Prince Caspian

There are few people who have had more influence on my theological upbringing than C.S. Lewis. My parents gave me the "Chronicles of Narnia" when I was little and I haven't been able to put Lewis down since. For my money there is no greater work of Christian fiction than "The Great Divorce." So, as lame as it might be I can't wait for the next Narnia movie to come out. (Actually I am really hoping they stay with the series long enough to make The Last Battle)

As a youth pastor I have been inundated with material for the Prince Caspian movie. My mailbox has been stuffed full with all kinds of posters, fliers, and suggestions on how to incorporate the material into my programing. Before I go any further, I should let it be known that yes I do plan on taking my youth group to see the movie. However, I have no plans on incorporating any of the material I have been sent into my regular programming. To be quite honest I can't see it as anything more than an elaborate marketing scheme to get more people to buy movie tickets because it is the "Christian thing to do."

Without getting into a discussion on what "Christian business" should look like, the question I want to ask is "How much, if any, influence should "pop culture" have on the church?" As a youth pastor, and someone who is fairly new to full-time ministry, I struggle with this question. I need "stuff" that is going to be appealing to teenagers if I want to get them in the doors, but I refuse the notion, which seems to be the prevailing approach in youth ministry, that what we offer, i.e. the bible, isn't relevant enough, so we need to "spice it up." So, I'm torn.

And then in the midst of my thesis research I read this quote by Jurgen Moltmann which has really challenged me. In his book "The Crucified God," he said, "A Christianity which does not measure itself in theology and practice by this criterion [faith in a crucified Christ] loses its identity and becomes confused with the surrounding world; it becomes the religious fulfillment of the prevailing social interests, or of the interests of those who dominate society. It becomes a chameleon which can no longer be distinguished from the leaves of the tree in which it sits."

It seems to me that we have made the inability to distinguish the church from the prevailing culture a badge of honor, so that we celebrate when people walk through our doors and don't realize that they are at church. But I have to agree with Moltmann that this must not be the case.

So with that thought in mind, I wanted to hear what everyone else thinks about this issue. Particularly in light of our recent conversation on emergent _____________ it seems to be profoundly relevant. Again, I am torn on the issue. So what do you think?

Credentials

So, it's that time of the year again and I am due to appear before the Board of Credentials in order to renew my license for the Tennessee District Church of the Nazarene. This will be the fourth year that I have had a district minister's license, and last year was the first year I was actually asked a "real" question. It was about sanctification. Long story short we didn't see eye to eye on what that word means, and I cowered in front of the board and agreed with what they had to say. (I emphasized process, they were very emphatic on instantaneous entire sanctification, as I recall)

This year they have begun a new process. Instead of surprising the candidate with a random question they have sent us all a list of six possible questions which might be asked. So, in keeping with our grassroots effort to reeducate the Church of the Nazarene I thought it would be interesting to post these questions, share in brief my response to them, and see how everyone else would respond to them. So, without further to do, here they are:

1) Define sin; both original and personal.

2) What are the spiritual disciplines that you are engaged in to keep your heart and life fresh?

3) What is the difference between initial sanctification and entire sanctification?

4) Explain how you would answer the question, “What is a Nazarene?”

5) What are two or three Scriptures that help inform your understanding of entire sanctification?

6) You kneel beside a seeker at an altar in your church after a message on salvation. You ask the seeker, “What would you like the Lord to do for you?” The seeker responds, “I want to be born again.” What is your response?

1)This question hits home for me in particular because I am currently working on it as part of my thesis. I define sin as inverted relationship, or perhaps more specifically, idolatry. I think sin is less about breaking a set rules, then it is us trying to put ourselves in the place of the "rule maker." In other words, idolatry. I don't think the notion of broken relationship is adequate because I don't think it works with notions of prevenient grace or any idea that God is and continues to be the source of all life and being. If the relationship was severed then how could we continue to exist? Inverted relationship, on the other hand, wherein we the creature have tried to "snatch" divinity away from God (see the Genesis account, Romans 5, Philippians 2) and put ourselves, mere creatures, in the place of the creature, radicalizes sin and takes it far more seriously than notions of "missing the mark" or "broken relationship" because it names it for what it is: idolatry. As for original sin, I would break away from Augustine on this point and reject a notion of some sort of genetically inherited trait wherein we are all born with sin. If we are born with sin, then why are we held responsible for it? I would argue more for a propensity for sin based on selfish, or idolatrous, desires that arise from our "free will."

