thegreatswalmi

A Couple of Years with Jesus

2008-08-29T09:18:00.002-06:00

A great blogger, Michael Spencer (aka internet monk) has written a list of interesting questions here, asking how we would change if we spent three years with the Jesus of the New Testament. I figured I'd give them a go...FYI - it's long.

“If you were to spend three years hanging around with Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels, do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the primary job of a pastor is to ensure a church gets as large as possible?”

No, absolutely not.

“If you were to spend three years hanging around with Jesus as he is presented in the Gospels, do you believe you would present the doctrine of predestination the same way as contemporary Calvinists present it?”

Don't do that already, so I doubt it would change!

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that without the right kind of music, your church can’t grow?”

No. But am I supposed to be worrying about my church growing?

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that systematic theology is as precise and as important as we’ve made it?”

I'd love to say yes (since i hold an MA in theology) but likely I'd say no.

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that Jesus is best represented by western, American, middle-class white evangelicalism?”

Absolutely NOT!

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that a sincere and faithful homosexual should be a leader of the church?”

I have no idea. I still think not, but I can't really say. One I'll have to think on.

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that confessing Christians who disagree on the meaning of the Lord’s supper should disfellowship one another?”

As long as they practice the Eucharist, no!

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the best way to describe the Bible is inerrant?”

Still no to that one.

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that pastoral ministry is primarily about defending our theology from those who differ from us?”

Absolutely no!

“…do you believe you would place as much value as we do on formal, school based, education?”

Again, I'd love to say yes. But no.

“…do you believe you would promote “family values” and the “culture war” as important causes that represent Jesus?”

Not particularly.

“…do you believe you would identify with the Republican or the Democratic parties?”

No.

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that it’s very important to read from one translation of the Bible only?”

No.

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that Jesus would identify himself with the labels of your denomination or group?”

That's a toughie. I don't think Jesus would dissociate himself from our group, but whether he would self-identify as a member of the Baptist General Conference...that I'm not sure of!

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the Christian life as explained by evangelical evangelists and church leaders today is true to Jesus?”

Some of it. Definitely not all of it. And of course it depends on the evangelists and leaders we're talking about.

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the emerging church is unfaithful to Jesus and should be condemned?”

nope. but I'd also believe that there is more they can do to be faithful.

“… do you believe you would come to the conclusion that you are not one of the rich? Or one of the Pharisees-types?”

To my everlasting shame, no.

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that you are, now, a disciple and follower of Jesus? Not a fan, but a follower?”

Yes, I do. But I believe I'd see myself as a straggling follower, who gets stuck in potholes and sidetracked too often.

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” are really helpful?”

Only in cooking (as in, we need a more liberal portion of cheese)

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that the Reformation was the high point of Christian history?”

Definitely not.

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that Jim Wallis, James Dobson, Joel Osteen or Rick Warren were acquainted with Jesus at all?”

That's a bit of a diverse group. It's like asking "were Ghandi, MLK Jr., Donny Osmond, and Presidents Bush Christians?" I think Wallis, Dobson, and Warren know Jesus, but that a lot of stuff gets in the way. Osteen, I don't know. Whichever Jesus Osteen preaches, it's a Jesus that smiles REALLY big.

“…what kind of sermons would you preach?”

Hopefully the same kind I preach now. Sermons about hypocrisy, sermons about the undying, unyielding, unmistakable love of the king, sermons about the kingdom.

“…do you believe you would come to the conclusion that your current approach to prayer is similar to Jesus?”

No. not at all.

“…do you believe your treatment of people would change?”

yes.

“…do you believe you would spend money as you do today?”

again, and to my shame, absolutely not.

For what it's worth, those are my answers. i'm looking forward to exploring the questions more in my mind over the next few days.

