Friday, October 31, 2008

Campolo, Homosexuality, and the Gospel

Campolo and my Early Twenties

Tony Campolo has been very influential for me during my early twenties. I have seen him preach on various occasions at various locations, met him at least twice, got him to autograph one of my books he wrote and enjoyed a pastor’s lunch-in with him on one particular occasion.

His thoughts on how Christians should view homosexuality have also been very formative for me (see: Speaking My Mind by Campolo). During my teens and early twenties all homosexuals were in sin – in my mind; they all ‘chose’ to be homosexual (God would never ‘create’ a homosexual was the argument), and my tolerance for them was somewhere around zero. Then a friend told me once that he had a friend who was gay and a Christian. I argued with him that this is possible, the two are antithetical; none-the-less he told me that his gay/Christian friend denied himself and chose to live a celibate life knowing that practicing homosexuality was an abomination to God. This insight blew my mind!

Campolo clarified this point for me in his book, Speaking My Mind, when he said that while the scriptures condemn a homosexual lifestyle, they say nothing of homosexual orientation; and that scientist still as yet do not know what ‘causes’ homosexual orientation. We Christians should show the love of Christ towards those of a homosexual orientation rather then condemn them all to hell and run in the opposite direction.

Campolo and me today

Tony Campolo recently published a new book for “Red Letter Christians” as a “guide to politics” in light of the upcoming election.

While browsing through I was not surprised to find a chapter again on homosexuality; only this time he deals less with whether or not it’s biblical, but rather, should Christians stand in the way of homosexual union (a.k.a. marriage). Throughout he argues that we Christians should not impose our personal convictions of our personal faith onto anyone else, not least on practicing homosexuals. Instead we should have compassion on homosexual couples because they do not receive the same benefits which heterosexual couples receive, (if a homosexual partner dies, for example, his lover will not get anything of the will); and in this way we may show the ‘love of Christ’. The point being that Christians should not make homosexual marriage a ‘voting issue’.

All of this boils down to the fact that I have my faith, I have my beliefs, I have my convictions, I have my religion and I should in no way impose my personal religion onto someone else’s lifestyle.

I have discussed this issue before with friends; when we preach the ‘gospel’ – so our consensus went – we do so personal. We do not worry about ‘how’ they are living until ‘after’ we get them saved, and only then do we say that ‘so and so is sin, and now that you are a Christian you must abandon these things’.

Still, after reading Campolo’s thoughts I walked away struggling; there simply was something wrong with the picture he was painting for me; and consequentially, this challenged the consensus I had with my friends; namely, this idea of a ‘personal’ faith that does not impose itself upon the lifestyle of the ‘unsaved’. And this, again, boils down to something else; namely, the Gospel: what is it and how does it work. Is it a personal invitation to a personal relationship or a public ‘proclamation with expectation’? And this boils down to something else, namely, how Campolo’s Gospel (and that of Billy Graham and me and my friends and this whole generation for that matter) is Post-Enlightenment individualism and not necessarily Jesus’ Gospel preached by Paul.

So yet again, Campolo’s writings have influenced me, though not in the direction – I’m sure – which he would have hoped.

The ‘Wright’ Gospel of Paul

As I suggested in my previous blog, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not so much (though of course it is a part of this) leading individuals to Jesus that they might become ‘saved’. The Gospel is much more then that; the Gospel of Jesus Christ is a story. It is the story of a King; one who proved himself that he is King, not so much in the death he died, but by the resurrection which ensued.

And when the early Christians – not least Paul himself – declared this Gospel, the announcement was an aggressive affront to the powers that be, namely, that Jesus is Lord, not Caesar, and not your gods and goddesses. For Caesar is mortal, placed on earth to serve the true King of kings, and your gods and goddesses are mere cheap imitations, be it man-made statues or the demons behind them.

This means that the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the announcement that he is the true King of the universe was not reserved for one on one evangelism – for this would hardly call for mass persecution – it was an affront to the secular political, religious and social structures of the day.

