vehemence of K's response.  She was terribly angry and upset with me and we had a fairly unpleasant argument there in the cafeteria before she left, clearly exasperated with me and tired of my presence.  A few hours later she called me and we sat down to talk about the whole issue again.  This time she put up with me for longer, giving me the opportunity to say some truly hurtful things, and even to make her cry (which made me cry I think too).  It was fantastic.  That was the first time that I realized that I was kind of a bastard,* and that there was very little love or grace involved in my conception of God or of Christ, and thus of Christianity in general.  I thought in terms of logic and rules, and so that is how I conceived of God.  That conversation with K, though the consequences were long in coming, fundamentally altered the way that I thought.

I realized that I didn't want to be mean spirited, and I also realized that there were other honest, well-meaning, intelligent Christians in the world who disagreed with me.  I couldn't paint them all as stupid or ignorant and so I couldn't simply ignore them.  It was the first time that I truly realized that love must be the first rule of all conversations, even debates or disagreements.  That love, that deep respect for the other as a person, is central to the Gospel of Christ as I have slowly been realizing.  For me, at that time in my life, this was a sea change.  It was the first time in my life that I thought it might be better to be kind than to be right.

*Please don't take this to mean that I believe anyone who is not an egalitarian is a bastard.  This is a personal account and, while others may express views with which I disagree in an honest and loving way, I know my own heart from that time and the statement is, I assure you, true.