Peace.
Mike

Pump (you up)

2008-08-28T08:39:00.004-06:00

On an entirely non-church note (but still spiritual, since the mind, body, and spirit are linked!) I've been cycling to the church for the last few weeks, and I've been really enjoying myself. I've developed a more roundabout route in order to:
a) get more exercise (lots more hills this way)
b) avoid traffic (almost entirely bike paths)
c) take longer to get to work :)

I'm really loving this stuff, but i am having a bit of a problem. As my wife knows, I'm a bit of a gadget hound, but I'm trying to simplify my life, not worry about acquiring. However, my bike. My bike is a 16 inch (i think) Fila (yes you read that right) Telluride. It's black, white, and fluorescent green. It is those colours because those colours were popular when I bought the bike, in 1993. It's starting to rust. I can't put the seat post higher without pulling it right out of the bike and my legs still aren't extended when i pedal, the seat cover is currently ripped in three places, the hand grips have holes in them, the brakes squeal, and when i pull them as hard as i can, i stop in an impressive 4-10 seconds! Now I'm not one to complain (right) but I'm thinking it may be time for something...new. The problem, of course, is that I want something quality, that will last, that will keep me going, that I won't get sick of in a week because I grabbed the first bike i could find on the rack. I've done some homework, and come up with this:

Pretty, isn't it? That's a Kona Dew FS. It's a commuter bike (upright position, front suspension, seat post suspension, deore components, hydraulic discs, 700c tires) and it's a beauty. I got my confirmation when I did my research, then went into the bike store and played dumb. I told them what my bike would be used for, and they pulled this exact bike off the shelf. pretty sweet, eh? The problem is that these bikes are not in the "Less-than-expensive" category. 799.00 MSRP. So i guess some saving is in order!

Well, that's it for today. just a wish list. pray you're all well.
mike

now....this!

2008-08-06T09:43:00.002-06:00

I haven't blogged in ages. I know it. I'm sorry. There.

Part of the reason I haven't been blogging is that I've been reading. I've been reading Postman, in particular. His "Amusing Ourselves to Death" has given me a lot to think about. No, it's not the first time I'd heard of it, but one can only read so much at a given time! I've been considering blogging and the internet as it pertains to our societal structure, particularly as Postman talks about the death of typography. I read a lot, and a lot of blogs as well, and it interests me to see the places where the typographical understanding and the internet understanding of society diverge and converge.

I haven't fully formulated those thoughts, however, so I'm going to wait off on blogging fully about what I think. One interesting place it's taken me is the understanding of Masculine Christianity. If you have no idea what this means, take a listen here.

The questions being asked are "How can we get men into church," "why aren't they coming to church", and "what would make church more exciting for men?" At its core, I see the question "How can we make our church as attractive or more attractive than beer and football?" Interestingly, this plays heavily on our understanding of church as entertainment, and on masculinity as culturally determined (see Eldridge, Driscoll, et al).

The discussion on how to get men into the church by adding nascar bigscreens behind the pulpit or by instituting a promise keepers or men of integrity program or whatever it is seem to me to be the ultimate narcissism: we need to meet men's deepest desire, which is a sense of grand adventure...we need to help men feel like men. Notice very little of this says "we need to help men follow Jesus." men's ministry by and large has become a grunting, bare-knuckled reformation of Jesus' image. He's now a biker with some sweet tats who likes to hike everest on the weekends, who caters to our every desire to escape the mid-life crisis.

I know these seem random connections for now, but i hope to put these thoughts together in the next few days.

blessings, and welcome back (to me),
Mike

Miserable

2008-06-12T10:39:00.003-06:00

"and he could no longer bear to see Israel suffer"

That's Judges 10:16b. And it cuts me right to the bone.

It is often remarked that using the phrase God the Father is too archaic in this, our postmodern era. There has been too much child abuse, too many absentee fathers, too much parental disappointment and inappropriate discipline and psychic scarring for the phrase to retain any positive connotation.

This verse does not alleviate all of the concerns, of course, in calling God Father. What it does do, however, in my estimation, is take fatherhood out of the ethereal, out of the numinous, and base it on God's character. How many times have I, as a father who loves my children, had to punish them? Many. How many times have I relented? a few. But how often, while they're crying and weeping (no, I don't beat them...they're just two very tender and emotional girls), have I looked at them and could no longer bear to see them suffer? Every time. Every time I hear their weeping, even if it's over something justifiably punished, my heart breaks. There's nothing so sweet as gathering them in my arms after discipline and hearing them say "I love you Daddy." It hurts me to have to punish and discipline, but I love that they keep running to me for comfort, because they know they're really loved.