2)I read a lot. I converse a lot. I pray a lot. Not really sure how to answer this question. If they are looking for some sort of regiment they aren't going to find it with me, it's just not my personality. In order for me to keep things "fresh" I need flux in my spiritual life i.e. sometime it's the Bible, sometimes a theology book; sometimes its time intentionally set aside to pray, sometimes it's spontaneous in my office.......

3)Ahh.....sanctification. I think we put far too much emphasis on crisis moments and "magic" words at an altar. This isn't to totally negate their importance. I think they are very significant as they signify a life altering moment. However, I think we too often leave our theology of sanctification (and justification, for that matter, although I would point out that Wesley didn't really separate the two) stop at the altar. I think that crisis moments at an altar are just the beginning of a lifelong process. Certainly the process towards a life apart from sin (sin my definition above) may be "quicker" for some then for others, but I don't think any of us are made "perfect" in a moment. Even if we say God see us that way, is that even true? Doesn't it make God look a bit naive, or even worse, a lair? Initial sanctification for me, at this point in my journey and understanding, is a moment which I think begins at "justification" or at a "second crisis moment" wherein we completely dedicate our lives to God. Again I am not sure how that is different from justification, except in that it flows from it. Long story short, I think that "initial sanctification" is the first step of a long journey and that "entire sanctification" is the end of that long journey when we fully recognize and live out our place in creation: as creatures totally devoted to their Creator. And, once again, that journey may end sooner for some than for others. (I think that was all as clear as mud)

4)Well...we're kinda like the Baptists...(j.k) Here I would quote the old "Wesleyan-Armenian...." line and add something to the effect that we are a people who recognize the essential call to holiness in the Christian life and who feel called to remind the church of that calling through its life and proclamation.

5)Since sanctification is based on the issue of sin, I would draw from the passages that influence my understanding of sin, in particular Romans 5 and Philippians 2, and of course what specific passages mention "holiness".

6) I would say "Awesome, but first let me get a record of that so that I can write you down as one of the people that have been saved under my ministry for the credentials application." Here is my Methodist influence coming in, I'm not really that interested anymore in altar conversions, mainly because I think that is all we have really been interested in as a Nazarene church. I would certainly take the time to explain a little bit more what "born again" means and I would definitely pray with/for them, but I would be much more interested in setting aside several times for us to meet in the coming days, or even weeks, and talk about it so that the "convert" really understands the decision they are making and will really be equipped to go forward from that conversion.


Well obviously these are very brief responses, some of which probably raise more questions that they answer. I would love to respond to any questions about my responses, but I would be more interested to know how everyone else would respond to the questions.


Grace and Peace,
Zack

Review: A New Earth

A new phenomenon has graced (or disgraced) the presence of popular television for the past few weeks. Oprah, the famous (or infamous) talk show host has endorsed a new book for her book club. Labeling this choice 'a bold move', Oprah decided that this book is different and deserves more time and effort than any of her other books that she has suggested for her book club. Therefore, every Monday night, for the past 8 weeks, Oprah has had a 'virtual class discussion' on this book, A New Earth, by Eckhart Tolle.

After receiving a youtube video link on a forwarded email, I decided that it may be beneficial to take a deeper look into this work. The youtube video has an obvious bias, and I do not like to take things at face value when they are critical of someone else's work, so I did my own research. Oprah has provided these class sessions for free on iTunes, so I downloaded the first hour and a half session and watched it.

Tolle and Oprah (it's interesting how we only use her first name when referring to her) talked to each other and to people from around the world about the first chapter of the book, A New Earth. One lady videoed in a question that asked, 'How can I still be a Christian and use this teaching? Is it possible to reconcile the two together?' The answers from Tolle and Oprah were very interesting, to say the least. Oprah proceeded to tell a story of why she left the Baptist church she attended for years. Her reason was because the pastor one morning said that 'God is a jealous God.' Upon hearing this, Oprah responded (at 27 years of age), 'What? God is a jealous God? Jealous of what? Jealous of me? I thought God is Love.' After this revelation, Oprah left the church.

Now, the answer, although not sufficient in my opinion, basically went like this: God is all-loving, all-powerful, and all-present, and we cannot keep God 'in the box', so we need to be open to ANY means by which God relates to each individual (paraphrased by me). The bottom line is that Oprah believes that Tolle's methods are totally kosher with the Christian Faith and that his methods actually enhance our Faith in Christ.

