ben's blog

The Gospel is the Antidote to Everything

This is so good - from pastor/blogger Jared Wilson...

Once there were two brothers. You know their story, more than likely. One was wasteful, exploitative, wanton, licentious. One was rigid, moralistic, uptight, legalistic. Two brothers with two personalities and two sets of attendant sins. But their father loved them both and all that he had belonged to both of them equally.

This is how staggeringly awesome the gospel of Jesus is.

Two sisters. One is a busybody, the other kinda poky. One rarely Sabbaths; the other makes every day a Sabbath. The prescription for both is focus on Jesus.

Two Americans. One is a practicing homosexual and proud of it. The other is a practicing Baptist and proud of it. One trusts his feelings, the other trusts his actions. Both are in desperate need of Jesus for pretty much the same reason.

This is how wonderful the gospel of Jesus. It's the skeleton key for all of humanity.

Medicine doesn't work this way. You don't treat spina bifida with drugs for leukemia. (At least, I don't think you do.) You don't give a decongestant to a kid with athlete's foot. For every condition, there is a specific treatment. Different symptoms, different fixes.

But the gospel isn't like that. It fixes everything.

We all exhibit a multitude of symptoms for our conditions, running the gamut from self-indulgent immorality to self-satisfying morality. Opposite ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between. Whatever your symptoms, the gospel is the answer.

There is no problem, pain, or perniciousness outside the universe-spanning scope of the gospel.
The gospel carries with it resurrection power.

So Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, rich or poor, smart or dumb, well or sick, bad or good . . . the gospel is the power to save for all who believe.

The gospel is the antidote to everything.

(ht: bob hyatt)

Justification and the New Perspective

For the theology nerds out there, Scot McKnighr is reviewing N.T. Wright's book Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision.

In today's post, this caught my eye: Wright argues that the New Perspective on justification "makes the Holy Spirit important -- more important than in the old perspective."

Which is an interesting theological result for charismatics and "third wave evangelicals" who care about the Person and work of the Holy Spirit in the church today.

What is the gospel?

I've been asked to be part of an ongoing blog series called The Good News For Your City during the Easter season (yes, it's a whole season lasting until Pentecost!) on JR Woodward's blog. The full list of contributors is varied by location, ethnicity, culture, and gender. Should be a lot of fun!

My basic assignment is to imagine that if the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette asked me to write 300 to 500 words describing the good news of the gospel, what would I write?

My post isn't due until May 1 (which I will post here as well), but while I ponder the question, I wondered if anyone else had any input? What is your understanding of the good news of Jesus Christ?

(Illustration by Nidhi Balwada from India)

How to think about the "end times"

If you want to think clearly about eschatology (what's going to happen at "the end"), the first step is to stop reading the Left Behind books. Seriously. Put them down. Don't look at them anymore.

The second step is to realize that the only descriptions we have of "the end" are metaphors, "sign posts pointing into a fog" as N.T. Wright says in the video below.

The third step is to pray for and await what God is going to do with joyful anticipation, because it will be, simultaneously, surprising and coherent. We will think "Wow" and "Duh" at the same time. There will be surprise-ness and of course-ness. See the 3-minute video below to hear Wright talk about it (eloquently, as usual).

(ht)

Toward a blurred mine/yours line

"When we consume the Eucharist, we become one with others and share their fate."
- William Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 95.

 It is tempting in our culture to see most of what happens in churches as "spiritual commodities" that are served to individuals seeking some kind of spiritual need met. They need to be a better parent, so they go to a church that's doing a series on parenting. They need some spice in their love life, so they go to one of the churches that's doing a series on sex for married couples. Even the Eucharist can be thought of as a kind of spiritual resource we offer for the benefit of individuals.

But the truth is actually much more liberating and disturbing, in that what seems to be happening is the the line between what's mine and what's yours is blurred, and possibly even destroyed, when I consume the Eucharist with you. As we eat the bread and drink the wine we are not only fed, but "taken up into Christ," and we become food for others. We are the body of Christ at the table, different parts, but one body.

