N.T. Wright on Christian Vocation

“Knowledge is a subbranch of love, rather than the other way around. Our vocation, then, is to be agents of new creation, knowing the world and one another with delight and in love and in respect, celebrating it as God’s good creation, grieving over the places where it has gone wrong, glimpsing new creation, not least through the arts and through beauty, and working to make it happen.” (N.T. Wright, “The Christian Challenge in the Postmodern World”, par. 40).

How often do Christians elevate knowledge above love? What would it look like to make love the primary motive for all our actions? Many well-intentioned Christians, who make knowledge their primary motive, end up causing hindrances to the hope of the gospel by abusive, “all-knowing” rhetoric (“turn or burn”) or prideful “puffed-up” knowledge (beware Seminarians!). The hope of the gospel is not escapist theology (“the world is going to burn so let’s hold fast to the day we go to heaven”), but the mandate to be “agents of new creation,” joining God in the restoration of all things.

Further reading:

Wright, N.T. Surprised By Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church. New York: Harper One, 2008.

Wright, N. T. (2005). “The Christian Challenge in the Postmodern World” http://www.spu.edu/depts/uc/response/summer2k5/features/postmodern.asp

What makes the church, church?

My understanding of ecclesiology (what makes the church, church) is derived in part from my childhood in the Pentecostal tradition and my studies at seminary. Though I remain grateful to my Pentecostal/Charismatic upbringing, I currently consider myself in the Non-Denominational Free Church category (which seems to be a denomination in itself at times). In both the Pentecostal/Charismatic and Non-Denominational Free Churches, the centrality of the Scriptures (like mainline Protestants) is considered central with the additional tenets of freedom from state control, voluntary church membership, believer baptism, discipleship for all Christians, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).[1] Ecclesiology, in my view, extends beyond these primary elements of the believers church tradition in order to learn from my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox brothers and sisters.

In Roman Catholicism, Protestants can derive so much theological richness from the spirituality of classic Catholic authors (i.e. mysticism). There have been so many great Catholic writers of the faith such as St. Augustine, St. Teresa, Thomas Merton, Evelyn Underhill, and Henri Nouwen. Protestants who choose not to learn from these champions of the faith do so to their own loss. A recovery of ancient Catholic spirituality is part of my understanding of ecclesiology.

In the Eastern Orthodox tradition, we can learn to embrace the “visual” as spiritually formative. Protestants have historically – and for good reason – placed emphasis upon the Word (aural). I think a holistic faith includes the importance of the Word, but also recognizes the beauty and spiritual necessity of the “visual” (art, icons, film, etc.) The European Reformation, in part, involved reacting against images and elevating the Word to central importance. I however perceive iconoclasm as spiritually detrimental. Visual beauty and the arts speak to culture in ways that words cannot. Therefore, a recovery of visual elements in the church is a tenet of my ecclesiology.

Overall, my understanding of ecclesiology is thoroughly evangelical, rooted in the Believers church tradition, mindful of ecumenism, influenced by Pentecostal/Charismatic spirituality, and increasingly open to new opportunities to enrich my faith (Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy). What do you think makes the church, church?

---

[1] Dyrness, William A., Veli-Matti Karkkainen, Juan Francisco Martinez, and Simon Chan, Global Dictionary of Theology (IVP Academic, 2008), 105.

On Belief and Praxis

A friend of mine, who is a more frequent and better writer than I am, did a 5-part series on how he understands postmodernism. I interacted with his thoughts a little bit, and here is what I had to say:

I just finished a two-week course in postmodern theology that clarified a lot of concepts I’ve been working through. A lot of what I have to say comes straight from discussion/class lecture and an Irish theologian, Peter Rollins. You [my friend Elijah] noted, “The most common misconception I find about postmodernism is that postmoderns don’t believe in absolute truth.” This is a naïve understanding of postmodern thought, and the nuance is that postmoderns do not believe in absolute/objective ways of getting to that (T)ruth. I appreciate Pete Rollins thoughts on this idea from his book How (Not) to Speak of God. He writes, “The idea of an objective world was not rejected by these great ‘masters of suspicion’ (a title bestowed upon Nietzsche, Freud and Marx), only the idea that human beings could grasp this objective world in an objective manner” (p.11).

Elsewhere he writes (and this is one of his central frameworks) that the concern is not about believing the right things as it is believing in the right way. What good are abstract propositions if they are removed from reality and lived experience? What good is it to believe in the resurrection of Christ if you are not living as if the resurrection of Christ happened? I found this on Pete’s blog:

My Confession: I deny the Resurrection “At one point in the proceedings [Calvin College debates] someone asked if my theoretical position led me to denying the Resurrection of Christ. This question allowed me the opportunity to communicate clearly and concisely my thoughts on the subject, which I repeat here. Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system. However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.” (From Pete’s blog)

We have a play on words and concepts – semantics if you like – but semantics is never just semantics. There is intention. For Rollins, postmodern theology is a revolution of the “how”. How we communicate the gospel needs to be re-contextualized for a society that no longer sees the validity of the gospel. This re-contextualization involves a recovery of praxis in the Christian faith. Of course, this is just the tip of the iceberg in the complex-at-times-frustrating postmodern conversation.

Does all of this mean we throw belief (conceptual understandings of God) out the window? Many postmodern and emergent thinkers (not necessarily synonymous) have been ferociously accused of this. Some people have labeled them (especially the ‘Emergent’ brand) as heretics who question the deity of Jesus and are more concerned about social justice than the gospel message. Of course there are many nuances and distinctions to make here in order to be fair to all sides of the issue. The bottom line, however, is to affirm the Scriptural assertions of belief (such as the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus) while becoming not only adherents but also practitioners of the gospel.

