Bandits No More

February 28, 2008

Healthy Theology

Filed under: Evangelism,Theology — rheyduck @ 5:24 pm

I ran across this excerpt from an interview with Richard Rorty at Faith and Theology:

 “I’m delighted that liberal theologians do their best to do what Pio Nono said shouldn’t be done – try to accommodate Christianity to modern science, modern culture, and democratic society. If I were a fundamentalist Christian, I’d be appalled by the wishy-washiness of [the liberal] version of the Christian faith. But since I am a non-believer who is frightened of the barbarity of many fundamentalist Christians (e.g. their homophobia), I welcome theological liberalism. Maybe liberal theologians will eventually produce a version of Christianity so wishy-washy that nobody will be interested in being a Christian anymore. If so, something will have been lost, but probably more will have been gained.”

The advantage that the liberals Rorty has in view have over many theologians of other stripes is that they are consciously engaged in a gospel-translation program. God thought translation – coming on the human level – was important enough that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Paul thought it important enough that he became all things to all people so that he might win some. But the problem with translation is that one can be left with nothing to say.

We who are not liberals have often taken liberals to task for this, mocking them – or inasmuch as they teach in our seminaries and lead our churches, bemoaning them – for progressively giving us less and less to disbelieve.

Unfortunately, liberals aren’t alone in the act. So-called conservatives  happily engage in translation also, though they usually choose a different audience. Some go so far in obeisance to their host culture that they have forgotten they’re involved in translation and, like some liberals, mistake the values and desires of that host culture for the gospel itself.

How do we avoid going the wrong way in translation? Some suggest we avoid it altogether. I don’t see that as an option. First, Jesus commands us to go make disciples of all nations. as we obey we will inevitably encounter people from different cultures who will not understand us enough even to reject our message. Second, we ourselves are always already immersed in some culture. Though we may imagine ourselves to be a in a pure gospel setting, we are never free from culture with its links beyond the gospel.

Very briefly, here are a couple of thoughts that come to mind.

  1. Be willing to be misunderstood. If, in our obedience to God, our following of Jesus, our actions always make good sense to us, we’re probably going the wrong way. As God leads us, chances are – if the scriptural stories of previous followers are any indication – that we will be led in ways contrary to what even we, godly as we are, consider counter-intuitive at the least. Surely then, if some of our actions don’t make sense to us, they won’t make sense to the world. When what we do doesn’t make sense, we give the Holy Spirit space to step in and do divine translation work.
  2. Never skimp on the work of “faith seeking understanding.” So many of us tend to major on one or the other. We need both. We don’t go out as experts, either in the gospel or the culture we’re called to reach. We go out as ambassadors. As we continually check in with the King and diligently pursue the King’s agenda, translation – and our other duties – are more likely to go right.

February 14, 2008

Rowan Williams and Sharia?

Filed under: Clash of Civilizations,Current events,Islam,Rowan Williams,Sharia — rheyduck @ 9:51 pm

The blogosphere has exploded with vituperation over a recent lecture by the Archbishop of Canterbury on legal theory. You’d think the same kind of crowd was responding to him as responded to Pope Benedict in Regensburg. You know, “Let’s read our ideas into his topic and take what he says out of context!”

Tom Wright has written a general defense of Williams, setting the wider context. From the angry complaints of Williams that I’d read, I get the distinct idea that either they’re reading a different piece than I read, don’t understand it, or simply didn’t read it, settling instead for hearsay an innuendo.

The Archbishop is not saying anything along the lines of, “Come on, Christendom, let’s just surrender to Islam and let them have their way.” I’ve read folks that seem to be saying that, but Williams isn’t one of them.

As a Christian, my first allegiance is to Jesus and his kingdom. It’s not to the USA, Western culture, or anti-Islamism. As an American citizen I have a secondary allegiance to the USA, an allegiance always tempered by my primary allegiance. As a Westerner, I see great value in our Western heritage. If I had to choose between living in a culture with a primary debt to Western culture and one primarily founded in another cultural setting, I’d opt for the West. But again, my positive evaluation of the West is conditioned by my primary allegiance to Jesus. If there’s a conflict, I go with Jesus.

While the US government is one of the more tolerant in history, it is still easily conceivable that conflicts will arise between my being an American and my living for Jesus. Sometimes Caesar will be unhappy that I choose the way of Jesus. Sometimes I’ll have to pay the consequences. One of the pleasant consequences of Western modernity (and though I’m plenty critical of Western modernity, I do see its benefits) is that there is much social and legal room for me to live as a faithful Christian and be an American.

This is the track that Williams is taking in relation to English law. Though his illustration is drawn from Islam rather than Christianity, he simply saying that there ought to be a way – from the perspective of Western modernity and the law it has inspired – for Muslims to see themselves as faithful Muslims and faithful Englishmen/women. Just as their will likely be conflicts between my desire to live as a Jesus-follower and as an American, there will also likely be conflicts between a Muslim’s desire to  live as a Muslim and as an citizen of England.  Is that really so controversial?

Well, I think it is. That’s why Williams wrote about Islam and Sharia instead of Christianity. We in the West have domesticated Christianity to such a degree that we usually fail to see the difference, the potential for conflict between living as Jesus-followers and as citizens of our modern Western democracies.  Though Christendom is no more, we live as if there is no real gap between the American way and the Christian way (or the English way and the Christian way). I think Williams would say there is. Surely his critics unknowingly have demonstrated as much.

Making Disciples

Filed under: Evangelism,Leadership,Ministry — rheyduck @ 9:29 pm

Our purpose as a church is to make disciples. My personal take on that (for my own life) is that I’m here (wherever God has me at any given moment) to make disciples who become disciple makers. I realize that takes the language from our Book of Discipline a little farther – all it says is “make disciples of Jesus Christ” – but I think my sense is plainly included in scripture.

