living the story

i never really came through on my promise to write about the "[Almost the Whole] Bible in a Day" seminar given by mark strom a couple of months ago, but one of the things it gave me was a renewed appreciation for the unity of the bible (which was basically the aim of the seminar). the bible is not a manual for how to live, but an unfolding story which spans the history of humanity and is centred around jesus the messiah of israel. there is a progression and flow of ideas and events, carried by god's promises (eg. to noah, abraham, david, the israelites at sinai, etc.), moving from creation to fall to redemption as recreation. it is a history that moves from humanity to one nation to one man to humanity, everything leading up to and pointing towards the life, death and resurrection of jesus. this is not Plan B – it was all there from the beginning, god's plan to redeem humanity through his messiah.

one of the revolutionary things for me about this understanding of the scriptures is that it means that we, here and now in the 21st century, are part of the story. one of the major problems with the contemporary church is, i think, that we've lost any real connection with the story of redemption – it all happened so long ago and seems so remote that we don't feel a part of it in any way, though we know we benefit from what jesus did for us. this is exacerbated by the prominence given by evangelicals to the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the scriptures, because it's hard to avoid the implication that everything important happened way back then, and nothing that has occurred or been written since then is as significant, including (and probably especially) our own lives. instead, we generally believe that we're in a 'waiting period' until the real story resumes when jesus returns. similarly, our lives as believers are lived as if between the two important events of our 'conversion' and our 'glorification' when we die and go to heaven, and nothing in between has any real importance (except maybe to tell others that they too can go to heaven when they die).

what happened to life now? what happened to the church as the living, incarnate body of christ in this world?

during the "[Almost the Whole] Bible in a Day" seminar, mark shared something he heard from n. t. wright (i think), an image of a drama with 5 acts, in which the first 3 acts and beginning of the 4th have been written, as well as an outline of the 5th. this is basically what we have as believers, but the point is that god has given us the task of writing the rest of the 4th act. what an idea! i think most christians would balk at such a suggestion. many would consider the thought of us being involved in writing what is in effect a continuation of the scriptures to be tantamount to blasphemy. others would find it very difficult to imagine themselves in such a significant role (as if there is any such thing as an insignificant person!). but I believe that this is exactly the situation that we are in and the task that we have before us, an enormous responsibility but also an incredible privilege. we're not members of a dead or dried-up religion, but active partakers in a living story, the story of god's redemption of humankind: the ending is sure, but we have a major part in determining how (or even if) we move towards that end in our lifetime. forgive my enthusiasm, but is that exciting or what!

i think this also gives a whole different slant on church. instead of being somewhere we go to hear and/or discuss abstract doctrine, it is where we join up all our individual stories to make up the collective story of the kingdom of god, real and living in this time and place. to tell our stories to each other is to continue the narrative of kingdom, grounding our faith in day to day life, weaving together a rich and beautiful tapestry (though we seldom catch a glimpse of its beauty we usually only see the reverse side with its confusion of colours and threads). what a difference that would be from the intellectual, irrelevant, guilt-provoking experience that most people have of church...

truth incarnate

i'm really late to the party here, but i've just read paul fromont's blog on emerging truth and orthodoxy. this is some of what he wrote:

Where is truth located? For me, I’m increasingly relocating “truth” and “orthodoxy” from the solely rational sphere to the embodied and incarnational, e.g. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life – so what does that look like, feel like, taste like, smell like, and sound like in embodied realities such as church, community, and world? Truth is not abstract and solely propositional, truth in embodied in flesh and blood. The truth of what is said is seen and experienced. Don’t talk to me about “love” – show the truth of love by the reality of its being experienced by me in a very multi-sensual way. Truth then is not a matter of opinion, truth is incarnation and embodiment, truth is a particular story lived into and especially lived out of. Tell me your truth and I’ll look, taste, touch, smell, and listen. Does it make a difference?

