Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...

Does “working” mean “relative”?

Since I was in the first class, I thought I would do the first assignment for Amy’s “Theology and Culture” class. So if Amy’s version looks a lot like mine – I wrote mine first! The assignment appears below:

Discuss and assess the working definition of theology provided in class. How does it compare with others? What are its potential strengths and weaknesses? What concerns, if any, does it raise for you? How might such a definition influence the life and witness of the church?

In his working definition, John Franke, lays out the nature, task and purpose of Christian theology. He develops this further by associating local, confession and mission respectively to nature, task and purpose. The nature of theology is that it is local or contextual. The task of theology is to confess “the beliefs and practices of the Christian church”. Finally the purpose of theology is to focus on the mission of God’s people living in their “particular social-historical context”.

The nature-local, task-confession and purpose-mission definition of theology is expanded here. “Christian Theology is an on-going, second-order, contextual discipline that engages in the task of critical and constructive reflection on the beliefs and practices of the Christian church for the purpose of assisting the community of Christ’s followers in their missional vocation to live as the people of God in the particular social-historical context in which they are situated.”

This is most like Millard Erickson’s definition, theology is a “coherent statement of doctrines; based on Scripture, placed in the context of culture”. Franke’s task of theology and Erickson’s statement of doctrines are closely aligned especially in light of their purpose in the context of the current culture. In both definitions we see the ideas of what the Church is and who it is married together with what the Church does in formulating the definition of Christian Theology. It is much like the circular flow of the formal to the material to the formal to the material and on and on it goes as the definition of theology and the practice of theology relate to one another hand in hand. The deviation of Erickson and Franke is on the basis of Scripture alone being foundational and Scripture along with culture being co-foundational.

That deviation seems to come into clearer focus with Wayne Grudem defining theology as, “The answer to the question, ‘What does the whole Bible teach us about any topic?’” And noted Van Tillian scholar, John Frame, gives an even more concise definition than Grudem with the suggestion that theology be defined as, “the application of the Word of God by persons to all areas of life” (The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God). Franke’s departure here lies within his nature of theology being second-order or interpretive within an on-going and ever changing context. This is what makes his theology co-foundational with the Word of God and the currency of thought prevailing at any given moment in time, this moment being defined as post-modern.

This weakens our dependence upon Scripture as the Word of God being fully confident that He is eternal and everlasting; while placing this in the context of an indefinable, ever-changing post-modern worldview. Franke’s definition of theology seems most weak with its emphasis on context and culture, especially when placed in our current culture. Admittedly, he cannot easily define what post-modernism is and uses this basis as a defense against those that reject the ideals of a revolving door of truth view of post-modernism. In doing so he still provides a definition of post-modernism as the rejection of modernism.

How does this really weaken his view of Christian theology? By undermining the eternal truths that are found in Scripture and placing them in a contextual environment of the apparent absence of absolutes. By its very nature, post-modernism is difficult to define and characterize because of the revolving door on the definition of truth or its relativity to the truth bearer. The standard and rock of truth seems apparent in these words penned by the Apostle Paul, “We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up. For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: "The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me." For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. May the God who gives endurance and encouragement give you a spirit of unity among yourselves as you follow Christ Jesus, so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Romans 15:1-6, emphasis added). Paul writes here to encourage the continual reflection and application of Scriptural truths to our lives to give us hope of unity with our Lord Jesus Christ.

Oddly enough the strength of Franke’s relative working definition of theology is found in these verses as well. The local nature of theology and its application to our own hearts is reflective of the vertical relationship we have with our God and is the very well of hope that we have. While the task and purpose of theology is the out-pouring of that hope, love and faith into the world around us or the horizontal relationship we have with our fellow man. Though Franke may appear to limit this outpouring into the Body of Christ alone, it can be inferred that the mission of the people of God is to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Mark 12:31) or “each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up”, Christian or not.

The strength of “assisting the community of Christ’s followers in their missional vocation to live as the people of God” should not be ignored. This is where the generosity of grace enables community to thrive and shine the light of Christ to the world. This generosity must be balanced and married together with sound doctrine or orthodoxy. Otherwise we run the risk of having these large communities of those that take the name of Christ on themselves, misunderstanding what that really means and its application of that to their lives, effectually rendering themselves in violation of the third commandment (Exodus 20:7). This alone does not condemn, but that there was never any true regeneration of their heart keeps them outside the family of Christ.