Nietzsche and Women

I came across this passage reading Beyond Good and Evil. All I can say is….wow.

“To go wrong on the fundamental problem of ‘man and woman,’ to deny the most abysmal antagonism between them and the necessity of an eternally hostile tension, to dream perhaps of equal rights, equal education, equal claims and obligations – that is a typical sign of shallowness, and a thinker who has proved shallow in this dangerous place – shallow in his instinct – may be considered altogether suspicious, even more – betrayed, exposed: probably he will be too ’short’ for all fundamental problems of life, of the life yet to come, too, and incapable of attaining any depth. A man, on the other hand, who has depth, in his spirit as well as in his desires, including that depth of benevolence which is capable of severity and hardness and easily mistaken for them, must always think about woman as Orientals do: he must conceive of woman as a possession, as property that can be locked, as something predestined for service and achieving her perfection in that. Here he must base himself on the tremendous reason of Asia, on Asia’s superiority in the instincts, as the Greeks did formerly, who were Asia’s best heirs and students: as is well known, from Homer’s time to the age of Pericles, as their culture increased along with the range of their powers, they also became more severe, in brief, more Oriental, against woman. How necessary, how logical, how humanely desirable even, this was – is worth pondering.”

*From Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (Random House: New York, 1989), 166-167 (section 238).

Dictionary Entry #1

What’s yours?

On reading books and evaluating art…

I would like to share two things that have helped me in my approach to reading texts and looking at art. Surely some of you may do this already, and it may seem common sense, but these following approaches have helped me. First, when reading books (especially non-fiction), do not read the text in a monotone way. Try as much as you can to read with enthusiasm, taking note of context and punctuation. Try as much as possible to imagine the author speaking in his/her tone. From the context, imagine the author speaking softly and soothingly or passionately exuberant (and everything in between) when appropriate. This will help get the author’s points across more efficiently, and its much more entertaining than “simply” reading a text.
Second, when evaluating art (specifically paintings), do not simply observe the colors, texture, lighting, etc. although those are important techniques. What you should try to do is imagine yourself in the painting. Part of enjoying art is using your imagination. This is especially helpful in landscape art. Give it a shot. Find something beautiful.

Van Gogh's "Wheatfield with Crows"

Try this out: Imagine you are alone in this field. Take in all your senses: the smell of the wheat, the feel of the dirt on your bare feet, the rustle of wind on your hair as the birds fly overhead, the cool breeze, etc. Do a 360 degree turn. Take in your surroundings.

Stop motion (take 2)

I thought I would continue posting on cool stop motion videos.

Oren Lavie video

Here’s a great use of stop motion technique.

On incarnational living…

Physical dualism, historically and theologically speaking, has placed greater emphasis upon the non-physical elements such as the soul or spirit than on material substance. Many churches would not explicitly acknowledge this, but we have a subtle form of Gnosticism at work in many theological circles. This mode of thinking operates under a ‘top-down’ approach, meaning the spiritual informs the physical. In the spiritual/physical hierarchy, the spiritual is at the top. The unique notion, however, is that physical matters reciprocally inform spiritual matters. The physical employs a ‘bottom-up’ approach, or rather, abolishes the hierarchy altogether. What happens in the physical world affects the things in the spiritual world and vice versa. What we do with our bodies has spiritual significance. This is why the physical postures we take in worship, both individually and communally, are important. Furthermore, the way in which we treat our bodies, namely the way we eat and exercise, is also spiritually significant. The abolishment of the physical/spiritual hierarchy leads us to see that everything is physical just as everything is spiritual.
I have been involved in churches that preach a subtle form of this Gnosticism. In soteriological terms, these churches emphasize, “Jesus wants to save your soul.” There is a subtle yet vitally important nuance to make here. Salvation is not applicable only for the afterlife, but for the here and now. Whether we have a soul or not, salvation is holistic and encompasses all parts of our being, which includes our physical bodies. Being saved in this present life has implications for what we do with our bodies. This is where Christian mission takes importance.
Mission is not confined to armchair theologians and ivory-tower academics, but for those who operate under incarnational living. We should not get distracted by buzzwords like incarnational. The point is to live out the message of Jesus, spiritually and physically, in the culture(s) we live in. Living in our incarnational bodies – both spiritually formed and physically active – is the type of body theology that the church needs to embody. We need to take care of ourselves so that we may take care of others.
Another point worth exploring is the relationship between Jesus and body theology. We do know that Jesus bled, noting that this is one of the core doctrines of Christianity. If he bled, then it seems likely that he had other biological occurrences. I have not come across much material that theologizes about these internal biological processes of Jesus’ humanity (ex. odorous breath, urination, defecation, seminal fluids, etc.) I can only assume this is a result of our sentimentalizing of Jesus, or that the Scripture writers found it unnecessary to include these aspects. The point to make here is that Jesus was a fully embodied human as we are. He experienced not just the emotional and spiritual elements of life, but also the biological elements of everyday living. The church should acknowledge and embody a holistic understanding of Jesus incarnation – one that includes his physical biology. The question to ponder is, “What is the theological significance of Jesus’ biology?”

Google Reader

For those of you who are new to the world of blogging (blogosphere, if you like), I would recommend using Google Reader to manage all of your blog subscriptions. Everytime a new post is made, Google will update your reader homepage by letting you know who made the post. Beware: blogging is known to be addictive.

www.google.com/reader