When you eat lunch, the food you consume benefits your whole body. You do not take individual bites for different body parts ("Half a sandwich for the right leg, bite of tuna salad for the brain..."), but the whole meal benefits the whole body - there are no lines between what belongs to the eye and what belongs to the ear.

Likewise when we worship together and consume the Eucharist together, there are no lines between what belongs to me and what belongs to you. This seems to me to have radical implications for how we think about and use our money and possessions, don't you think?

"If we are identified with Christ, who identifies himself with the suffering of all, then what is called for is more than just charity. The very distinction between what is mine and what is yours breaks down in the body of Christ. We are not to consider ourselves as absolute owners of our stuff, who then occasionally graciously bestow charity on the less fortunate. In the body of Christ, your pain is my pain, and my stuff is available to be communicated to you in your need."

- William Cavanaugh, Being Consumed, 56.

Does God need the church?

In all the deconstructing and rethinking of church practices that seems to be going on today (a good thing in and of itself), it seems that sometimes we get to the point of thinking about whether God really needs the church to fulfill his purposes for this planet. To put it slightly more theologically: How does the church as the people of God fit into a missional theology?

Gerhard Lohfink wrote a book awhile ago called Does God Need the Church? Here's a quote that answers very much in the affirmative, that the church is central to the mission of God:

"It can only be that God begins in a small way, at one single place in the world. There must be a place, visible, tangible, where the salvation of the world can begin: that is, where the world becomes what it is supposed to be according to God’s plan. Beginning at that place, the new thing can spread abroad, but not through persuasion, not through indoctrination, not through violence. Everyone must have the opportunity to come and see. All must have the chance to behold and test this new thing. Then, if they want to, they can allow themselves to be drawn into the history of salvation that God is creating. Only in that way can their freedom be preserved. What drives them to the new thing cannot be force, not even moral pressure, but only the fascination of a world that is changed" (p.27 - emphasis mine).

I saw this quote on Dave Fitch's response to Frank Viola over the missiology/ecclesiology issue, and I was prompted to remember a blog post from over two years ago, where I discussed the questions Simon Chan asked in the first chapter of his Liturgical Theology:

In the first chapter of Simon Chan's Liturgical Theology, he asks the question of whether the church is to be primarily understood as the instrument through which God will accomplish his purpose in creation, or rather the expression of that purpose itself. Is the church here to work for the fulfillment of God's purpose in creation, or is the church itself the fulfillment of God's purpose in creation? If the church in the instrument of God's purpose, then we understand it primarily in functional terms; what it does. But if we understand the church as itself the expression of God's purpose, we look at the church in ontological terms; what it is...

But what if the church is both the expression of AND the instrument of God's purpose in creation?

Which seems to be what Dave Fitch is saying when he argues that ecclesiology IS missiology and vice versa.

In the end, I think that any paradigm that seeks to place missiology "ahead of" or "prior to" ecclesiology (ala Hirsch) is problematic, because the church always ends up being provisional and/or optional.

To put it bluntly: Yes, God needs the church.

What do you think about The Shack?

I've had a number of people ask me what I think about William Young's book The Shack. I've had to tell them I don't know because I've never read it. I do not plan to in the near future either, so I offer instead Michael Spencer's one-paragraph review of Roger Olson's Finding God in the Shack, which analyzes The Shack (how's that for a few steps removed from actually reading the book?):

Finding God in the Shack by Roger Olson (IVP). Olson is one of the most vigorous theological authors willing to take on the reformed intelligensia, as can be seen in his books Arminian Theology and Reformed and Always Reforming. In this book, Olson takes a measured, but overall positive view of William Young’s theological novel. Olson’s book is already garnering negative reviews from those who are convinced The Shack is a theological threat to Christians who aren’t paying sufficient attention to the Bible’s prohibitions on creative writing. (I assume C.S. Lewis’s Great Divorce is in for a beat down in the near future.) Where does Olson come out? A balanced, moderate, intelligent, appreciative and overall positive view. Don’t start a ministry on it. Don’t confuse imagery with heresy. Appreciate the personal core of the story that is touching so many. (Olson collates Young’s story of Mack with his own struggles with a pastor father.) Use it as a discussion starter. Be fair and realistic about the overall effect of the book. A fine response to the three-alarm fires that have dominated the internet.

