Renovating my Faith

As a pseudo-existentialist I tend to think we are constantly in a state of becoming who we already are. Or to put it in a less postmodern way, we are by the sanctifying power of God becoming who God intended us to be and who we already are positionally before him in eternity. The past three years of Seminary have been a journey of growth and self discovery, as I become who I already am. During this time there have been 3 classes that have been extremely challenging and extremely beneficial in this journey. These three classes are Christian Theism, Postmodern Philosophy, and Current/Contemporary Theological Issues. The latter of the three being the most recent.

This journey with God has been a time of constantly "renovating my faith". These classes have challenged my biases, my assumptions, and my presuppositions regarding God, theology, resulting in a firmer conviction to God, with some beliefs being reaffirmed and some being altered. The most recent renovation that I am experiencing is unfolding my arms of acceptance.

In the past if I were asked if Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Open Theists, Homosexuals, Mainline Feminists, Fundamentalists...(the list could go on) who profess faith in Christ were Christians; I would have likely given some qualifying statement followed by an affirmation that they are. All of this was my way of saying, "Yes, but not really" or "Yes, but barely". This renovation that I am going through is changing my response. It's leading me to a place of Ecumenicalism. In this journey I am remaining committed to affirming the essence of the Gospel, which is "believe in the Lord, Jesus and you will be saved" and to pursuing an understanding of what it means to live in relationship with God. It is here that I, as well as many others, fight the tension between being Ecumenical and being Emergent.

Both Ecumenicalists and Emergentists recognize that there are many ways to interpret Scripture. The difference is the Emergentist would say, "I don't know, and you don't know, so let's not know together," while the Ecumenicalist would say, "There are things I'm not sure about, but here's what I'm sure about". The Emergentists are content to live in the dark for the sake of being able to hold hands with everyone. The Ecumenicalists maintain conviction to what they believe to be true, yet recognize those who disagree on issues not essential to salvation as family and co-labours for the Kingdom or in the mission of God.

The difficulty of being an Ecumenicalist is the necessity to dig beyond the surface and scrutinize one's own beliefs and put these beliefs through the fire, while attempting to understand the beliefs of others within their proper context. The "danger" that is always at the doorstep of the Ecumenalist is apathy. The weight of the difficulty makes slipping into apathy tempting. Apathy does not require one to evaluate or think about faith. It just requires one to be ambiguous or ambivalent regarding beliefs. Thus, an Ecumentalist must always be on guard of the "I don't know and you don't know, so let's not know together" attitude.

Am I Evangelical?

This semester I am a Teacher's Assistant for a class called Theology of Believer's Church Tradition. While the title of the class is problematic, as it begs the question what should we consider those outside of this tradition. BCT (as we call it) is a strand within "Evangelicalism" (a term that is slowly beginning to have its definition restored) holds to what we call the "four sola"s. The irony being that sola is Latin for "alone". The four "sola"s are sola gratia (Grace Alone). sola fide (Faith alone), , solus Christus (Christ Alone), sola scriptura (Scripture alone). So salvation is granted by grace alone to those who have faith alone in only Jesus Christ, which is revealed by Scripture alone.

I thought the veneration of scripture was unique to BCT, until recently I was reading Clark Pinnock's Most Moved Mover. In this work he writes that "as an evangelical, my primary commitment is to Scripture, not to tradition, reason, or experience because I believe that any authentically theological model must have biblical backing and resonance" (p. 19). I am unclear as to whether Pinnock means that because he is an evangelical, or that because of his understanding of a theological model he must venerate scripture above all else.

Let us presume he means that an authentic theological model that is biblically based must venerate Scripture above reason, tradition, and experience. It appears self-evident to me that such a model is possible without venerating scripture, as a base can have four corners. If it is not self-evident then that me show how this definition of what it is to be "biblically based" is inherently faulty. The scripture that we use today has been copied over the ages millions of times. In this copying we have been reliant on the reason of the scribes (guided by the Spirit) to take the manuscripts and discern what was editorial comments from the previous scribes and what was original content (hence the multiple ends of Mark). Furthermore, because of our Evangelical tradition we hold the 66 books of the Bible as scripture. If we were Catholic we would have more books that we would include as scripture.