Tony Campolo – not to mention McLaren and perhaps many others, as recently this is becoming very popular – are drawing a distinction that separates preaching the gospel, which is an individual to individual thing to do they say, and being a social activist while avoiding imposing ‘Christian morals’ onto the lifestyles of others. I fear that Campolo, in his rightful zeal to address the issues surrounding ‘social injustice’ – something that perhaps the ‘church’ (corporately) has become lax on and for which Campolo is to be commended for – that he many be sliding down the greasy hill of losing sight of the biblical concept of the true Gospel altogether. While social justice is good, our calling is not too send people to hell with food in their stomachs, but to warn them of the hell they are in for; namely, that they are serving a false god, be it money, power, sex, or whatever else.

N.T. Wright says it best, and Campolo and others would do good to return to the scriptures – and not just the red print – and remember what the Gospel of Jesus Christ truly is; “As soon as we get this right” says Wright, “we destroy at a stroke the disastrous dichotomy that has existed in the people’s minds between ‘preaching the gospel’ on the one hand and what used to be called loosely ‘social action’ or ‘social injustice’ on the other. Preaching the gospel means announcing Jesus as Lord of the world; and, unless we are prepared to contradict ourselves with every breath we take, we cannot make that announcement without seeking to bring that lordship to bear over every aspect of the world.” [What Saint Paul Really Said, p.154]

If Jesus truly is Lord of the world, and if we as Christians are called to announce (i.e. preach) this Gospel, then what are we to say of homosexual union? That it is none of our business? That if we meet one on one I won’t speak ‘negatively’ about your lifestyle, I just want to tell you about Jesus’ love. Is that what we are supposed to do? Or should we stand true to our calling and the scriptures by declaring that your god of sex, your modern day Aphrodite is a cheap imitation of the One who is God, namely Jesus, the Spirit and the Father! And that you must cease and desist serving your false god and giving in to the flesh of your demons, the desires of this world; to serve the true King who came to set this world straight.

‘Jesus is Lord’, that is the Gospel; a declaration with expectation; this is what the early Christians announced; this is why they were persecuted.

Tony Campolo has much to offer, and I still enjoy gleaning from his stories and experiences (I just purchased a goody - Let Me Tell You A Story). This blog is not really or primarily about homosexual unions, it's about reforming and continuing to reform in my own personal thoughts (pensees) and of course, "blogging out loud". The heart of this blog is about reforming my thoughts on "the Gospel" - this is post-conservativism in progress.

Derek

[P.S. my heart breaks over Ray Boltz decision to give in to his demons after battling those desires for so long. I hear his songs today and feel sorrow for him; in Set Sail he sings “there’s not a chance you can fail”, or “I pledge allegiance to the Lamb, with all my strength, with all I am”, and my heart weeps. He says that today he feels closer to God then ever since he has come out of the closet. I believe him. I’m just not sure it’s the same God. It’s easy to be close to a god who endorses your every decision; it is not so easy to be close to a God who sacrificed Himself by means of a brutal crucifixion so that you may find life more abundantly; a life that calls you to ‘deny yourself, take up your cross’ and follow Him. Ray Boltz said in an interview, I do not want to ‘deny’ who I really am any longer. This is another way of saying, Jesus is not for me, he calls me to ‘deny’ myself, and I frankly don’t want to do that any longer; so I’ll serve my desires (Aphrodite? Golden Calf?), and call it “Jesus” or “Yahweh”. What a shame]

Monday, October 27, 2008

Greg's continued thinking of Christus Victor

Hey folks,

I came across a short and interesting blog on Christus Victor and Penal Substitution (and a little Open Theism), and thought, for those who are interested in this stuff you may enjoy it.

http://www.gregboyd.org/uncategorized/a-christus-victor-and-penal-substitution-view-of-the-atonement/

D.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

On Mark 8:53 and "The Gospel"

What does the short phrase "The Gospel" mean to you?

For me, the Gospel defined was almost like some type of abstract “good news” – “gospel” after all means “good news” (euangelion) – and so the good news as I understood it was simple: “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household!” (Acts 16:31, NRSV).