N.T. Wright on hell

Listen to N.T. Wright talk about hell:



I think Wright is right on hell. It's less cartoonish and more horrifying than the popular depictions. In some ways he is following C.S. Lewis, who depicted hell as the final state of humans who reject bearing God's image in their humanity. It's not that God "sends" people to hell in some kind of vindictive pout-fest, but simply allows humans to reject Him and His image in them.

So it's ultimately like God says to those who want nothing to do with him, "Thy will be done" and what happens when people are separated from the life and love of Christ could be called "hell."

(ht)

What I'm studying now

I sent off my aforementioned essay late on October 31st, while Andy was teaching part of the third Presence module. It was good to have it completed. Let me know if you'd like a copy (if you're interested in 5,000-word essays exploring the importance of interpreting Scripture with the ancient church, that is).

So today I embarked on to the second module (of three) of the Master's program, which is called the Theology of the Poor. It explores issues in biblical interpretation that relate to how the gospel relates to "the poor" today. It promises to be an interesting ride! This morning I looked at the way different groups have interpreted Jesus' use of the "kingdom of God" motif, and analyzed the validity of it. It was an interesting exercise, especially in light of my charismatic heritage, the Vineyard roots of my church, and my recent interest in the societal, transformational, and liturgical implications of the gospel. It might prove to be the topic of the next essay (due February 2009).

Despite the hard work involved, I find that I really enjoy theology (probably no surprise to some of you!). But I find I don't enjoy it in some kind of esoteric way, like I just like living in the realm of ideas. What I really love to do is take these important theological ideas and translate them into implications for daily life. I am discovering that I don't study theology because I'm fascinated with the ideas, but because I am passionate about the church living into its true calling to be the people of God in the world. So viva la theology and viva la church! And Happy Monday.

AEF Conference re-cap

There were some stimulating talks at this year's Ancient Evangelical Future conference, but this morning's session made the whole thing very worthwhile. Rick Richardson's presentantion and the panel discussion afterward were worth the price of admission.

He talked about finding your church's missional DNA, and how to move from being rhetorically missional (just talking about it because it's the latest buzz word and a fashionable "badge" you can wear) to being actually missional. He suggested that just as you discover your spiritual gifts by exercising them, you discover your church's missional DNA by expressing it. In other words, no easy answers: get out there and mix it up and apply creativity and theology as you go. Two other things stood out for me:

1. Analysis of Church Movements
His overview of the church's missional impulse and the strengths and weaknesses of several missional church streams (including Vineyard/Calvary Chapel, seeker movement, emerging church, missional church, multi-site, etc) was outstanding. Let me re-iterate: OUTSTANDING.

2. Cautions For the Missional Church
He affirmed several elements of current theological and missiological thought and practice, but very effectively warned against some of the more radical implications of those impulses. These were the warnings:

• Missional emphasis can become mere activism, forgetting that only God brings the kingdom
• Emphasis on atonement as victory over evil can eclipse atonement as judgment on sin
• Talking about following the "way of Christ" can block out the implications of the indwelt Christ
• Just seeing that "we're growing" doesn't mean you're evangelizing. We need to take "transfer growth" seriously and ask ourselves if we are being truly missional or just good marketers of religious goods and services to thsoe who were "in the market" for them anyway
• Emphasizing evangelism as deed can make us forget evangelism as word. Eventually the gospel has to be talked about - content that must be expressed verbally.

This is some great stuff to chew on. If you have some time, I'd urge you to watch the presentation and panel discussion afterward. I've embedded them below. (By the way, David Fitch gave me a very kind shout-out during the panel discussion - it's about 20 minutes in, if you're interested ;)

PRESENTATION BY RICK RICHARDSON

PANEL DISCUSSION: Richardson, Howard Snyder, David Fitch, Joel Scandrette