It happens with parishoners too. So often College and Career will come to me with a problem, and I'll think to myself that I should just let them sweat the consequences so they can learn from their mistakes. And I do. For awhile. But I can't stand to see them suffer. I chase them to give comfort. I love them.

Isn't that what God is saying here? the Father chases, the Father comforts and loves and can not bear to see us suffer. It makes him ache!!

Am I skipping theological justification of wrath? Am I saying God's holiness is not offended? No. But I'm not trying to say that. I'm trying to say God loves us and chases us and can't bear to see us suffer. So there.

Mike

I Love to Tell the Story

2008-06-11T09:56:00.002-06:00

I know, I suck at blogging lately (well, maybe not just lately!). However, that's that!

I was reading Joshua this morning, and again it hit me. The Story. How often in the old testament (and the new...think steven...hebrews...peter) the Story is told? How important is the Story?

Which Story, you ask? THE STORY! The Story of God interacting with God's people, creating them, punishing them, freeing them, leading them, working with them and sometimes against them in an effort to add to them and bless them.

It also struck me that not telling the story has devastating consequences. How often does it say in the OT that the Israelites arose who didn't know God, or what God had done for the Israelites, and so they followed other gods? A lot. that's how often.

My children need to know the Story. Their children will need to know the Story. The Story of how God saved the Israelites, and how God continues saving, redeeming, recreating, and loving. My parishoners need to know the Story. Everyone I know needs to know the Story. I recently preached about the Story, and how God is able to redeem our histories by retelling our Stories in light of the kingdom. I don't want to sound puffed-up, but it's something we need to hear. God retelling our Story.

How about you? Any Stories to tell or have retold?

The Pastoral Life

2008-05-30T06:32:00.003-06:00

Paying a visit to the "Greens" today...18 holes worth. aaaaaah, the Pastoral Life. Further than that, my job is giving me great joy in the opportunity to be involved in peoples' lives and struggles. It's heartbreaking sometimes, hearing the things we hear, but at the same time it's such a blessing to know that God is working in people I know and love.
I told Tricia the other day that I often envied people who worked and then came home and promptly forgot work. But i wouldn't trade this job. It's such a gift.

shalom
mike.
ps - i'll let you know how i shoot. after tricia bought the big new driver (taylormade r7) i haven't really been out yet. travesty!!!

Reading and Relaxation

2008-05-28T10:43:00.002-06:00

I've been away a long time. I know it. I'm sorry.

there, that's outta the way!

I've been reading through the bible. It's a good thing for a pastor to do, but something that's easy to neglect, even in sermon prep! In reading, I've tried to take about twenty chapters a day. Doesn't take nearly as long as it sounds, and I'm seeing things I just don't remember seeing before, even moving that fast. One of the reasons, I think, is that I'm not reading with agenda apart from just reading. I'm not looking for theological treatises, I'm not looking for doctrinal paradox...i'm just reading the Bible to hear what it's saying. And i'm loving it.

One of the things that struck me (i'm in leviticus, and it'll hit you hard) is the gore. I often have a poor perception of early Israelite culture. I think of things like sacrifice and imagine them as fairly sanitary, but I've forgotten that Israelite culture borrowed imagery and practice from its neighbours too. I'm reading Peter Enns right now on this very thing.

There's a lot of blood. I think of the high priest as pristine, but when you read the early literature, he's soaked in blood. He's pulling birds apart by the wings and cutting open bulls and dipping his fingers in blood and splashing it on the altar, smothering the horns of the altar in blood. There's just a mass of gore. The one thing that's missing, and present in so many other cultures of the time, is the human gore. Yes, they were to stone people or put them to death, but there doesn't seem to be the same gore associated with them. The priest isn't supposed to behead someone and then smear the head on the altar or something.

Why did this strike me, you ask? It struck me because I'm learning again and again how accommodating God is. God can use parts of the culture we don't even understand or agree with for God's purposes. They saw blood all around them. God redeemed the meaning of the blood, for purity. IT's a marvellous thought, but one i'm still working through.