Do you remember what Jesus said? “All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me.” If you’re into grammar think of the importance of that perfect tense verb. But let’s continue. “Therefore,” in light of the fact I [Jesus] have been given this authority, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”

The main verb – the main action Jesus is commanding – is “make disciples.” We “make disciples” by doing three things. We go. Jesus didn’t envision the disciples just sitting were they were (or in a church building, however beautiful). That’s just not the place you went to find pre-disciples. They were supposed to do what Jesus did – go hang out with sinners. If we’re going to make disciples, we have to go to people. Sure, a few people might show up on their own. Jesus never relied on that model, however.

The second thing we do is baptize them. If all that meant was to get people wet, it’d be fairly simple: just pull out our Super Soaker and hose them down. But I think we’d miss what Jesus is talking about. While he had the literal act of baptism in view, I think he also had in mind the larger act of helping people come to faith. The idea is that we go to people and bring them to Jesus.

So we’ve gone, we’ve baptized. The new disciples have crossed the line of faith. They’ve given their lives to Jesus. Is that all? Not quite – not any more than entering a house is the same as living in a house. Jesus commands us to “teach them to obey everything I have commanded you.” If it were only, “Teach them everything I commanded you,” it’d be fairly simple. We could to that in a short class, or hand them a book, tape or CD. But we’re teaching obedience. Teaching obedience takes time. It takes personal involvement in people’s lives.

How much of what Jesus commanded are we to teach? Everything. Even this final command – the command to “make disciples.” That’s why I say that if we’re truly making disciples, we’re making disciples who themselves become part of the disciple making team.

February 5, 2008

Handling our Wealth

Filed under: Consumerism,Culture,Economics — rheyduck @ 6:02 pm

Here are some comments inspired by John the Methodist and commentators at his site:

It’s been said, “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today.  Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime.”

This helps illustrate problem of timing when it comes to measurement. When you invest yourself in teaching a person to fish you will – at one point in the process, appear to be cruel and heartless. “Here is this poor man, needy and starving, and instead of giving him a fish, you make him wait until he can learn to catch one himself.”

Or we could change the image a little. “Here is this poor person without a job, and instead of giving her a job right now you make her go to school first. How can you be so heartless?”

With current techniques of communication and travel, we can know more than ever about the tremendous needs of people around the world – and we have the means to send them resources. We know how to sell all we have and give all to the poor. But is that a “give a man a fish” or a “teach a man to fish” solution? Something that will help in the short term but be disastrous in the long term (unless having large numbers of people who have given away everything and now need other people to care for them is not seen as a negative).

Admittedly, the this whole idea of fishing is unbiblical (though other ideas of fishing are present in scripture, this quote comes from elsewhere).

So what can we do given the problem of time? Here are a few ideas:
1. Live as grateful recipients of God’s grace. Nothing we have is ours merely because we deserve it.
2. Live as stewards. God has put resources under our control to use for his agenda. In the parable of the talents praise came not for immediately giving the talents away, but for multiplying them until the master called for them.
3. At any given time be living in such a way that a picture of your life up to that point would show you to be generous with the people around you.
4. Redefine your sense of personal gain and prosperity to include the actual well-being of the people around you.
5. Give more than you loan. If someone pays you back, that’s ok.
6. Trust God to take care of your finances and possessions more than you trust yourself (or the government) to do so.

February 1, 2008

Thinking About Lent

Filed under: Spirituality — rheyduck @ 7:59 pm

The forty days of Lent are based on the forty days Jesus spent in the wilderness. Often when we think of those forty days (described, for example, in Matthew 4), we think of the fasting and the temptations. Christians have emphasized fasting during Lent as long as they have been celebrating (if you can call a season characterized as fasting as a celebration) Lent. You’ve probably heard about people giving things up for Lent: sweets, soda, fried foods, television, etc. Practicing self-denial can help us focus on God (and help us become less dependent on things that aren’t always good for us), and so is a helpful part of the Christian life.

The forty days were also a time of temptation for Jesus. While we might think forty days and nights of not eating would make a person weak, it helped Jesus be strong enough to overcome the temptations. While some will say that he was able to overcome the temptations simply because he was the Son of God, I think the stories we see in Matthew, Mark and Luke (John doesn’t tell the temptation story) shows Jesus using resources that are available to us ordinary folks. Fasting brought him clarity That was the first major resource. The second major resource was his knowledge of the Word. Gained by a lifetime of study – not, I think, from having it encoded at birth – Jesus is a model for us. Memorizing scripture, making it a part of our thoughts, desires and attitudes – part of our very being – is possible for all of us. We can’t do it overnight – or in forty days – however. It takes time. Jesus had prepared for the temptation. Are we similarly prepared?

Jesus had a third resource – again one available to all who follow him: the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was not only with him through his forty days of fasting and temptation, but was the very one who had led him into the wilderness. It’d be nice if we never had to face temptation, if all our inclinations from within and all our suggestions from without were only to the good. But they’re not. And God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, is with us to encourage us and strengthen us throughout.

Do you notice when Jesus’ time of testing came? It was immediately (a good Marcan word) after his baptism, the time when he formally and publicly took up his mission. Some of you have heard God calling you. Perhaps you’re near the point of giving in, thinking something like, “After I give in things will surely go smoothly.” That’s not how it went with Jesus. I doubt that’s how it goes with us (considering my own experience). First, when we take up the mission (whether large or small) to which God has called us, we will encounter opposition. Someone won’t approve. Second, we will find that living the call requires faith – active ongoing trust in God. We won’t have sufficient resources on our own. We’ll need God.

Powered by WordPress