this makes a whole lot of sense to me, at the same time as scaring me half to death. i like to keep my 'truth' cerebral and propositional, it feels safer and somehow less demanding that way. i fool myself that i can 'figure it all out' before putting it into action, but that's just empty vanity and doesn't help myself or anyone else. knowledge is useless if its not lived. truth is meaningless if its not incarnate, radiating out of one's life like a strong aroma.

i need to be reminded of this often, and i need to do something about it. i'm very aware at the moment that my rubber hasn't been hitting the road, that my life has been pretty much tasteless and lukewarm for a long time. i want to have a positive affect on those around me, but that's not going to happen by just talking the talk.

stay tuned, this journey has only just begun.

conversations

a few weeks ago i was listening to a friend of mine give a sermon. as always, my mind drifted and i started thinking about why it seems so hard for believers to talk about their faith with each other. we sit 'in church', participate more or less (usually a lot less than more), most often sing about god and jesus and salvation, listen for a while to somebody talk about same, then when its all over (usually to everyone's relief, most of all the pastor/leader) we stand around drinking our cup of tea or coffee and talk about everything but god and jesus and salvation.

why is this? what makes it so hard? why does it feel so unnatural?

i've continued to think about this on and off since then, trying to come up with an answer (as is my want). i think part of the reason is the 'personalisation' of faith - we've had it drummed into us, by our surrounding culture as well as church culture, that faith is a personal thing, so we keep it inside and respect other people's similar desire to not talk about it. added to this is the elitism which seems almost an integral part of evangelical christianity - most of us haven't been trained theologically, so we don't feel competent or comfortable to talk about 'the faith'. this is perpetuated, among other things, by the focus of our gatherings being 'up the front', usually on a raised stage or dais if not a towering pulpit, where the chosen ones do their stuff, usually using language and other subtle (or not so subtle) hints which accentuate their superiour knowledge and distances them from the 'common people' in the audience. the pervasive academicism also gives the impression that talking about our faith means discoursing on theological ideas, not speaking of how jesus is real to us in our everyday lives. this highlights a further issue, probably the most pertinent (and tragic) of all: most of us don't feel that jesus or our faith really connects to our everyday lives.

mark strom has this to say in his book reframing paul: conversations in grace & community:

Evangelicals like to distance themselves from the ritual traditions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. To be sure, we are a long way from the more overt religiosity of the Graeco-Roman cults and clubs. Yet when we consider the entirely nonreligious character of Paul's ekklesiai and his struggle to keep them free from the religious mindset, we may well ask how much of that same mindset we have perpetuated. Church services are religious occasions structured around formal proceedings conducted by authorised leaders – a far cry from the spontaneity of the ekklesia and the central place it gave to conversation between all participants. Even more informal and relaxed modes of meeting, such as seeker services and 'sharing times,' remain more in the domain of entertainment or of a token nod in the direction of egalitarianism. Rarely do they accord the dignity and freedom that Paul attributed to the conversations within his ekklesiai.

How far have we drifted from the spirit of Paul? We need only consider our loss of the capacity for sustained conversation about Christ and the affairs of our everyday lives. It is no wonder so many struggle to imagine a world of rich conversation integrating faith and everyday life, a world of sustained conversation unfettered by irrelevant sermons and theological disputes, a world of sustained conversation freed from the confining agendas of the professional elites of clergy and theologians. (p. 141)

mark and his wife sue have put this into practice with cafe grace, which is the most refreshing experience of 'church' i've had in a long time, if not ever. while undoubtably mark's theological training adds significantly to the 'meat' of the discussions at cafe grace, the hallmark of the gatherings is the relevance and immediacy of the subject matter to our everyday lives. i think a large part of this is because more than anything else it is a conversation in which all are free to participate, with the topic moving fluidly as people share their perspectives and how it relates to their lives. in addition, the teaching that mark gives isn't delivered in an abstract or remote manner which highlights his academic credentials and distances his listeners, but his enthusiasm and 'realness' invite and engage those present, imparting a sense of excitement about the life of faith in jesus and its relevance to our whole lives. there's also a strong awareness throughout these gatherings of the significance of every believer and of what each one contributes to the whole.