Incidentally, if you're interested in this cultural stuff, Scot McKnight is blogging on Stackhouse's "Christian Realism" which tackles culture head-on (i don't typically like stackhouse's stuff, but I do like him as a prof - just as an aside!)

Hope to hear from you all soon...i know it's been a long time...thanks for sticking around.

Peace,
Mike

Days of Our Lives

2008-04-22T11:34:00.001-06:00

(not the tv show!). I've been reading a lot online lately about the church calendar. Coming from a tradition which does very little apart from Christmas and Easter, and wanting to be more in sync with the rhythms of the church year, does anyone have any suggestions about how to get more in tune with this stuff? I have the book of common prayer from the anglican tradition but haven't cracked it yet. thoughts?

Moving Forward

2008-04-17T13:23:00.002-06:00

I had planned this week to work on blogging a bit more of David Fitch's book, the Great Giveaway. However, I needed to lend the book to a fellow pastor, and so I'm going to put that series on a bit of hiatus...hope you're ok with that.

And so we move forward!

We have had some interesting times the last few months. As I've mentioned, our largely aged and caucasian church has merged with a largely young, mostly filipino church. We've recently decided on a new name (mine didn't get picked, but no sour grapes!), and as I mentioned to a pastor friend, I feel like we're sitting in the car together, road map out, and keys in the ignition. Our next step, as in any trip, is to step on the gas and get going! However, churches stepping on the gas look very different. I'm not even sure what ours will look like, but I think however it looks, it needs to be a process soaked in the prayers of the saints.

Coming back from holidays has been bittersweet, as it always is, but i think i'm ready to get going.

I'm preaching this week on culture and gospel, and i'm really looking forward to it. I'm hoping to take cues from Acts 15, showing how deciding which parts of our faith are culturally conditioned (yes, all of them) but which are necessary to the gospel and which are not, and then focusing in not on our differences but on our similarities. I'm hoping that it comes across loud and clear that we are unable to transcend our cultures, but that our communication interculturally can be possible when we find points of similarity. I know this seems like i'm moving from anthropology to theology, but i don't believe that to be the case. so there.

mike

We're Baaaaaaaack

2008-04-14T20:02:00.003-06:00

Thanks to those of you who were praying for our safety as we went to Nevis in the Caribbean. We had the most lovely holiday. I'm hoping to post in the next few days about our trip and what I learned. Some of it will be spiritual, some cultural, and some just plain great history, but in the meantime, here's one of my favorite pics from our trip:

[Our] bags are packed and [we're] ready to go...

2008-04-03T10:29:00.002-06:00

That's right friends. Tricia and I are leavin' on a jet plane. We're headed for our first real vacation since having children, to the island of Nevis in the Caribbean. I've never been. I can't wait.
Never heard of Nevis? Good! Leave me alone there then! :)

All the best to all of you. talk to you in a week and a half.
Here's something to engender jealousy:

Mike

Busyness or Laziness?

2008-04-01T09:17:00.001-06:00

Busyness. At least that's my official stance. You few may have noticed i haven't blogged much in the past few weeks, and the most obvious reason is that i just haven't had time. Excuse? oh yes. But i'm unapologetic this time! Also, I won't be posting for another few weeks. Why? I'm going to beautiful NEVIS, in the Caribbean. I've never been there before, and i'm taking nine days with my lovely wife and we'll be lying on the beach. all the time. so there you go!

see you when we get back :)

it's late...

2008-03-25T23:21:00.003-06:00

and i can't sleep...i know it's been awhile since i've posted. Days go too fast for me to keep up.

We had a lovely tenebrae service at our newly named church Friday nite. We read through the stations of the cross, accompanied bay artwork projected on the screen. During the eucharist, we nailed spikes into the cross before partaking. it was a powerful moment for me, sitting in the pew, head in hands, hearing the pounding nails, knowing it was my fault. quite the moment.