Is it then that one must venerate scripture above reason, tradition, and experience? If this is what he means and it is true can those of us who use the Wesleyan Quadrilateral to engage in the discipline of theology consider ourselves Evangelical? My understanding of the WQ is that scripture, reason, tradition, and experience are considered the four primary modes that God reveals himself (the four corners of our foundation). These four modes are not fit into some sort of hierarchy, but are equal in authority and each mode must adhere to the assertions of the other 3 modes. This four way system of checks and balances is to ensure that one mode is not venerated above the rest.

This leaves me asking: If Pinnock is correct about what it means to be an Evangelical and I am correct about the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, then should I continue to consider myself an Evangelical or have I become orphan?

Goodbye Glam God

For those of us who remember the 80's, we would no doubt remember Glam Rock that was all about looking good. Ok, so maybe it was more about being flashy and extravagant, rather than looking good. Truth be told most of the artists looked like second rate comic book characters.

Seemingly unrelated, I have been reflecting on who God is and his relationship to us lately. When I consider how we depict God I feel as though in our attempt to convince people of how "cool" and "awesome" God is we have gone to the extreme of losing who God is in the flashiness of communicating his message. In our desire to share God we have been making him a flashy, over the top Glam God. I can understand the immediate objection being "God is so awesome that we can never over do it with God"! While I agree that God is beyond our ability to describe, in trying to emphasize God's "holy other"ness we often fail to emphasize his intimate relationship to his creation.

This failure to recognize that this infinite being, who is the source of all that is, has entered into his creation out of his longing to be in restored relationship with his creation, results in us reducing YHWH to the cold, distant, God of Aristotle. He's not wanting to make us a club member or make us "behave". He's wanting us to be in an interactive and intimate relationship with him. Although this may mess with some people's definition of immutable (I question how much our definition of immutable is scriptural & how much is a result of Greek philosophical indoctrination), I will say that our relationship to God is such that God is changed (not in character) by being in relationship with us. I do not mean that some how God is deficient, in himself, by not being in relationship with us. I am merely stating that God experiences joy and love that is unique to the relationship he has with the individual that he would not experience in any other relationship.

In our communication of who God is we need to say goodbye to the Glam God and embrace and emphasize God, the "holy other",who took on flesh and dwelt for awhile among us and knowing no sin became sin for us, so that we can live in intimate relationship with him.

In the words of Bonhoeffer, "Our relation to God is not a 'religious' relationship to the highest, most powerful, and best Being imaginable- that is not authentic transcendence- but our relation to God is a new life in 'existence' for others' through participation in the being of Jesus."

Roaming in Romans

At my church, we are working our way through the book of Romans and yesterday we briefly looked at Romans 12:1, and as we read it some thing hit me for the first time ever. When we think about the Roman culture of the time, what Paul is suggesting to the Romans was very counter culture.

At this point in history, the Romans have been heavily influenced by Greek philosophy and would have likely been dualists, viewing the physical world as evil, and awaited the release of their "soul" from its physical prison, then they read this letter from Paul, and it says:

....offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship (NIV).

I wonder how "weird" or insane this would have seemed for them to be told to offer their "evil bodies" as living sacrifices to God. It may have been more understandable to them for Paul to tell them to kill their bodies as a sacrifice to God so their souls would be free, but for them to give their "bodies" as a living sacrifice?!

Then Paul tells them that this living sacrifice of the body is holy, pleasing/acceptable to God. I would think this would only further confound them as it goes against their basic understanding of the body being evil. Paul is telling them that living in this "evil" body for God is actually a holy and pleasing act of worship to God. Not only is this an act of worship, but Paul takes it a step further and contrasts the physical against the spiritual. Stating that this physical act of living in the body as a sacrifice to God is a spiritual act of worship.