Immediately after hearing this, I decided it would be worth a read. If it enhances Christianity, then I sure want to see what this is about, right? (please excuse the sarcasm) So I checked the book out of our public library and read it, in a very short amount of time, by the way. Here are some quotes I found interesting:

'Christ can be seen as the archetypal human, embodying both the pain and the possibility of transcendence.' (144)

'The possibility of such a transformation [of consciousness] has been the central message of the great wisdom teachings of humankind. The messengers - Buddha, Jesus, and others, not all of them known - were humanity's early flowers. A widespread flowering was not yet possible at that time, and their message became largely misunderstood and often greatly distorted.' (6)

'In Hindu teachings, this transformation is called enlightenment. In the teachings of Jesus, it is salvation, and in Buddhism, it is the end of suffering.' (13)

And my personal favorite:
'Almost every woman has her share in the collective female pain-body (term used to describe the 'bad' which is in us), which tends to become activated particularly just prior to the time of menstruation. At that time many woman become overwhelmed by intense negative emotion.' (155)

These quotes just give a snippet of 'enlightenment' (pun intended) into the writing of Tolle.

Although this book is among a myriad of New Age material out there, I was particularly upset with Mr. Tolle and his academic integrity, or lack thereof. He uses Platonic philosophy mixed with Freudian psychology and he gives ZERO credit to either of them. He has an entire chapter dedicated to the concept of the 'ego' and says nothing of Sigmund Freud. And he talks about the 'Forms' and the images of the Forms but says nothing of Plato. This is not acceptable in academia and should be condemned as plagiarism.

Finally, Tolle's 'inspiration' for the title of the book comes from the Bible, where Jesus talks about 'a new heaven and a new earth'. He says, 'A new heaven is the emergence of a transformed state of human consciousness, and a new earth is its reflection in the physical realm' (23). In Tolle's mind, and Oprah's voice, humanity is increasing becoming 'aware' of who we intrinsically are. This is done by being in the 'present state of consciousness' and not thinking of the past or the future, only the now (his former book is called, The Power of Now). By becoming aware of our 'presentness', what Tolle actually refers to as the 'I Am', we will be transformed into the higher state of consciousness, which will yield a new earth, which will be free of pain.

I thought it poignant to read and write about this book because of the extremely large influence Oprah has on millions of people in the world in general, and millions of Christians in particular. Tolle is a plagiarist, an author with no academic integrity, who also takes the Bible completely out of context with every passage he uses. This book IS NOT kosher with the Christian Faith, and SHOULD NOT be used to 'enhance' our Christian beliefs. It negates the person and work of Christ. It places I, me, my at the center of the universe, and it destroys any conception of original sin. Oprah may be a nice person, but her endorsement of this book as being something every Christian should read and use seems to be an act of a 'wolf in sheeps clothing'.

Oh, and by the way, Tolle believes in the Big Bang Theory, to which he adds: The world started as a big bang of the material. It is growing bigger and more complex every day. Eventually, however, it will get to the point where it begins to shrink down to nothingness again. At that point, another bang will happen and start the process all over again. Good one Tolle.

Peace to All,
Joseph

Review: Why We're Not Emergent

We have been having a good back and forth discussion on the previous blog, and recently (out of researching for this discussion) I was introduced to the website: www.notemergent.com. Now for obvious reasons I wanted to find out what this was all about, so I went to the site and found this book pictured above. These two authors generously, or out of marketing prowess, provided a free chapter of the book, Why We're Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be). I read the free chapter and decided it may be worth the $11.99 to order it at Christianbook.com. Received last Thursday, I have now finished the book and I will provide a few thoughts here on the roundtable.

Written by two authors with very different writing styles, the book keeps you from getting too bored. Kevin Deyoung is a Cordon-Conwell Seminary trained pastor of University Reformed Church (yes, he is a part of the Reformed Church) in Michigan. Ted Kluck is a professional sports writer for ESPN The Magazine. For the times one may become bogged down in Deyoung's theologically potent chapters, the mood swings and the reading becomes much lighter when Kluck is at the pen. This was welcomed.

