Vanguard Church - Bob Robinson

2/20/2008

Jubilee: Worldview for the Thinking Student

I just returned from our annual Jubilee Conference.

The main speakers were Anthony Bradley, Kelly Munroe Kullberg, Chuck Colson, and Donald Miller.

Each main session was excellent:

Anthony Bradley challenged students to “spit in the face of 'American-Dream' Theology” and instead to embrace the implications of creation- fall- redemption- restoration.

Kelly Munroe Kullberg told the story of starting the Veritas Forum at Harvard and now at many other schools. She captivated us with her humility and the ability she has to gently and caringly share the gospel with students.

Chuck Colson hit a home-run with a clear explanation of our calling to take part in God’s redemptive work on earth. He even quoted Abraham Kuyper.

Donald Miller explained the three aspects of narrative story telling: (1) A character that is good because he or she cares more for others than him- or her-self, (2) That character’s ambition to do something grand, and (3) the conflict to arrive at that ambition. Miller challenged students to ask themselves if they like the character they are in their story (Do I care for others or am I selfish?), what their ambition is (Am I being sucked into the consumerism narrative that says our highest ambition is to shop?), and see if their

struggles in life are the inevitable conflict that arises from doing God’s will (“If you are a person who only wants a Volvo, your story sucks.”).

I also liked the breakout sessions I attended. Of great interest was a panel discussion on Faith and Politics with Anthony Bradley, a Research Fellow for the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty, Ron Sider, President of Evangelicals for Social Action and author of the new book The Scandal of Evangelical Politics: Why Are Christians Missing the Chance to Really Change the W orld?, James Skillen, President of The Center for Public Justice and author of The Scattered Voice: Christians at Odds in the Public Square, and Michael Gerson, former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, named by TIME as one of “The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America,” new opinion writer at The Washington Post, and author of the new book, Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America's Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don't).

Anthony Bradley acted as the moderator.

Ron Sider advocated against a Libertarian approach to politics that would say that the government needs to have a “hands-off” approach to civil life. He stated that the Bible states that the king is responsible for economic justice. The government is not the first or even the primary institution to solve poverty, but it is one of the ones to do so, especially in its role to be sure that systems are just for the sake of the poor. He was for Welfare reform and he is in favor of Earned Income Tax Credit.

Jim Skillen offered his tremendous insights into how Christians should approach the high calling of politics – he is always pushing us to not jump first to policy issues before thinking deeply about a political theology. According to Skillen, government is just one of many different institutions in society, each with its own sphere of sovereignty. Government is different from the other institutions in that it defines the parameters of a just society so that society is structured so that all can flourish. He asked us to redefine poverty, not based on amount of money or on income a person has, but on what he calls “capability deprivation” (a concept developed by economist Amartya Sen). There are a lot of reasons why people are capability deprived: education, break down in the family, culture, communities, churches, and health.

Michael Gerson said that he feels that the separation of church and state is a legitimate one – but that we have to define what we mean by this. In the areas of Soteriology (salvation), Eschatology (end times), and Ecclesiology (church polity), the two need to be clearly separate. But in the area of Anthropology (humankind), the church and the state need to be in constant conversation. Faith always has had a role to play in influencing the state in the area of human rights. Gerson believes that the growing tide of secularization is seeking to take this out of public discourse, which, in fact, would give the secular voice the only favored voice in politics.

technorati: emerging church, missional, missional community, spiritual formation, social action, politics, justice, evangelism, college, Christian Worldview, books

2/08/2008

Backwards

As we reflect on who we are as humans, and how that is warped by the Fall, let us think in these terms:

We are supposed to image God and create culture; we are not supposed to image the culture and create God.

The Fall makes us backwards people. Image-bearers are meant to glorify God in all we do ("...whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God..." - 1 Cor 10:31), we were given the mandate to shape the world as God's vice-regents (See Genesis 1:26-28) -- for Christians, "Culture is Not Optional."

But the hard question that must be answered in 21st Century America is this: Is the evangelical church imaging God and creating culture, or are we imaging the culture and shaping God into what we want him to be?

For just one example of this, contemplate what Tom Sine writes:

"How many of us unwittingly have allowed aspirations and values of the imperial global shopping mall define for us what is important and what is of value — what is the 'good life'? Many of us, in spite of our best intentions, allow the economic aspirations of the workplace or the up-scaling impulses of our middle-class lifestyles to take over our lives. As a consequence, we too often trivialize our faith to little more than a devotional add-on to our 'real lives.'" ("Making it Real: How to live as if another world were already here", Sojourners, January 2008)

So, instead of Christians engaged in the culture, seeing our work and our lifestyles as integral parts of our mandate to image God in this world, we allow the consumerism and the economic aspirations of our culture to define us. We listen more to the marketers than to our Lord.

And then, as the ultimate sacrilege, we remake God. He becomes a divine being who's main purpose is to meet our needs or to make us successful. The God of the American upper-middle class evangelical Christian is the God that gives a nice home in the suburbs and an SUV to drive, the God that is more concerned about our "family values" than about poverty or disease or injustice.

There are many, many other examples of how we are not imaging God and creating culture but imaging culture and creating a false God.

What do you see?

technorati: emerging church, image of god, imago Dei, theology

2/06/2008

You Were Made for Earth - Interview with Michael Wittmer

Trevin Wax has interviewed Mike Wittmer over at his blog, Kingdom People.