This is all well and interesting, but what application does it have for our lives? It leaves me wondering what presumptions and biases in my own worldview have hindered me in my pursuit of truth.

Divine Inspiration?

This past week I was able to sit in on the Septuagint Conference that was held at Trinity Western. The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah/Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible) and ,depending on your tradition, some other biblical texts. At the conference the topic of multiple manuscripts came up and the reality that we do not have any original manuscripts of the Septuagint or any other books in the Bible. Furthermore, when we trace back as far as we can the manuscripts we do have contain variants (differences in the text). Discovering this can be a faith shaking experience or at the very least cause one to question their view of Scripture. This is likely more challenging if we think that the 66 books of the Protestant Bible were compiled by the Apostles and handed down from generation to generation (in the KJV, of course).

Realizing that we do not have the original manuscripts has actually increased my appreciation for Scripture because amidst the variants the message remains intact. The consistency of the message amidst the variants has done two things to me. One is it has made Scripture more "real" to me, as it is more believable to me that over centuries of coping copies that changes in the text would occur. Two is increased my awe of God, who has maintained his message to his creation through fallen humanity.

Losing My Religion

Most of us can think of a time where we have been hurt by an individual or a group who represent Christ. For some of us that has been enough to walk away from the Church, stating "They're all a bunch of hypocrites". Bob Dylan, a folk philosopher and spiritualist (more known for his unique music), rejected Christianity after his "conversion" in the 80s because of the "hypocrisy he experienced in the church".

I think this charge of hypocrisy many times is birthed out of hurt that results from us adding on to salvation requirements. People are introduced to this Jesus of love and compassion, who died for their sin and overcame death so that they could have a relationship with him. However, it's not long after they start to come to church and spend time with other Christians that they start to get told how horrible they are and how if they "have not done this" or if they "have done that" then they aren't really "saved" or they have "lost their salvation". Before long this yoke that is easy and burden that is light has had a check list piled on. This relationship they entered into has been turned into religion that they have been buried under.

When I look back to the Jewish religious culture Jesus was born into and compare it to the Church culture of today I see many similarities. Primarily, I see a people who have taken the revelation of God and formed it into religion. In James letter to "the twelve tribes" he is very clear that "true religion" leads to action. He does not, however, say it is our responsibility to "fix people" because they do not act the way we think they should or believe exactly the same things we do.

We add on to "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31) for us to consider someone a brother or sister. We create divisions within our family pitting brothers and sisters against each other. When people look at our family they see the Hatfields and McCoys. People still love Jesus, but when they meet his bride, they think she's a real........."piece of work".

As I have read some Emergent Church people, I have found their benefit and contribution to the Church has been in their Ecclessiology. In their simpleness they have gotten back to the heart of God, which is to be in relationship with his children and for his children to be in relationship with others. Going to an Ecumenical School (lots of different churches working together) began to open me up to a "simple Gospel", and the Emergent Church has blown the doors wide open on this. When we begin to add requirements onto "believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved", I believe we begin to add to the Gospel and turn this relationship God desires into a structured religion of rituals that serve to distance us from God.

This is not an assault on theology. I believe theology is crucial to our relationship with God and that it is through God revealing himself to us by various means that we enter into more intimate relationship with him. This is not a call to "abandon the church, and start our own "church". This an assault on the religion we have formed and a call to speak this "Simple Gospel" through the life we live as the Church. I have lost my Religion and I have grabbed hold of the "Simple Gospel".

Is God Blind?

In his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, David Hume asks the question regarding the nature of God, "Is he willing to prevent evil but not able? Then is he impotent? Then is he malevolent? Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?" Picking up on this train of argument one of the more prominent atheists of the 20th century, J.L. Mackie, wrote an article entitled, Evil and Omnipotence. In this work Mackie argues that the presence of evil in the world requires that God must either not be wholly good or all powerful. In this work he explains that many theologians attempt to redefine the words omnipotence (all powerful) or omni-benevolence (wholly good). Two of the examples he gives is that some theologians define omnipotence by either asserting God is as powerful as is possible or that the Bible does states that God is good, not wholly good.