Easter was lovely as well...a quick service, and all that planning and time spent is done. being a pastor sometimes seems like living a series of moments that have been in planning stages forever and go away in matters of seconds. i imagine i should be frustrated by that, but i'm just accepting right now.

more in the days to come on fitch and our continuing understanding of atonement. Blessings until then,
mike

phew

2008-03-16T21:56:00.001-06:00

sorry i was away from the blog for a bit...we went on vacation...well, mini-vacation. my brother-in-law and his kids and my wife and i and our kids ran off to radium/invermere for three days. it was a lovely little getaway (thanks kevin) and we had a marvelous time. it's funny...with kids, vacations seem more like doing exactly what you do every day, but being somewhere else while you do it. i'm not complaining, mind. it was a great time, and now i'm back. Tay, i promise i'm sending that book out on tuesday if i get half a minute of free time.

blessings,
mike

The Great Giveaway Chapter 2

2008-03-12T09:05:00.002-06:00

In Chapter Two, David Fitch takes on a tough subject, one that has generated much heat and little light over the past few years: Evangelism.

This is a fascinating chapter, partly because of my own experiences and questions, and partly because some of those to whom I minister have been asking about evangelism in the post-modern mood. So here we go.

Modern Evangelism
In the first part of Chapter Two, Fitch argues that the previous evangelical methods of evangelism, including tracts (like the four spiritual laws), programs (Evangelism Explosion and the like), and crusades (who can we think of that does crusades?) no longer reach the populace "where they're at" and present the gospel in modern terms that are no longer applicable. One of the largest errors Fitch points to is the modern assumption that the individual, when presented with a logical and cogent explanation of sin, judgement, and justification by faith alone, can make an objective decision to follow Christ. Now this may be the case, that an individual CAN do it. However, what we're finding is that very few DO do it anymore. The post-modern mindset (if that can be delineated) is no longer looking for propositional syllogisms. They are looking, Fitch claims, for lived-out gospel. They are looking for good news embodied in a transformational community. The modern approach still believes in individuals "praying the prayer" as the objective marker in conversion "experience", the ability to point to that one specific moment of salvation, leaving "un-saved" and joining "saved." This concept comes off as fabricated and false to the post-modern mind, which tries to view everything through "journey" metaphor. But that's my take on it! :)

The shift we are experiencing, says Fitch, comes in large part from the post-modern suspicion of science as the arbiter of all truth. Contra Modernity, postmodernity no longer allows that science is able to trump all other disciplines with regard to the acquisition and maintenance of the "Truth." Propositionalism is no longer the be all and end all in postmodernity. As such, traditional evangelical apologetics, while they still mean something for those inside the church (even if it's only that we look like we're trying to keep up and so we can brag when we finally PROVE something by the scientific method), have less and less staying power in the milieu that is postmodern society.

A second shift we see, says Fitch, is away from the "Seeker Sensitive" model of doing church service. This model "works to draw seekers into a large anonymous setting where they can view a professionally produced, entertaining presentation of the gospel that attempts to be contemporary and appeal to 'felt needs.' 'Seeker service' strategies do not shy away from marketing to an audience, using psychology and other forms of self-fulfillment to interpret the gospel. Seeker services have faith that people, upon hearing a well-packaged message, can use their individual mind to make up their own mind for the gospel."

Postmoderns, however, are highly suspicious of consumer-oriented messages, and so the seeker model can make them feel "lied-to" by the church, who promised an entertainment bazaar and instead gave a good gospel beat-down, but it was at least "cool."
Postmodern Evangelism
Evangelism, says Fitch, needs to change. His approach, the approach he believes will speak to the postmodern mind, is our life. Not simply the lipservice to lifestyle evangelism that so many of us who are lazy in our work give, but truly living out the story of God's creation and redemption and new creation in the world. Postmoderns believe that truth is more about character than about proposition. And why would they buy a line from what the world views as hypocritical self-righteous ones? They need to see a marriage of faith and works that takes us beyond proposition and into the life of Christ himself. Fitch says this can happen in a number of ways:

Hospitality

Prayer, Mercy, and Justice

Being a Community

Create Room for "Third Space" Evangelism (coffee shops, wifi cafes, esl teaching...creating safe spaces for hyper-individuals to connect)

Worship (we talk more about that later)

Reinvigorate the Rite of Baptism - use catechetical technique alongside a broader understanding of baptism

Any others you can think of?