In the end I truly believe that Franke, Erickson, Grudem, Frame and myself (not that I am trying to place myself on par with any of them) are all attempting to “demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and…take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). The Spirit works in each of our hearts to manifest the knowledge of God within our personal relationship with Christ which is where the obedience to his Word is found in the unity of the “community of Christ’s followers”.

Steele for Maryland: Aspirations, Dreams and Hope

In his own words, Lieutenant Governor Michael S. Steele, announced today that it was time to heal divisions, time to empower people, time to change the culture, and certainly time for him to run for the United States Senate.

Some people say that it is naive to think that one person can make a difference in Washington. That it cannot be done.

But as an African-American raised by a single mom in a segregated city... who grew up to become one of the first in his family to go to college... the first in his family to get a law degree... and eventually become the first African American statewide official in the history of Maryland... don't tell me it can't be done. Don't tell me we can't do better.

I know we can.

I have seen first hand the greatness of the opportunity that Maryland has to offer.

I have experienced with Governor Ehrlich the power inherent in a disciplined dedication to change.

I have seen the restless spirit of people across this state, people who want their children to have the opportunity to realize their dreams... to have rewarding careers, safe neighborhoods, and stable loving families.

I have seen the resolve to make a better Maryland in the eyes of the people who wear uniforms every day... from the airmen at Andrews and the nurses... and police working the graveyard shift while we sleep... to the mechanic who balances tires by day and his business's books by night.

…

That will be the heart and soul of my campaign... people from different backgrounds. From different neighborhoods... from different walks of life, who have the strength and desire to overcome their differences for a cause that is greater than any one of us.

Our aspirations, our dreams, our hopes are that cause.

So, don't tell me it can't be done because I know we can do it... we can do it for our families... we can do it for Maryland... we can build this bridge together.

Thank you and God bless you all!

Back to school! Back to school, to prove…

…Nothing really. Amy started graduate school this past September and spouses get to sit in on a couple classes, so I went with her on Saturday to her first “Theology and Culture” class. I haven’t been in a college classroom for about 7 years and I must say that I enjoyed it. The last time I was in school, I was not taking it very seriously and was wasting a lot of money in the process. There has been a desire in my heart to finish my degree for some time now and this past Saturday solidified that desire.

So with snack pack in hand (figuratively speaking – Billy Madison style), I ask myself - what did I get out of the class?

The main topics we covered were the Christian mandate of doing theology, a brief overview of Church history (early, medieval, reformation, modern era), defining Christian theology and finally the dangers and disciplines of doing theology. I particularly enjoyed the overview of church history as it fit right in with the current series I am reading on Church history by Philip Schaff. In this discussion we spent some time looking at the canonization of the New Testament, which brought out the professors’ post-modernist views of Scripture while also making an interesting point. First he showed his departure from reformed theology by subtly distancing himself from Sola Scriptura or Scripture Alone. His departure is based upon the emphasis on the dependence of community to bring the Canon together. I would agree that both the new and old testaments relied upon the community of believers to bring about the final results that we have now. But this was all guided by the Holy Spirit working out God’s sovereignty, and allows us to stand firm on the sufficiency of the special revelation the Word of God provides us. The professor did not seem to be so certain of this and puts a great deal of emphasis then and now on the cultures we find ourselves in and how that affects truth.

I think the main thing I took away from the day was the need for generosity in orthodoxy. Put another way, speaking truth with love or the equal importance of grace and truth. 1 Peter 3:15 says, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect…” In sharing the good news, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, we are given the mandate to live out our theology, generously giving the hope found in the message of salvation. In that message we marry both sound doctrine (orthodoxy) with grace (generosity), anything less robs the power of truth from Christ on the cross. I hope I apply this message to my heart daily.

Liberal Principles VII

“Indeed, in some respects Van Til's entire apologetic may be seen as a rethinking of the nature and implications of "antithesis". Like Machen’s liberals, Van Til's "natural man" is an apostate. He knows the truth, but rebels against it and directly opposes it. Nevertheless, as Machen's liberals remained in the church and comforted themselves and others by using traditional Christian language, Van Til's unregenerate live on "borrowed capital," able to avoid utter nihilism only by the inconsistency of acknowledging some elements of God's revelation.”
John Frame on liberal thought in Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of his Thought (1995)

Liberal Principles I
Liberal Principles II
Liberal Principles III
Liberal Principles IV
Liberal Principles V
Liberal Principles VI

There was quite a long interlude there from the presentation of my final principle and this summary post. I don’t believe it is a conclusion because this is a dialog that will take place for quite some time and I’m sure will take on other shapes. This dialog may not occur here, but it is a part of the cultural conversation that our postmodern world finds us in.