Is it possible that these definitions of omnipotence and omni-benevolence that Mackie and most of us use are actually constructs formed out of the Enlightenment and Modernity? Perhaps the open theists are right and God only has knowledge of everything that has happened up to the present moment in time and therefore is not all powerful in the modernist sense, but is as powerful as possible given the conditions. Perhaps God is Blind. Perhaps there is magic (space and time) that even God, himself, is subject to.

God is Blind?

During the height of the "open theist" controversy that coincidentally coincided with the suspension of Clark Pinnock & John Sanders (open theists) from the Evangelical Theological Society, I had a conversation with a "gun shy" open theist who attempted to explain his "version" of open theism. This individual would be what I'd call a "conservative" open theist. He described a middle knowledge understanding of God's knowledge, which asserts that God knows not only every decision we will make, but every possible decision we could make and its potential outcome (leading to an infinite number of possible outcomes).

The difference this individual made was that he believed when we made those decisions God would "temporarily" cover his eyes so that he did not know the actual decision we would make. He asserted that there are certain "unavoidable" events that God has prophesied in Scripture would occur and despite what decisions we make, he would bring these events to pass.

Given the massive amount of decisions that are made each second of every day, in this perspective I have a hard time understanding how God would not be blind. If this be the case, then would God be able to bring these "unavoidable" events to pass , only knowing what has happened and not what is happening? He would be blindly acting based on an understanding of reality that only knows the past. Furthermore if in eternity, we remain free beings then it would seem that God would have to be blind in eternity as well.

Oh Judas!!

I've been reading through Mark and I recently read through Mark 14 which records the account of Judas of Iscariot agreeing to betray Jesus. In the Life Application Bible I own and use for devotions (I'm thankful to my parents who gave me this bible for Christmas. It's been in 5 different countries numerous states and provinces and God has revealed himself to me and drawn me closer to me many times through this Bible) the commentary on Judas is primarily negative. Probably the most positive thing I've read is that Judas thought he was helping Jesus out in order to bring about a political reign (depending on one's theology one might agree that Judas was "helping" Jesus out").

As I read this commentary, I reflected on the information we have available about Judas and it baffled me that Jesus would choose him to be one of his Apostles, one of those in his "inner circle" of followers. I racked my brain over why Jesus would choose Judas, knowing he would betray him. If Jesus emptied himself of, or limited, his divine rights to omniscience or "foreknowledge" then perhaps he was not aware that Judas would betray him. By the time of the Last Supper though, it appears Jesus is aware that someone will betray him.

When we read about all the other disciples there always seems to be some quality about them that despite their failures they have attributes that we can appreciate. When I thought about this in regards to Judas I could not come up with a single attribute. In frustration, I finally said to God, "why did you choose him?!", "What did you see in him?!" Shortly after asking this what happened after the betrayal came to mind. I remembered Judas being so grieved that he had betrayed Jesus that he went out and hung himself and that he only did that after trying to undo what he had done. When I thought of this I realized that Judas betrayed Jesus publicly, and he was the only one who stood up for him when in the darkest hour. Peter swore to follow Jesus even to death. He cut off a soldiers ear in the garden when he was surrounded by the J-Crew, then denied Jesus three times while Jesus was on trial. After Jesus' resurrection Peter did eventually die for Jesus. We know that John and Mary were at the cross, but we know of no action they took to stop the crucifixion (perhaps they caught on).

Amongst all the followers and the disciples, Judas was the only one who went to the Priests and tried to stop the ball that he had started rolling. In the darkest hour, when everyone was against Jesus, Judas was the only one to stand up for Jesus. I do not want to minimize what Judas did, Jesus considered it so serious that he said on the Day of Judgment it would have been better that he had never been born.