Remember, Remember, the 6th of January? part 2 - audio

2008-03-11T15:22:00.001-06:00

So i know I posted a sermon yesterday, but here's another one from Jan 6.

Download: click here

TaDAAAAAA

2008-03-11T14:52:00.003-06:00

And the Winner is TAY MOSS, who hooked me up with a beauty system of gcast and odeo. Thanks a million Tay. For his helpfulness, I'm going to send Tay my favorite novel: The Greek Passion (or Christ Recrucified) by Nikos Kazantzakis, unless he's read it before, and then you get something else at my discretion :)

Tay, feel free to fire me off your mailing address and i'll hook you up. Thanks!!!

Mike

Testing 1..2..3..

2008-03-10T22:37:00.003-06:00

I don't know if this'll work...try it out and be gentle with me :)

For Download: click here

like a ton of bricks

2008-03-10T15:12:00.000-06:00

Justin Asks A Question

2008-03-10T09:23:00.003-06:00

I don't know if I'm supposed to use "names" (so I will) but Justin asked a question a few posts ago that I've ignored until now, at least you think I've ignored it. It's a good question about Fitch and the Great Giveaway. Here's what Justin had to say: "I like what fitch has to say, a lot. But I'm not sure why he gives us other things to count. What about just not counting? Do we need to know that we are successful in order to keep going? I know it's hard. But what about just doing ministry because it is what you feel called to do and not because it is successful?"

Great question, isn't it? I love when I see young men and women wrestling with important questions. Makes me feel proud...and old. :)

I want to take this part "one-at-a-time", so to speak, and look at what Fitch is really saying, to ensure that the question doesn't merely stem from a misrepresentation of Fitch. First, "why [does] he give...us other things to count?"

What Just is asking here is: isn't this just another numbers game? In a sense, you're right, Justin. However, I think Fitch is trying to move us past the numbers game into the faithfulness game. The numbers don't count, it's true, but faithfulness counts for everything. Fitch's scheme, then, is not to simply give us another data dump, but to look at our churches in a manner that asks not "how are we successful in the eyes of the world?" but "how are we faithful to our calling?" In effect, what Fitch is saying about "counting" baptisms instead of conversions is not that we keep a tally which measures how good we are at dunking (this may be where i should've quoted more extensively) but that baptisms ought to "count" more than individual conversions in our mind. The word "count" is probably where we got hung up, and I think it might be wise for Fitch to rethink the language of "counting" and use "matter" or something.

What I don't read Fitch saying is that we need to start tallying our baptisms. What I read him saying is that baptism and continuing discipleship should count more in our definition of "success" than simply numbers of converts that "pray the prayer." Does this make sense?

"Do we need to know that we are successful in order to keep going?" No, we don't. But it seems clear in Scripture that to keep going we need to ensure faithfulness. This is the crux of the argument as I see it. We don't need to know numbers for faithfulness. However, if the church's mandate springs from the great commission, that is, disciple and baptize, and we've not had any fruit of discipleship and no baptism in the last five years, it's a marker that we've not been faithful. The number of baptisms counts less than the fact of the baptisms themselves. Your question is a good one, but I think it may mislead with the wording. In using the language of "keep going" we may miss the point that we're going in the wrong direction. Being able, then, to measure faithfulness from a biblical standpoint is vitally important.

"But what about just doing ministry because it is what you feel called to do and not because it is successful?" Again, we need to address this in terms of faithfulness rather than success. If I feel called to a ministry that is producing no fruit, that is absolutely devoid of faithfulness to the gospel, am I really ministering? Can my feelings mislead? I think they can. Should we continue ministering if we are being faithful but other people aren't? Absolutely. The trick is that we measure our faithfulness in ministry as it bears fruit.