Liberal Principle #1: A god has no control nor exerts any influence in the world today, whether he created the world or not
Liberal Principle #2: War is never the answer
Liberal Principle #3: Don’t trust your government
Liberal Principle #4: Government should play a major role in the enforcement of the equality of all ideas, sociological and economic
Liberal Principle #5: Morality is relative to the personal choice of the individual and there should always be a safety net against the consequences of those personal choices

It has been just over four years since I devoted my life to Jesus Christ and I think I have made my faith obvious in my presuppositions to each of these principles. As the dialog has shown that even those that I see ultimately adhering to these basic principles do not like either the implications that I make for this being a part of their belief system, neither do they seem to support the reasons I have for being against this belief system. So as it seems, at least from their perspective, I lose either way.

That is the main thrust of the problem. The perspectivalism or the presuppositions that are made by those who adhere to liberal thought are either in direct contrast, thus antithetical, or only able to maintain a loose grip on a Christian worldview by being inconsistent. Obviously, this doesn’t present much of a problem for the non-believer. What the non-believer tries to avoid is nihilism or a worldview of “whatever”, of pointlessness and thus remaining consistently inconsistent.

Stated another way, there is no divine element in the world, there is no justice, there is no trust; there is only room for the equality of everything and everyone, thus creating a transparent absolute of no absolutes. These are the liberal presuppositions. The disagreements that surfaced throughout the dialog here, seemed only to stem from the inability of those providing their “liberal” point of view to remain consistent.

How is this played out today? Here is a political cartoon depicting the very nature of liberal presuppositions.

The republican elephant appears to be beat up and scared of the liberal talking points. The only problem being that each hammer carries less weight then the next, effectively leaving nothing to beat the drum with. Yet, from the liberal presupposition these hammers carry an enormous weight ignoring the false premise of each.

The defeat of this consistently inconsistent, nihilistic worldview is to embrace truth above all. Focusing our attention on the steadfastness of truth is all that allows us to actually remain consistent. The divine exists and all human history points to the relationship of God to man. This is the basis for our understanding of justice, trust, compassion and morality. Here we have hope for the future and faith in the present.

Building up the Body

While I don’t believe Pink Floyd was in anyway attempting to expose any apparent Christian ideology with the “anarchistic hymn”, Another Brick in the Wall, Part 2. There is always a chance for the non-believer to reflect the divine, as a creation of the divine Creator. Bret Urick, in Pink Floyd's THE WALL: A Complete Analysis said, “If you think about it, Roger Waters was saying that even in a revolt against conformity there will still be the presence of conformists, or uniformed followers.”

Yeah, so what the heck does that have to do with Christianity? With the Church? The conformity of our hearts to that of Christ’s is what makes us each, “just another brick in the wall.” Only this conformity is that which rebels against sin and promotes healing for the entire world by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross.

As a Christian, each with our own brick we have choices to make that will greatly affect our fellow believers, the world around us and the prosperity of our own hearts. The first choice we can make is to take our brick and with all apparent righteousness take it and strike out at all that we see that is unrighteous. We can throw our brick at the sinners around us proclaiming justice and victory. The second choice is to despair at the suffering that surrounds this world, declare injustice and defeat; bang our own heads against the brick helpless to do anything about it all.

The final choice is for the Body of Christ to come together and lay each brick down together, building up hope, love and faith. This requires humility, wisdom and of course a firm foundation on which to build up this body, this wall. That foundation is the firm rock of the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Colossians 3 says, “Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom…” (15-16). Unity and peace in the Body of Christ still demands that wisdom and truth be sought and taught. That is where true righteousness and true victory emerge.

May we all proclaim to be “just another brick in the wall” building up that which reflects the glory of our merciful Savior, the Body of Christ – his Church.

What on earth?

Christians are a peculiar people indeed. This world brings out all the quirks in each and every one of us. We hear things like, “diversity is good or else life would get boring”. Frankly, I could deal with a share of boredom about now. Having a streak of rebellion and always avoiding, at least on some level, the mainstream things that people do I certainly appreciate originality. But when does sin infiltrate that originality and distort it into something worse?