But what does it mean to “believe on the Lord Jesus”? And what is it are we to “believe” about Him? That he existed? That he was/is Lord, as in “sir” or “master” or what? This passage mentions nothing of the cross, of the resurrection, there is no mention here of either the substationary sacrificial work of the atonement for man’s sins, or of Christus Victor? (I think Luke gave us the short-hand account of the story)

In my study of koin Greek one of the verses I was given to translate in an exercise was Mark 8:35: “For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; and whoever will lose his life on account of me and my gospel, will save it” (my translation).

As I habitually do, I cross-referenced my translation with other popular translations for accuracy sake and here’s how some of them end:

NRSV: “… for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it.”
NASB: “… for My sake, and the gospel’s will save it.”
NIV: “… for me and for the gospel will save it.”
ESV: “… for my sake and the gospel’s will save it.”
NKJV: “… for My sake, and the gospel’s will save it.”

Though “the gospel” is (obviously) a perfectly good translation of the passage in question since the definite article (tou = the) is present, nonetheless, the phrase tou euangeliou is in the possessive case which means that someone owns this “gospel” that Jesus is talking about, and since the antecedent to “the gospel” in this text is Jesus (“on account of me and …”), Mark 8:35 can (maybe should) be translated: “on account of me and my gospel”.

The “gospel” is not any old good news, and neither is it simply an “invitation” to accept or reject Jesus undefined. The gospel is more then “believe on Jesus and be saved”. The Gospel is His Gospel; the Good News is His Story! The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Story of Jesus Christ – the entire story - first lived (recapitulated), then told (and retold). Most importantly, the Gospel is a herald; it is a proclamation, a declaration with expectation: JESUS IS LORD! SERVE HIM!

N.T. Wright argues that the word “Gospel” (euangelion) in the first century Roman world, especially through Paul’s usage in reference to King Jesus, was understood as a royal herald, he adds, “When the herald makes a royal proclamation, he says ‘Nero (or whoever) has become emperor.’ He does not say ‘If you would like to have an experience of living under an emperor, you might care to try Nero.’ The proclamation is an authoritative summons to obedience – in Paul’s case, to what he calls ‘the obedience of faith’.” (Wright has in mind here Romans 1:5).
(See: Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, ©1997, p.45; a pastor friend loaned this book to me)

The next time the word Gospel comes to mind don’t simply think of it as an invitation, but rather think of it as it was meant to be understood, - to quote myself above – “as a declaration with expectation!” The Gospel is the proclamation of a King: Jesus was born in a manager, preached among men, was crucified by those he sought to save and rose from the dead which is the “proof” in the pudding.

Jesus is Lord of the Universe (Col. 1:15-20), serve Him, love Him, and love they whom He loves.

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

Saturday, October 18, 2008

Mexico Mission

Hi Folks,

... I just finished my current thoughts on three related areas that are all part of a larger subject, what I'll call here the "question of 'doing' church". These were my current - by no means authorative - thoughts; and as dangerous as it is to expose one's thoughts to a wider public (making myself subject to cannon fodder) on sensative issues, I feel a need to apologize for having offended anybody's sensibilities knowing full well that "doing" church, and the issues separating Traditional, Emergent, and the House Church can be - indeed are - very sensative to many.

----------------------------

On to brighter things: when push turns to shove, theology means little if it is all talk and no walk (as the Emergence say), so - for those two don't know - in two weeks from today I will be serving in a Mexico orphanage and building homes and handing out food to the homeless.

I have been wanting to go on a short term mission for many years now, and - finally - opportunity has invited me to go!

As the days draw nearer I grow more anxious (in a good way); please pray for me, pray for the team I am going with and pray - most and above all - for changed, transformed, impacted, and revolutionized lives, hearts and souls, both theirs - the ones we mission to - and ours - the ones who are doing the missioning.

"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me " - Jesus

Be blessed in the Lord who birthed you.
Derek

Friday, October 17, 2008

On The Emergent Church

The Emerging Church, what is it?