ok, i didn't intend this to be a mark strom admiration post, but i do really respect the guy and what he does. sadly, we're going to lose him again soon, as he takes up the post of principal of the bible college of new zealand in auckland in the new year. but the cafe grace gatherings have given me an experience of what i believe church should be like, and inspiration for getting something similar started in our own area. to bring this back to the original topic, i believe that it is by moving away from the existing church structures and patterns to a conversational model which relates the gospel to everyday life and work and imparts a sense of the true equality and significance of all believers by involving everyone in the conversation that we will be able to re-integrate our lives and our faith and thereby bring the good news back to our lips as we speak to each other, in a way that is spontaneous and natural. imagine that!

atonement

many thanks again to the organic church blog for the link to this great essay on the atonement.

the essay begins with a critique of the satisfaction model of atonement, which was first propounded by anselm, bishop of canterbury, in the 11th century, then further developed by luther, calvin and others until today it is the most popular understanding of the atonement in western theology. here are a few paragraphs:

Denny Weaver [in The Nonviolent Atonement, p.203] argues that "satisfaction atonement in any form depends on divinely sanctioned violence that follows from the assumption that doing justice means to punish." This not only paints a picture of God as a violent and vengeful deity, but it also shows God acting in ways that contradict the non-violent Christ of the gospel.

Moreover, it is pastorally irresponsible as it discourages resistance to violent oppression. This has been a major complaint of black theologians and feminists. Anselm’s model makes a positive virtue out of innocent suffering and passive submission to an abusive authority. It is historically true that such an approach has been used to stifle the complaints of slaves and to silence the cries of abused spouses. It has sanctioned ill-treatment of the marginalized and placed incontestable power in the hands of ungodly oppressors.

Additionally, the satisfaction model is ahistorical and consequently devoid of ethical content. It conceives of atonement as something that takes place outside of actual history. It depends on some “spiritual” (read, ‘abstract’) transaction between God the Father and the Son that removes human guilt and restores God's honour but fails to address the actual structures of oppression.

Satisfaction atonement also takes place outside the particular history of Jesus' earthly ministry. His life and teachings are somehow divorced from his death. In fact, it reduces the meaning of Jesus' life to some elongated preface – a demonstration that the lamb was spotless and apt to die in our place. It might even be said that the best thing about Jesus' life is that it came to an end!

personally, i've been dissatisfied (boom boom) with the 'satisfaction model' for a number of years. apart from the issues quoted above (and others in the essay), i think it promotes, because of it's abstractness and a-historicity, a wrong view of christian life in which, once someone 'becomes a christian', what they do for the rest of their life is basically irrelevant (except to try and persuade others to become christians as well). in other words, just as the act of atonement is basically divorced from the rest of jesus' life and ministry according to the satisfaction model, partaking in the benefits of atonement is, for all intents and purposes, divorced from the day to day life of a believer, other than providing the hope of eternal life after we die. whether or not this is stated explicitly in evangelical circles, i think the truth of it can be seen in the lives of christians, which for the most part are indistinguishable from generally moral, clean-living non-christians. of course christians aren’t supposed to be criminals, but the radical, subversive, counter-cultural kingdom lifestyle that jesus taught and demonstrated is almost impossible to find, because christians generally believe that getting to heaven is the important thing, not how we live now. if we think that when we die we'll be perfected instantly anyway, there's not a huge amount of incentive to put any effort into real personal change other than to gain some sense of personal satisfaction (there's that word again). a further outcome is that christians often develop an arrogant and superior attitude, believing they are somehow better because they’ve been ‘saved’ and expect to spend eternity in heaven, instead of being one of the condemned who will suffer for eternity.