Luther once said something to the effect of : If you remove the promise of heaven and the threat of hell, the way people act is who they really are (if someone knows the actual quote I'd appreciate having that). In the darkest hour, with nothing to gain, we see the redeeming quality of Judas. We see possibly what Jesus saw in him.

Why I am Moving Beyond Missional

To be missional, as I understand it, is to say: the heart of God is to be restored to his creation. We are told that from the beginning of Scripture God has been on a mission to be in relationship with his creation. Abraham has been cited as demonstrating this when God initiates a conversation with Abraham in Genesis 12. God creating the universe and humanity in order to be in relationship, God seeking out "Adam and Eve" in the garden, and his speaking to Noah to warn about the flood, do not always get the attention they deserve, even though they support the concept of God on mission because some family members hold that Genesis 1-11 are not historical (by any means). They hold that these chapters, as well as others, are similar to the parables Jesus told, or allegories that prophets used. Thus, in order to appeal to a large audience, the missional camp often begins with Genesis 12. For this those who wave the missional banner should be applauded. Furthermore they should be applauded for bringing to light that God wishes for the Church (some may cringe at using such an "institutional word") to participate and be a means through which God restores himself to the rest of creation.

Where I break with the missional camp is in the assertion that God's most primary desire is to be restored to his creation. I would argue that God's primary desire is to express love through relationship. Before God formed the universe (however, you feel that happened) the triune God (3 persons, 1 being) was in relationship with himself. Before God sought "Adam & Eve" in the garden God was in relationship with them. More than I am missional, I am Love-oriented.

As I look at scripture I see a God who is driven by a fundamental love, which is foundationally relational. It is this desire that motivated God to create, and motivated God to pursue his creation. I would contend that creating and pursuing stem out of God's love which is expressed in relationship. Thereby, God being missional is merely a bi-product of God's love.

Perhaps, the missional camp would agree with me on this, if this is true then there title is rather misleading, as it puts mission in the forefront and love in the background. Missional also puts the emphasis on action what we are to do, rather than who we are to be. From what I know about Missionals love is to be the primary means by which the mission is progressed, yet making mission the focus leaves Missionals open to the same critique many express regarding the church. The critique of being focused on doing Christianity and not being Christians. Consequently, I would rather focus on God's foundational love and let mission be its outpouring.

Living a Dream

Growing up, every summer I would spend two weeks at Beulah Camp in Brownsflat, N.B. (even though I grew up Baptist). When I was 11 years old, instead of going to the Children's tabernacle for the DVBS, I snuck up the Hill to the Baptist church where the teen services were held. Most of my friends were already going to youth so I forsook the cookies and juice for my Teen service. The next 8 years of camp I would go up the hill, some times on foot, some times by bike, some times in the trunk of a car. Each year we would have a speaker & as I listened some times I would think about how cool it would be to have the chance to speak at Beulah camp.

As I went off to Bible college and began life in ministry this dream became a distant memory. Whenever Beulah would come around I would occasionally help out with the youth service, and running errands or games. Periodically. the dream of speaking would come back, but it was never something I pursued.

This past spring I was talking to the Kool-Aid Kid and I asked about Beulah and just on a whim offered to speak for the week. They ended up needing a speaker so they gave me the gig. This past week I spoke to the teens about God's Epic and how God is writing a story throughout history that we each get to play a part in and it's up to us what role we play. I had a blast, it was quite literally everything I thought it would be and more!!!!

For giving me this chance to live a dream, to the Kool-Aid Kid and the rest of the District I say an EPIC:

THANK YOU!

The Weight of Experience

I took a class last Spring entitled "Christian Theism and the Postmodern world". In the class we looked at some of the classic arguments for the existence of God and the popular objections to God's existence. Recently, a podcast I was listening to got me thinking about the argument from experience. Prior to the class I did not give much credence to the role experience plays in discovering or affirming truth. My argument being whether I experience something to be true or not is irrelevant to what is true.