I have no idea! Well, actually, I have some idea, but nothing that can be nailed down and solidified. I cannot say – neither can anyone else I think – precisely what the Emergent Church is. I’ll say it here for the first time, and I’ll probably say it again and again in future blogs: defining the Emerging Church – who they are and what they believe – is akin to nailing Jell-O to a wall.

I pick up books like Phyllis Tickles, the Great Emergence, and – being the historical buff that I am – I love it. Tickle is a cultural analyst and the book is a look at where we’ve come from (analyzing the past) in an attempt to determine where exactly we are and where it is we are going. Oddly enough, this book is endorsed on the one hand by a post-conservative theologian, Scot McKnight, and on the other hand by a Lesbian Ordination Supporter, the Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori (she’s not just Reverend, she’s the Most Reverend for heaven’s sake!)

I picked up two books by Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy and Secret Message of Jesus, and failed on both accounts, to finish them (I will try again in due time, I’m stubborn that way). McLaren seems, on nearly all accounts, to love a good game of dodge ball, especially if the balls that are being thrown at him are tough theological “where do you stand on these issues” questions! You just never know where this guy is coming from.

Theologian, Scot McKnight, is said to be Emergent (or Emerging – see below); at the very least he is sympathetic towards the Emerging Church. I enjoy his post-conservative thoughts on the Atonement (though I don’t agree with his entire position) in A Community Called Atonement, but more to the context of this discussion, he has two articles in the September’s issue of Christianity Today, one on the Emerging Church, the other on McLaren’s Emerging Theology. I enjoyed his light criticism of McLaren’s theology; let me quote a paragraph:

“I wish more believers would follow McLaren’s cue and think about the implications of the Bible for global and systemic issues; that Christians would return to the Bible and ask, “What, then is the gospel?” as well as it’s necessary follow-up, “How do we live out the gospel today?” For far too many, the gospel preached is not leading to any serious engagement with the global crises of our time.
“But that doesn’t mean I don’t have questions about McLaren’s theology.”
Scot McKnight, McLaren Emerging, in September ’08 issue of Christianity Today, p.62

McKnight goes on to pose tough questions to McLaren on Clarity, on the Cross, on the Kingdom and on the Church. I like this guy, he’s open to the good which the Emerging Church may be offering us, while simultaneously challenging its flimsy foreskin!

I tried – twice now and both times to no avail – to read An Emergent Manifesto of Hope edited by Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. The reason – I believe – that I was not able to get through it was 1. It was so full of crap – def. k-rap means nothing, empty, hallow, void of substance etc. etc. – crap; and 2. For all of its many words, it lacks anything for anyone to grab a hold of (which I suppose is the point).

Then there are those who always distinguish between Emergent Christianity and Emerging Christianity. The difference? Beats me.

Then there are Emergent “leaders” (I have one in particular in mind) who has gone so far as to claim proudly that he is a “Christian Panenthiest” (god is in all things) and recently I’ve picked up a book by Doug Pagitt (A Christianity Worth Believing In) who’s theology is so full of crap (see definition for “crap” above) that it makes me wonder how these guys can hold on to any truth what-so-ever. (Oddly enough this book is wildly endorsed by a Post Conservative Pastor and absolutely brilliant theologian, Greg Boyd, one can only wonder how.)

Then, to my surprise, I come across respected theologians who are considered “Emergent” in many respects because of their use of the prefix “re” in their theology (rethinking Paul, rethinking Heaven, rethinking Justification etc). I have in mind here conservative theological heavy-weight scholar, N.T. Wright, who opposes same-sex union and fights for a High View of scripture, but is challenging many popular Christian concepts such as Eschatology, Election, Paul, Scripture etc., to the point of angering other heavy-weights such as John Piper (see Pipers, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright).