jesus did not die to satisfy god’s requirement for blood or payment for crimes committed. any victim knows that justice is not served by punishment. punishment is the poor alternative we resort to because we cannot achieve true justice, but god is just and he is able to accomplish justice without resorting to punishment. we live with the consequences of our sins constantly, in the pain we experience, in our broken relationships, and ultimately in our death. god doesn't require any more punishment for us than this punishment we inflict on ourselves. there is no way that condemning a sinner to eternal torment satisfies any true notion of justice, or could conceivably make recompense for the wrongs that were committed. it runs completely counter to all notions of god as loving, righteous and just.

jesus was sinless and so did not have to endure pain or death, but he chose to live amongst us and experience the pain caused by the sins of others against him, and ultimately to die because of those sins. it was literally our sin that put him to death, and if you or i had been there we would have done the same. the only reason he died is because we killed him. if sin had not entered the world through adam, jesus would still have come, but it would have been a joyous, triumphant coming capped off with the crowning of the King of Kings and a reign that never ends. this is going to happen, but it’s going to be the second time round because the first time we were still lost in our sins and hell-bent on destruction.

jesus had to die because he chose to be born into the line of adam, who was condemned along with his descendents by the promise of god that if you eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil you will surely die. but god raised jesus, vindicating him as righteous, and so he became the new adam, the firstborn of the new creation. it is to this renewed, resurrected, line of humanity that we can be joined by the grace of god, who through his sheer mercy justifies us and remembers our sin no more, cancelling our identity in adam and replacing it with a new identity in christ. this is a present reality, not just a future hope, though we still live in a world ruled by sin. by living according to our new identity we actively bring the kingom of god into being here and now, bringing blessing to everyone around us, so how we live as christians is incredibly important. and we have the assurance that one day we will be resurrected into the finally and perfectly realised kingdom of jesus that will last forever.

this really is good news!

the power and the glory

this is a bit of a long one, which i've been working on for a while...

i’m currently reading mark strom’s brilliant book reframing paul: conversations in grace & community. one of the many things it’s given me to think about is the subject of suffering.

a lack of suffering is, i believe, one the symptoms of the general malaise that i see afflicting the western church at the moment. this might sound strange in light of the fact that one of the most popular christian movements at the moment holds to what has been called a prosperity doctrine, a philosophy which seems to preclude any notion that suffering is to be expected for believers, but holds that it is instead quite the opposite – a sign of sin or, at best, a lack of faith (which is often seen as more or less the same thing). to my mind, this is a remarkable return to an old testament way of thinking, so it is maybe not surprising that the scripture verses used to support this doctrine are almost entirely from the old testament. while it may have been the pattern of the old covenant for the signs and proofs of god’s blessing to be the health and material prosperity of the people of god here and now, we are now living in the era of the new covenant, which is radically different – to the point of being diametrically opposite. the new covenant is a covenant of spirit, not of flesh. it is a new way of being in which we participate in the new creation in our hearts and minds (and occasionally among other believers), while living in a world still ruled by sin. the riches we now have in christ are spiritual, not material, while we wait for the new physical creation to break forth.

i’m not suggesting that the church or individual believers should go out looking to suffer (and many who do suffer, needlessly bring it on themselves by intentionally and unhelpfully provoking others), but that suffering would be a clear sign that we are following and obeying jesus, and so its apparent lack indicates to me that we aren’t. instead, christians are generally not differentiated from the rest of the population in terms of lifestyle, material wealth, privilege or opportunities. in fact, evangelical christians on average are better off than others – in sydney, for instance, the bible belt is on the north shore, which is one of the most affluent parts of the city.