The tension, unfortunately, that we have to hold is our own faithfulness and the response of others. Sometimes we measure our faithfulness by others' response, and get discouraged. Let me illustrate what needs to happen by using myself as the perfect (hah) example. We've been in our current church for three years (nearly) working with the same group of college and career. It's taken that long for us to see fruit in some of them. Should we have given up after a year when it wasn't working? I don't think so. Response doesn't always occur on our timeline. But faithfulness will never, I believe, return empty in the long run. Does that make more sense? I hope so. Tomorrow, Fitch, part 2!

peace,

mike

Sola Fide

2008-03-07T09:45:00.005-07:00

There's nothing you can do to make the Reformed Protestants you know angry than questioning the solas. I know. Trust me.

At the risk of alienating myself (which isn't that risky), I want to do so. I want to question sola fide. Particularly in light of James 2. Now I know the answers already, but I'm not sure they stand up. So someone help me out.

Here's the classical Protestant formula:

"Justification is by faith alone, but not by the faith that is alone (that is, not by a supposed faith that has no accompanying works)."

Here's James:

James 2:1 ¶ My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?
James 2:2 For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in,
James 2:3 and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Have a seat here, please,” while to the one who is poor you say, “Stand there,” or, “Sit at my feet,”
James 2:4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him?
James 2:6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court?
James 2:7 Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?
James 2:8 ¶ You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
James 2:9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.
James 2:11 For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.
James 2:12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.
James 2:13 For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
James 2:14 ¶ What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?
James 2:15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food,
James 2:16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,” and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?
James 2:17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
James 2:18 ¶ But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
James 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.
James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?
James 2:21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?
James 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works.
James 2:23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God.
James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
James 2:25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?
James 2:26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

See? I quoted the whole thing so I'm taking it "in context." In this context, it would seem that Protestantism has both an ally and an enemy...which is it? I've heard the argument that this "justification" is not the saving kind, but a different kind of justification whereby we explain our faith. But I don't see that in the text. I don't see the rationale. Can someone point it out?

My beef, I suppose, with Sola Fide is that it is so rarely explained well. It's taken as a given without some requisite background and nuance. I've had arguments with people about faith alone saving, when I merely asked if real faith didn't involve works. They used all sorts of tactics to try and get me to see that you could have faith without works, but I couldn't get past the James passage. I suppose if we take the Protestant definition at full value, that is, the whole thing, and not just "SOLA FIDE", then it makes sense. But part of me says "why are we splitting hairs on this one?" We know that it's God's grace that saves us, and that we are given grace and faith as gifts. Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, sure, but it's all Sola Beneficium (i don't know latin...that's supposed to be "only gift").

Question: Can we have faith without good works that show we have faith?

Question: Can we have good works without faith, even though they are the same good works that show others have faith?

Question: Who really decides this stuff?

So i suppose i haven't really taken on sola fide. It just strikes me as funny all the time that the only time the Bible ever mentions justification and faith together is to say that justification is NOT by faith alone. Kinda humorous. To me.

that is all.

mike

Words and Pictures

2008-03-06T10:32:00.002-07:00

For those of you dying to hear more of David Fitch, have no fear...i'll keep up tomorrow. Today, though, I wanted to talk about pictures and words. More specifically, metaphor. We use a ton of metaphors every day, without even thinking about them. I forget sometimes that we do, and then it hits me!

It hit me today when I realized I was reading "A Community Called Atonement" by Scot McKnight, "the Fingerprints of God" by Robert F. Capon, and "The Drama of Doctrine" by Kevin VanHoozer. Each of these deals with metaphor to a large extent, and what hit me was the nature of our discussions of God and God's action in the world. It's almost all metaphor. The language of picture is incredibly powerful, and powerful not just because it can lead us to propositional truth, but incredible because, as McKnight says, " by receiving the metaphor into the soul, the soul learns the reality. Thus we not only indwell the metaphor, the metaphor indwells us. The charitable, loving approach to a metaphor is to let it have its way with us, and only by surrendering to it does it yield its truth." (37).

How do we allow the metaphors of God do indwell us? Whence comes this indwelling, and how do we understand it with our souls?

How about you? Are you able to hold multiple scriptural metaphors in tension and in mutual help? Do you have favorites that allow you to experience the reality?

Techie question

2008-03-05T19:03:00.002-07:00

any of you bloggers out there in the 'sphere help me out with this? i want to upload audio sermon. is there a way to do it if i don't have online server space? is there free online server space? what's the best way to do this?