And I wonder; how can you put a conservative minister like Wright in the pond called Emergent (or Emergence) with guys like Doug Pagitt and his Panenthiest buddy? What is Emergence for heaven’s sake!? (Jell-O to a wall)

Then I pick up an interesting book off the shelf called, “Why We Are Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be”, and I’m intrigued. In the introduction the authors begin a list… and on and on… for about two pages. The list goes like this: If you like…, if you believe…, if you agree…., if you read approvingly…, etc. etc., and it continues like that for nearly two pages while I’m going: “yes I agree with that… Well I kind of agree with that... I do agree with that... I don’t really agree with that... Yes I read this person... I would say yes to that...” then the authors conclude, if you’ve agreed to most of this, then you just may be Emergent”. I’m going “aaaaahhh”, especially because about two months before a friend of mine had demonized anything having to do with the Emerging Church with a disdain akin to running from leprosy, and here I just may be one.

My point with this blog is to address the reason why I have not written a blog on the Emergent Church up to this point – I’m not clear as to what or who they are exactly. It is also to give a word of caution the next time someone wishes to lump all Emergent thinkers and sympathizers into a giant liberal shark tank of “church haters”. For after a short quiz they may discover themselves, that they too are Emergent.

Derek
www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Current Thoughts On The Home Church

For enoumerous reasons which I won't get into here, (see my last two blogs) I would be considered the perfect candidate, ripe for the picking, for the “Home Church” movement led by Frank Viola, for the “Emergent Church” movement led by Brian McLaren and for other movements that are seeking ways to 1. Do church the way it was done in the days of Paul (Viola) or 2. Do church in a way that will emerge along with the emerging culture (McLaren).

And I admit that I have fallen prey to these two “shifts”. I have eaten up George Barna’s book “Revolution” and Frank Viola’s books “Pagan Christianity” and “Reimagining Church”, and admit to having truly enjoyed them; Pagan Christianity and Revolution in particular are jam packed with “facts” that can hardly be denied (whether or not you we agree with their conclusions). I find myself less interested in McLaren’s emerging Church; but have been heavily influenced as of late by moderate emerging thinkers (Wright, Olson, McKnight; men who are more conservative and theologically competent).

Yet inside I am a little boy wishing to hold on to the days of old; the days (for me) when the pastor (or youth pastor) was not just a man who cared, but was a man who taught also. And when church (for me) was not just a place to go, it was the place to be, it understood the concept of fellowship even if it had never heard the word – koinonia.

And so as I said in a previous blog, I am not prepared to give up on “church” – that is, the institutional church - the way it is understood today. (Read that sentence again if you only skimmed it, for it is very important for my position).

Many of my friends have picked up the baton handed to them by Viola and Barna which carries the motto “Stop doing church and start being Church”. By this they usually mean, “Stop doing church the way it is done today and start doing Church the way it was done in the first century” (I'll qualify this statement below, stay with me, I believe I am being fair).

The argument goes, lets get back to first century Church: doing away with the Pastors “office” (didn’t exist back then); doing away with Bishops and Elders “offices” (Bishop, Elder and Shepherd-teachers are synonymous in the N.T.) and doing away with the distinction made between “professional” and “lay” Christians; doing away with the church building; with tithing; with planned “worship” (perhaps even with instruments?).

Part of me wants to embrace this motto – at least its intentions – whole heartedly; while another part remains reserved.

My biggest problem with the motto is that - it seems to me - to be a word game. Stop doing church and start being Church. It sounds nice but let’s think about this for a moment shall we. So let’s say we’ve stopped “doing” church in order that we might start “being” Church. What does it mean that we “be” church: Shall we gather together for fellowship? Yes. Shall there be teaching in our midst? Sure. Shall we financially take care of each other? Most definitely! Should we continue with the sacraments? Of course! Shall we be a light to our community and the world, corporately? Heck yah! So then, if by “being” church we are “doing” fellowship; teaching; sacraments; evangelism and the list goes on, then are we not by “being” the Church also “doing” Church. Don’t we “do” what we “are”?