As you may be guessing, yes these guys are heavily steeped in the Reformed tradition, Heidelberg Catechism and all. They were introduced to the 'emerging conversation' through a church down the road a bit called Mars Hill Bible Church, where Rob Bell is at the controls. Seeing the interest in their University Students at their own church towards Bell's teachings, these two guys decided to investigate this thing called, 'emergent/emerging church'. Purporting to have read thousands of pages of emergent literature and attending many emerging events/churches, Deyoung and Kluck believe themselves to qualified to respond.

Without getting into the details, or into the extreme Reformed versus the extreme Emergent claims, the book has one major theme: The Christian Church needs balance. Therefore, the book is primarily a warning to those who are rejecting, or just neglecting, some truths about the Christian Faith that cannot be compromised. One of the ultimate examples is Rob Bell in his book, Velvet Elvis, who claims that the virgin birth of Christ may not be necessary to Christianity. I have read the Mars Hill Bible Church beliefs, and Rob Bell's church does confess to believing the virgin birth, but his passage in Velvet Elvis, these guys argue, is threatening and scary.

According to the authors, the bottom line is this: Christianity has a few things that cannot be compromised. Without them, we are nothing, and we must be careful not to lose them. Deyoung and Kluck are extremely concerned with the concept of Atonement and Salvation: Christ's Ultimate purpose. They want to make sure that we balance the 'journey' and 'relationship' with the reality of Christ's life, death, resurrection, and purpose. Deyoung, in the final chapter, reminds us of the 7 churches in the book of Revelation. Each had something positive about them, but all can learn something from the others. He concludes: 'Call it linear, dogmatic, or hopelessly otherworldy, but it's what Christians have held onto for millennia as their only comfort in life and in death. And by God's grace such an articulation of the Christian message will emerge and reemerge, unapologetically and unhesitatingly, as front and center in all our churches' (253).

Even though the title may not reflect it, this book is a good addition to the emerging conversation, and hopefully it will be well received. Although I may not agree with all of what is said in the book, and I may see a bit of bias in its presentation, the goal has been met and the point is well put: Balance the experience, the journey, of Christianity with the reality of Christ's purpose, which is salvation from sin, death, and the grave.

Peace to All, and may this not be the only book review on the Roundtable!

Joseph

Another Voice

It's been three days since April Fools and I still fell for the scam. Unfortunately, this scam is all too rooted in reality. The scam being perpetrated was that a group had been commissioned to write a new addition to the historical statement of the manual which would recognize the place of the emergent movement in the Church of the Nazarene. The bigger scam, however, is the emergent movement itself. To be clear, I do not think that those who align themselves are con-artists, in fact I think most of them are good people with good intentions, namely bringing the gospel to the world. However, I think they are blind to their own deception. In their evangelical fervor to spread the gospel they have exchanged, or rather disposed of, the radical claims of the Christian faith and instead supplemented them with a seeker-sensitivity that is embarrassed of it's own history and void of any truth. In their fervor they have forgotten that it is the role of the church to be the church and to tell the world that it is the world. Without going into a long diatribe, I say all this to say that the "emergence", to borrow the term, of the emergent movement in the Church of the Nazarene is my "line in the sand". I have long been a critic in the shadows, like I'm sure many of us are on any number of issues, but I think the time has come for a "call to arms." For too long the conversation has been between a "traditional" church who, rightfully so, is wary and skeptical, but apparently either not concerned enough, or in the case of many lay people, lacking the ability to articulate their fears and doubts, and the emergent movement who see themselves as the only alternative, or solution, to whatever problems the church may (or may not) be facing. I propose the "emergence" of another voice, one which celebrates the tradition of the church which has been passed down through the blood of martyrs, which rejects the accommodation of the world, and which exposes the ontotheological grounding and nihilistic end of the emergent movement. As members of the Nazarene church, in particular, we have heeded a call to a distinct way of life, one which cannot be forsaken, or "re-narrated", because it makes outsiders, or even insiders, uncomfortable. The emergence of the emergent movement and it's re-narration and relativising of the church can only lead to one place: the death of the faith. I do not know what form all of this would take, however, I think the easy place to start would be here. I think that the legacy of those who have come before us in the faith calls us to be a voice of truth and the future of the church depends upon it. For those of you who adhere to this movement, and are living and loving this 'realm of relativism', please help me to understand if I am wrong in my assertions. Invite me, invite us, into the 'conversation' and 'come let us reason it out.' If we are all in this together we need all voices heard. Grace and peace.

Zack

Blind Faith? Perfect...