The Great Giveaway Chapter 1

2008-03-04T11:44:00.002-07:00

"Our Definition of Success: When Going from Ten to a Thousand Members in Five Years Is the Sign of a Sick Church"

The title and subtitle of this chapter alone should give us cause for pause. What is our definition of success as pastors? As theologians? As worshippers?

In chapter one, David Fitch begins by assessing the state of Evangelicalism in regard to its numerical fetish. And it's true. How many new pastors or people in congregations have I met that ask first: "so what size is your church" or "how many staff do you have" or "what does your membership roll look like (ok, no one asks that)'? It's the standard by which we judge almost everything. How many people came this sunday? Less than last Sunday, or more? How many baptisms? How many "conversions"? How many, how many, how many? The preoccupation (read obsession) with numbers, claims Fitch, drives our evangelical ecclesiology. Behind our numbers lies great insecurity and possible illusion. How many of our "converts" have converted because of a thin and shallow gospel? Will they grow? have they in fact been "converted" if there is no cost? If numbers drive the game, then our markers of value become effectiveness and efficiency, which, says Fitch, "draw their agendas from American cultural forces that define success in terms of numbers, size, and capital. This kind of effectiveness may be alien to Christ's church." (28)

The difficulty with numbers, claims Fitch, is that they are an easy measure. Because we believe that success must look like something we recognize, and we're all used to measuring with numbers (he's more successful because he makes more money etc.), why not use numbers for measuring the effectiveness of the church? Or profit? Or increased giving? Or whatever? We have not taken the proper time and thought required to map out what real success will look like, partially because success in biblical terms is a hard thing to measure. How do you measure the "disciple-ness" of someone? How do we measure "redemptive trends" or "social redemption" or "reconciliation"? They are not easy questions to answer, and so, argues David, we have "given away" our understanding of success to follow the easier definition of Corporate America (or Canada, though Fitch argues a distinctively American case here). The root cause of our infatuation with success numbers, he says, comes from the fact that "evangelicals are individualists, which in turn enables us to count decisions as the signpost of salvation."

This rampant individualism thrives on enlightenment assertions about the autonomy of the individual and the need and possibility for objective truth ascertainable by the individual.

Fitch offers three suggestions which allow Evangelicals to measure faithfulness as success:

1. Count Baptisms instead of Decisions.

2. Use Qualitative Measures of Community (when was the last time you confessed sin to someone in the community, prayed with someone regarding church direction etc)

3. Measure the Number of New Church Plants, Not the Size of Church Buildings.

How do these three measure up? What would a change like that require in a church today? I'd love to hear from some of you in (and out of) ministry. What do you think of Fitch's thoughts (or my quick and inadequate descriptions of them!)?

peace,

mike

Prayers

2008-02-29T10:46:00.005-07:00

I don't normally like stuff from Eberhard Jüngel, mostly because Ben Myers loves him SO much. However, Tilling recently turned me on to a list of Trinitarian prayers from Jüngel that I thought were fantastic. Here's one for you:

Almighty God, dear heavenly Father,
You are worthy of praise, you who so wonderfully created the world, crowning it with human beings. You preserve the heaven and the earth. Every morning you give into our hands the work of your hands—though we shamefully misuse it. You entrust to us the world that we might live on earth in peace and joy. Not we, eternal Creator and fatherly Preserver—not we, but you are worthy of praise. We praise you!

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God and Light from eternal Light,

You are to be praised by all the world, for you have borne and broken through the darkness of our sins. Your death took away the power of death. Raised from the dead, you broke through the darkness with which we so often and so furtively darken our own lives and those of others. You are and remain the Light of Life: the light that illumines, the light that warms, the light that guides our way—highly to be praised in time and eternity!

God, Holy Spirit,

You glorious bond of unbreakable love between heaven and earth! You come to people who are unable to praise. You open closed ears and touch embittered hearts. You renew what we make old. Come, Holy Spirit, you unsettling Spirit, move and free our hearts so that we heartily praise you, so that all of us, in thanks and prayer, entrust ourselves to you, the Spirit, the Son, and the Father: our God. AMEN