What they mean by the phrase “Stop doing church and start being the Church” is “stop doing Institutional Church and start ‘doing’ first century Church”. And so the motto is - so it seems to me - slightly deceiving and should truthfully go “stop doing church your way and start doing church our way”; and of course “our way” is a strong reference to the way of the first century church. But they word the motto intentionally as “…start being the Church” because (and here's the qualification referred to above) they wish to emphasis the absolute requirement of what it means to “be” Church. When you become a Christian you ‘become’ the Church by definition (this point, I think, is a positive re-emphasis that the Home Church movement has offered to remind us of). This swinging of the pendulum is to counteract or combat nominalism within the Churches all over the world: “yah, I’m a Christian because I ‘go’ to church” – a wrong but all too common attitude. However, the motto itself strongly implies that everyone who is “doing” institutional church are not “being” the Church. Yet this goes back to our previous criticism: once you stop “doing” institutional church and start “doing” first century Church, you are still doing church! Can you not “do” and “be” at the same time? Or rather, don’t the two go together like “hand-in-glove” (James – the Message)? Faith and works?

I wish to add a point here that space won’t permit me to elaborate presently: I am not convinced that doing church the way it was done in the first century is necessary, or even possible on a large practical scale! But we should (I believe) continue to go back to the scriptures and ask: could we be doing church better? I believe we could; particularily speaking: in our concept of preaching/teaching, our concept of fellowship, and our concept of giving - all of which can - I believe - be done "better" (by 'better' I mean more biblical and therefore more beneficial to the body of Christ) if we would be willing to return to the scriptures afresh.

Just my current thoughts on the Home Church,

Derek

P.S. if you agree with the statement above: “we should continue to go back to the scriptures and ask: could we be doing church better?” Then you just may be Post-Conservative.

www.pensees-derek.blogspot.com

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Interrupting Your Regular Blog For...

[ I interrupt your regularly scheduled blog (current thoughts on the Home Church movement) to share a word about my last blog (Local Pastors and Ex Cathedra)… ]

I made two mistakes in my last blog; the first was to use my current pastor as an example within the blog which gave off the impression of unfairly “demonizing” him. When intention is weight against perception, perception wins every time. And so while he squarely fit the pattern which I have observed which I believe is harmful to the body of Christ, a LOT more tact, mercy and godliness would have been prudent on my part. And secondly, I feel that I simply over generalized and did not add enough qualifications to the blog to be fair. Truth is, I know many great men who are pastors and I would never wish to paint these men with the brush I used to characterize an abuse of the pulpit and God’s Word I have seen in so many others.

A few positive examples:

I ran into a pastor (not literally) just yesterday and had such an encouraging encounter that I had to boast about it to a friend after he left. When I finished telling her about it she gazed in dream like fashion into nothing and said with a smile, “I wish more pastors were like him; quirks and all” - I have to agree.

I’ll never forge meeting with an Anglican minister a year or so ago, a brilliant and smiley man of God who is a man of the collar and also rides a motor cycle (go figure), I’ve met him a few times since and am seriously considering making semi-regular visits to his church.

And how could I forget about one of my best friends! I lived with him for awhile and got to see the “man behind the pulpit”, bed-head and all. I spent every day in church with him while he kept fixed office hours even though his was not a large church; where he passionately prayed on certain schedules while no one was watching (except me… peeking around the corner!)

I had a meeting with a Baptist minister awhile back who was very very encouraging to talk to. Not only was we well educated, and had a big heart, not only does his congregation love him and nothing negative ever comes out of his church, not only does he preach solid holiness compassionate sermons… he also likes Tim Hortons coffee (which is a prerequisite for any friend of mine :-) )

I have two friends who are both in fulltime youth pastorial ministries, one in Chicago and the other near Toronto, both of whom I have no doubt are incredible at the ministry they feel called to do.

Not to mention a least a couple of guys I went to Bible College with who were fair minded men with big hearts for people - they are now in the ministries (so far as I know) and I no doubt believe them to be the real deal.

All these just to mention the ones that came to mind while I typed; surely I could personally think of more examples.

It’s always the rotten apples that are the most visible; so here are just a few of the golden delicious. With a little luck and a lot of prayer I hope my further blogs will be written with greater wisdom and godliness, even while I critique and think through one view against another.

Happy Thanksgiving to all you Canadians out there!

Derek

Followers