Luke 7.1-10 - Centurion's Servant Healed

As I may have mentioned, we are going through the Gospel according to Luke in our Wednesday night bible study with the young Adults. I am loving it because I haven't done much biblical studies. Last night we went through chapter 7 of Luke.

Sermon ideas pop into my head all the time these days, and last night was no different. After reading and discussing the first 10 verses of Luke, it hit me like a ton of bricks. We can learn so much from this Roman Centurion. For those who don't remember or don't want to go read it (link provided above) the story goes like this:

A Roman Centurion hears about Jesus; he knows that Jesus has been accomplishing some miraculous miracles. He has a servant who is ill, so he sends some of his Jewish friends to meet Jesus and ask Him to come and heal his servant. Jesus obliges and comes, but before He can get to the Centurion's house, He is met by some of the Centurion's servants. They have a conversation in which the servants tell Jesus that the Centurion says, 'Just say the word and my servant will be healed' (paraphrased by me). Jesus is blown away at this guys faith, and He tells the servants that this sick one has been healed. Jesus then goes on His way.

Now the obvious theme of this story is faith, which has been common throughout the first few chapters of Luke, but this faith is a bit different. With the others whom Jesus touched, or healed, they saw Him face to face. They made their requests to Him personally. The Centurion, however, did not. He never met Jesus, he had only heard about Him. His faith is so great that he tells Jesus, through his servants, that he believes that what he asks of Him will be done. Jesus, seeing his great faith, has a moment of 'What??!' This Roman has more faith in Me than My own people? Jesus' humanness is made evident in this moment. Because of this great faith, the servant is healed.

Great story, right? But there is one thing that I found fascinating about it. The Centurion and Jesus NEVER see each other. Even though Jesus came to his house, the Centurion sent servants out to talk to Him. Jesus and the Centurion never see each other face to face, although they may have been a few hundred feet or less from each other. What is amazing is the fact that Jesus, after he grants the request, goes on His way. He knows He doesn't have to meet the Centurion face to face. He knows that the faith of the man is enough.

My point is this. If this Roman Centurion, a man who could have met Jesus face to face as a person to a person, can have that much faith and still not see Jesus, how can we, living 2,000 years later, not have the same amount of faith? Jesus goes on His way, knowing the Centurion believed without seeing. Can we be like the Centurion? Can we believe yet not see? If we do, my friends, we are called, 'Blessed'.

May we be strengthened and encouraged in the reading of this story of great faith. Even though we do not see Him, we still believe.

Grace and Peace,
Joseph

Icons are Good

Let me begin by saying, I am a lifetime member of the Church of the Nazarene, born into the church, really. But this born Nazarene likes to consider himself an ecumenical Christian, a catholic Christian. Because of this, I love to explore and utilize different practices and tools found in other Christian traditions. One of these tools I love is the Icon, a tool most associated with the Orthodox Christian Tradition, the Eastern Christian Church, if you will. I have grown to admire the use of iconography in worship, prayer, solemnity, and teaching.

This past Saturday, I began teaching a class on theology for the Ministerial Studies program offered by our Church of the Nazarene district. The students are made up of males and females who are on the ordination track in our church. They have not been formally trained in seminary or university, so the church provides required classes in order for the students to complete the education requirements for ordination. So Saturday, I taught a lesson on the Person of Christ to 5 students, all older than me.

To mix it up a bit, and to practice what I just preached, I used an Icon as a teaching tool. It is the one you see above, The Nativity of Christ. I planned on explaining the Icon and the meaning behind the details, to which I prefaced with an explanation of Icons and their meaning an purpose. I explained that the term 'icon' means something that points to something else. When we look at an icon, we see something more than the icon, we see what the icon depicts, what it represents, and what it attempts to re-create in our minds and hearts. Also, I added that we are to be 'icons' of Christ. Ones who live as pointers to Him. When one sees us and engages with us, does that one see Christ?

After explaining the meaning, we proceeded to exegete the Nativity of Christ. We pointed out the obvious things, but as we went on, they got into it. They started pointing out things that I never thought of. It was great! Quite possibly the first icon some of these people had seen, and they were drawn to its meaning and they were empowered by its purpose. The icon, the thing which points to something else, served it purpose that day. The students learned, the teacher learned, and it was all to the glory of Christ. May we live as icons of Him.

And so, I ask you what I asked them, what does this icon represent, and to what does it point?

Peace be with you,
Joseph