In recent months I have had the joy of dealing with some peculiar people and it is difficult to know how to define these people. Are they part of the chosen generation, Christ’s own special people, who have been saved from the darkness (1 Peter 2:9)? Or are they atypical of Christian brothers and sisters and thus toxic to the unity of the Church?

I have been struggling with these ideas and wondering which category I fall into myself, Chosen or Toxic? Christin Ditchfield in an article titled Toxic Christians writes, “We have to be willing to suffer the slinging of a few fiery darts and arrows…But then again, the Scriptures repeatedly warn us to guard our own hearts and minds, and look out for our own spiritual wellbeing. There are some people whose spirits are so toxic that we have to limit our time with them—if not cut off contact completely. When it seems we just can't avoid these people, we have to remember that God may be using them to teach us patience and perseverance.”

There is this balance that we need to meet or perhaps it’s more of a decision. They are no longer going to affect my sanctification negatively and I am going to affect theirs positively. Or you just decide to get the person or people out of your life because you know you can’t live up to that decision.

For guidance and direction, [a] pastor has written a rather timely article this month.

PRESERVING UNITY IN THE BODY
By Rev. Richard Burguet
First, I think we should be hopeful toward each other. You know, give one another the benefit of the doubt. (1 Cor 4:3-5) We ought to be gracious, especially when offenses are confronted, treating others the way we would want to be treated... to relate to our brothers and sisters in Christ with the same sort of grace that Christ has shown you. (Eph 4:31-5:2, and Col 3:12-15) I don’t believe any of us can have the mind of Christ without prayerfulness either. When you and I constantly confess our own sin to God, I don’t think we tend to be as quick to be offended by the sins of others. And when you and I pray for one another, all the more!

As I seek graciousness in my relationships, I am still ever mindful of the need for wisdom and discernment. While the ideal is unity and reconciliation, separation is not always bad. For those that are truly toxic and there is no working of the Spirit in their hearts, we must be willing to part ways. In the end it is unity in Christ that prevails and saves us each from the darkness and despair of a life apart from the living God. This is not a boring lack of diversity. But Lord, Christians are a peculiar people.

PEACEMAKERS: Overcoming Unforgiveness

Our college and careers ministry, Spectrum, is going through a series on peacemaking.

My leadership notes:
Conflict Provides Opportunities
Confession Brings Freedom

This past week’s lesson was on understanding the method of forgiveness, the result of forgiveness and the process of forgiveness to help us all more fully rely upon God's strength and not our own.

FORGIVENESS

Method of Forgiveness: Propitiation
Before we understand how to deal with the inability to forgive others we should first look at what has been given to us. The forgiveness that each and every believer in Jesus Christ has was given freely to us through the shedding of His blood. This is the method of our forgiveness or propitiation.

Definition –
1) Atonement or Mercy seat

Leviticus 17:11
For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

2) JI Packer from Knowing God, "as that which quenched God's wrath against us by obliterating our sins from his sight"

2 Corinthians 5: 20-21
Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Justin Holcomb from The Problem with Purity, “God sees us as perfect because Jesus did two things: he took our impurity and gave us his purity. In his death, Jesus took on the consequences of our impurities and sins. In his life, Jesus lived the pure life that we could not live. Jesus did for us the good we could not do…and then he attributed it to us. That is the hymn “Rock of Ages” says Jesus is our double-cure—he saves us from wrath and makes us pure.”

We have been clothed in the righteousness of the one that has made atonement for our sins. He paid the ultimate sacrifice, so that we would not receive the judgment we rightfully deserve. It was more than simply taking our place or covering our sin, the propitiations actions of Christ actually wiped out the debt that we owe. His sacrifice changed God’s view upon us as one of sin to one of holiness and purity.

Result of Forgiveness: Repentance
The initiator of our righteousness is God Himself and not us. That is why the result of the forgiveness that He has given us is our very own repentance. We turn from the evil and sin that wells up in our hearts and towards the holiness of our Creator, our Savior.

Definition –
1) Change of Mind (Judas returning the silver)
2) Change of Purpose/Change of Heart (true repentance); turn towards God – away from evil

Hosea 14:1-2
O Israel, return to the Lord your God, For you have stumbled because of your iniquity; Take words with you, And return to the Lord. Say to Him, "Take away all iniquity; Receive us graciously, For we will offer the sacrifices of our lips.