What I came to appreciate in this class is the great value we place on experience in our culture. We tend to base our understanding of truth on what we've personally experienced through our senses, which is why we have phrases like "I saw it with my own eyes" or "I couldn't believe it until I touched it". Even Thomas, in John's Gospel said, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."

When we experience personally, or secondhand, a miracle we tend to give more credit to God. Even though, I do not think everything that happens at a Benny Hinn crusade is of God, many people are influenced to believe in God because of what they experience at them. Conversely, there are stories like Charles Templeton (not Face from the A-Team). He was a Christian and a member of the Billy Graham Crusade, but died an agnostic. He tells of a time when he went to a ladies' home and prayed for her daughter and as he prayed the daughter was healed. When asked how he could not believe in the Christian God after experiencing such a miracle, he said that he could not understand why God would choose to heal her and not the billions of other suffering children in the world.

These stories show me that experience can be used to both affirm God's existence and used to deny it, even with the example of miracles. So I find myself feeling that experience is a strong support in the argument for the existence of God, but should not be the primary argument. What say ye?

True or False?

I was listening to a Stand to Reason podcast, hosted by Greg Koukl. As I listened to the podcast, Koukl stated the simple and precise definition of omnisicence is "God knows and believes all true propositions." A proposition can succinctly be defined as a statement regarding a subject.

My question for Koukl is whether it is possible for God to know "false propositions." My reason for this is, if God is not able to know false propositions then there is information that it is impossible for God to know. An example of this would be a lie, which by definition is a false proposition. Although it would be possible for God to know that a person lied, as the event occurring would be a true proposition, it would not be possible for God to know the contents of the lie. Perhaps, God would be able to know the information if there was a statement made about the lie. For example, although Brian ate the cookie, he told his mother, "No mommy, I didn't eat any cookies"! The problem then becomes by knowing the statement about the false proposition God now knows the false proposition, which goes against the initial proposition regarding omniscience.

Using Koukl's definition of omniscience (which has been used by many others before him) I wonder if there is a means by which God is able to know false propositions or if the definition should be reworked to state, "God knows both true and false propositions, but only believes true propositions."

A Charge I give you

Now that Spring Semester has finished I'm doing some personal reading, which includes The Chronicles of Narnia. As I prepare for my thesis, which is focused on Creation, Redemption and human responsibility for Creation, the Magician's Nephew has come to life for me. I can't ignore that Chapters 10 and 11 are definitely an allegory of creation.

As I read the conclusion of Chapter 11 the charge of Genesis 1:28 became even more clear for me. Genesis 1:28 reads, "When God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.” In recent years I have become more environmentally responsible. I am not, I repeat am not a tree hugger...although it does sound fun. Part of this responsibility comes out of my understanding of what it means when God commands, gives the charge to, Adam to govern and reign over creation, or as it appears in Genesis 2:15 "to watch over" creation. When we construct a mental lens that is formed from understanding of creation, which includes a mandate for us as human beings to care for creation, along with my thesis focus chapter 11 has a greater richness for me.

In Chapter 11 Aslan, the Christ figure throughout the Chronicles, states "Before the new clean land world I gave you is seven hours old, a force of evil has already entered it...As Adam's race has done the harm, Adam's race shall help to heal it". Then as Chapter 11 concludes he asks the Cabby and his wife this series of question:

"Can you use a spade and a plough and raise food out of the earth"?
"Can you rule these creatures kindly and fairly...and would you bring up your children and grandchildren to do the same"?
"And if enemies came against the land (for enemies will rise) and there was war, would you be the first in the charge and the last in the retreat"?

When the Cabby answers in the affirmative then Aslan states, "Then...you will have done all that a King should do."

Each of these questions serves as a charge to me to reinforce the responsibility I have to care for creation. Too many times we interpret "Reign", "Govern", and "Watch over" as conquer, pillage, and rape, instead of care, protect, and , renew. Beginning to fulfill the charge given to the first King & Queen of Narnia would put us on the right path towards fulfilling our Genesis 1:28 mandate.

For "As Adam's race has done the harm, Adam's race shall help to heal it".