its just as true for me personally. while my life isn’t a complete bed of roses (though in many ways i’m incredibly privileged, especially from a world average perspective), none of the mostly trivial hardships i go through have anything to do with the fact that i’m a believer. i’m not a cultural sheep by any means – in fact i dislike and disagree with many aspects of australian culture and way of life – but from the point of view of a casual observer, I wouldn’t be seen as substantially different from any other slightly counter-cultural-yuppie type, many of whom would have vastly different belief systems to my own. so what sets me apart?

the apostle paul believed that suffering was a natural result of having his identity in jesus, saying in 2 Cor 4:10, “We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body.” mark strom takes up this theme in reframing paul:

“[The] dying and rising of Christ had become the pattern and the motivation for Paul’s continuing life. Imitating Christ meant deliberately conforming to his humiliation and exaltation. Paul extended the theme beyond himself to the new community and their mutual sharing in the sufferings and comforts of Christ” (p.96).

and again:

“The dying and rising of Christ led Paul to step down in the world in terms of personal and social prestige (Phil 3:1-11). It led him to be ridiculed, opposed and rejected” (p.97).

then further on:

“Having spoken of his relation to Christ, instead of proceeding to the customary delineation of personal honors, Paul speaks of his humiliations, disgrace and hardship, culminating in his confession of personal weakness (2 Cor 11:29). This weakness was primarily social, not psychological – the helplessness of one who had chosen little power or status, and his humiliation in the eyes of those who were honoured. These trials were the test of his work” (p.112, italics mine).

as I said, the fact that believers generally live comfortably and anonymously (unless we actively identify ourselves) alongside the rest of the population indicates to me that we are not living as jesus taught. the lives of believers should always stand out in stark contrast to the lives of those around, because we have a different identity and hold to vastly different values. as jesus said, we are to be salt and light, standing out like a city on a hill and giving flavour to the blandness of a society that lives for itself (as someone has quipped, given the choice, almost everyone will follow the crowd). living according to the identity and value system of jesus cannot fail to be a critique on the lives and values of others – as paul says, “a stench to those that are dying.” to say “i will not live by your values” will be received as criticism by those who hold to those values, provoking a reaction of defensiveness and probably counter-attack. this is how their contemporaries responded to jesus and paul, who both powerfully challenged the status quo, and if we do likewise by living according to the commands and teachings of jesus, it will without a doubt be how people today will respond to us.

the really ironic thing is that the society around us is in a mess: stress, anxiety, depression, drug use (not just of the illegal kind), high rates of suicide, domestic and social violence, environmental degradation – and that’s not an exhaustive list. everybody knows it, too – there are news reports every day about one or more of these issues, with someone spouting an opinion about society’s ills and what should be done to fix them. so to live according to the values of this society seems incredibly foolish – especially for a believer who knows has access to a far, far better way, as revealed in the bible and by god’s spirit living within.

i’d really hate for this to be taken as another guilt trip because that couldn’t be further from what i’m trying to say. the life that jesus has called us to is about freedom, love and joy, but we miss out on these things when we live according to the rules and aspirations of our society. its time to rediscover "the way, the truth and the life" that is only in jesus, and to make it a reality in our personal lives and church communities.

i’ll leave the final word to peter marshall, as quoted on p. 97 of reframing paul:

“Death has a positive power. God uses death for good, ie. uses it transformatively. God has commandeered the power of the old age for his own use and death acts upon the apostle with the contradictory effect of giving and promoting life. Dying as suffering is purposefully related to participation in life for oneself and for life in others. It retains this positive sense through the apostle’s continuous participation in dying and rising with Christ as suffering as a power which keeps him from returning to his former trust in himself. Weakness as a dying with Christ is the necessary means by which power is brought to perfection. Power and weakness or suffering are no longer polar antitheses, but are now brought together in a new relationship as a means by which Paul understands the experiences in his own life and his relationship with others and his world.” Peter Marshall, The Enigmatic Apostle – Paul and Social Change: Did Paul Seek to Change Graeco-Roman Society? (Melbourne: ITIM, 1993), pp. 22-23.