SUFFICIENCY OF GOD’S FORGIVENESS

Romans 8:31-32, 38-39
What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

John Calvin
v31 – “….”Paul bids the saints to lay hold, above all things, on the paternal love of God, that relying on this shield they may boldly triumph over all evils; … while God is propitious to us we shall be safe against all dangers

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

JI Packer, “[F]ear…effect[s]…one's fellowship with God, by overwhelming both reason and faith and so destroying sanity and salvation together. In an age like ours…all Christians… know something of this fear. It is the Christian version of the existentialist angst at the prospect of personal destruction.”

Calvin, v39 – “…the fountain of love is in the Father, and affirms that it flows to us from Christ.”

Despite these assurances of immense forgiveness and the resultant change in our hearts we will still continue to struggle to hold onto the adequacy of these promises. There will always be inner turmoil until that day we are fully reconciled to God by dwelling in His very presence. Paul invites these very penetrating questions in Romans, to charge the mind of his reader to rest in the sufficiency of all they have been given.

The question, “If God is for us, who can be against us?” is more of a positive statement. God IS for us and even though someone is against you, it doesn’t matter because the focus is that God is on your side. You can rest in His assurances that he will give all things to you as needed.

So what do you fear that God is not sufficient to take care of in your life?

MEMBER GUIDE – Question 1

Steps to Overcoming Unforgiveness
1. Confirm Repentance
• Quick/Disingenuous Apology
• Opportunity for deeper explanation of feelings

2. Renounce Sinful Attitudes & Expectations
• Offender must earn forgiveness
• Punish or make them suffer
• Guarantee it won’t happen again

3. Asses Your Contributions to the Problem
• Failures to respond with love
• Remember your faults

4. Recognize That God is Working for Good
• God is sovereign and you can trust Him
• Opportunity to mature, serve others and glorify Him

5. Remember God’s Forgiveness
• When we kneel before the foot of the cross we are reminded of our need for repentance. It is difficult not to see our brokenness in light of His.
• Psalm 103: 10 “he does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities.”

6. Draw on God’s Strength
• Depend on God’s grace
• God changes our hearts
• “… [I]t is not on our forgiveness any more than on our goodness that the world’s healing hinges…” – Corrie ten Boom (nazi imprisonment camp survivor – upon encountering one of her former captives)

RECONCILIATION

Propitiation (method of forgiveness) =>
Repentance (result of forgiveness) =>
Reconciliation (process of forgiveness)

o A process involving a change of attitude that leads to a change in the relationship
o To replace hostility and separation with peace and friendship
o Give repentant person opportunity to demonstrate repentance and regain trust. Repeat as necessary: Loving confrontation, Confession, Forgiveness
o Intentionality

MEMBER GUIDE – Question 3

What are the 3 levels at which you can pursue reconciliation through the replacement principle?

1) Philippians 4:8 – IN THOUGHT
• Deliberately pray for them
• Think on things that are “true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, excellent or praiseworthy

2) 2 Corinthians 2:7-8 – IN WORD
• Verbally reaffirm your friendship
• Sincerely build up the other person

3) 1 John 3:18 – IN DEED
• CS Lewis, “Don’t waste time bothering whether you ‘love’ your neighbor; act as if you did.”
• Actions communicate the reality of your forgiveness

THE PRECIOUS BLOOD
Meditate/Pray/Reflect upon God’s Forgiveness

Blessed Lord Jesus,

Before they cross I kneel and see
the heinousness of my sin,
my iniquity that caused thee to be
‘made a curse’,
the evil that excites the severity of divine wrath.

Show me the enormity of my guilt by
the crown of thorns,
the pierced hands and feet,
the bruised body,
the dying cries.

Thy blood is the blood of incarnate God,
its worth infinite, its value beyond all thought.
infinite must be the evil and guilt
that demands such a price.

Sin is my malady, my moster, my foe, my viper,
born in my birth,
alive in my live,
strong in my character,
dominating my faculties,
following me as a shadow,
intermingling with my every thought,
my chain that holds me captive in the
empire of my soul.

Sinner that I am, why should the sun give me light,
the air supply breath,
the earth bear my tread,
its fruits nourish me,
its creatures subverse my ends?

Yet thy compassions yearn over me,
thy heart hastens to my rescue,
thy love endured my curse,
thy mercy bore my deserved stripes.

Let me walk humbly in the lowest depths
of humiliation,
bathed in thy blood,
tender of conscience,
triumphing gloriously as an heir of salvation.

Taken from
Valley of Vision: A Collection of Puritan Prayers & Devotions