You Were Made for Earth: My Interview with Michael Wittmer

Some of the questions Trevin asked:
Q: In Heaven is a Place on Earth, you write that humans were created, not for heaven, but for earth. Why would most Christians believe this is the other way around?

Q: How does developing a Christian worldview help us avoid the dualistic thinking found in so many churches today?

Q: How do humans reflect the image of their Maker?

Q: You write about the cosmic reach of the Gospel. What does this entail?

Check it out!

2/01/2008

Two Year Anniversary of Almost Dying

Two years ago tomorrow, I nearly died of a dissection of my ascending aorta. 2006 was a traumatic year for our family and friends.

On February 2, at about 10:30 PM, I felt like somebody threw a spear through my back. I ran upstairs and woke my wife Linda - "Call 911!!"

I writhed on the floor in pain as Linda made the call. As she was talking to the 911 dispatcher, I stopped breathing. Linda hung up on the woman and gave me CPR, all 100 pounds of her compressing my chest to revive me. When I woke up, I was so angry with her - "Why did you wake me? Now I am in pain again!!" I didn't understand that she had just saved my life.

At the hospital, they could not figure out what was wrong with me.

The blood tests showed that I was not having a heart attack. It wasn't until they looked at my chest xray and then a CT Scan that they saw a football-shaped aneurysm in the ascending aorta (the main blood vessel that comes up out of the heart - see daigram). When they saw this, everything changed. I was rushed into surgery, which lasted 12 hours.

Against all odds, I survived the tear of the aorta and the trauma of the surgery. But I wasn't out of the woods yet. I developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) and for four weeks was placed in a medicated coma. The mortality rate for those with ARDS is extremely high. Each day my vitals were up and down, and they could not risk bringing me out of the coma. After four weeks of this, Linda confronted the pulmonologist, asking him when he thought this would end. He said that he did not know if or when it would end. The next day I was sitting up in a chair! Praise God.

During this time, my wife, friends, and family had no choice but to rely on God for strength, peace, and comfort. And that is a good thing. All too often, we feel we are God - that we have total control of our destiny. But times like these remind us that this is only so in a limited way. God is God, and we are not. When the hard times come, like when we face mortality, it speaks like a megaphone into our souls (to borrow an image from C. S. Lewis) that we are in need of God. The witness of Christian reliance on God and the hope of eternal life was a tremendous testimony to friends, family, and the medical staff at the hospital. While in that hospital, I had a very real sense of the presence of God. Seven weeks after the emergency surgery, I was finally released from the hospital.

One month later, I was life-flighted to the Cleveland Clinic when I was in yet another acute medical emergency: the discovery of another aneurysm at the base of the aorta. I had to have a second open-heart surgery in September 2006, which reconstructed the entire thing and inserted an artificial aortic valve.

Two years after the initial event, I just want to thank our God for his grace and mercy. He spared my life. And he did so not for any of the reasons I've heard people say - it was not because I am in Christian ministry; it is not because I such a 'godly man; it was not because I deserved it. None of that is true of me. I am a sinner in ways that deeply shame me, and I am no more in 'Christian ministry' than the next Christian in his or her vocation.

God showed mercy to me, and I cannot pretend to know why. Why me, and not the next person? All I know is that God says, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion" (Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14). I just trust that. And I rest in the belief that God is God, and I am not.

I thank God for my wife, Linda. Not just because she knows CPR (smile), but because she was there every day, praying for me and reading Scripture to me and playing recordings of the children to me as I lay in a coma. If the roles were reversed, I don't think I could have been as strong and steadfast. I would have been an emotional wreck. God is good.

I also thank God for friends and family that were there through that horrific event two years ago. Our neighbor, Liz Heiser, came

over at 11:00 and watched the kids and cleaned up (yikes!) the vomit that was all over my family room. My sister-in-law, Karen Eckart, came over and cared for the children through the night and the next day (as well as a lot over the next seven weeks).

My friends Miche Spring and Matt Robinson (pictured, left to right, with my children, Joel, Trey and Kaira) were the first to arrive at the hospital and stood by our side through the crisis. They called Amber Hale (pictured with Kaira)

and she came in and was able to care for Linda during the ordeal. Amber has been a dear, dear friend for our family, ever since she started babysitting our children years ago. She was always more than a babysitter; she really loves our kids and has actually helped raise them. She spent several nights with Linda, helping her care for the kids.

One of the first to arrive was Darren Noble, who is one of the most compassionate friends a person can have. My friend Tim Miller was there once he heard about the situation. He'd come in all the time to pray and to read the Bible with Linda next to my bed. Eloy and Pat Pacheco, friends of the family, was there immediately and was able to care and comfort at this time of need (Eloy has recently retired from a long-time care ministry, visiting and caring for people in the hospital). His loving, gentle, and wonderful pastoral care is greatly appreciated.

Linda's parents, Richard and Carolyn Eckart, were caring and very helpful as they watched their daughter go through the worst possible situation.

My mom, Sandi Robinson, was there - praying and loving everyone. I loved seeing 'my mommy' when I woke up from my coma. My brother, Doug, and sister, Jackie, were there all the time, concerned and helping in any way they could.

My dad, Jack Robinson, and his wife Sharon, were workhorses - caring for the children as Linda would visit me in the hospital. My dad (pictured with Joel) is an amazing man. He never missed a day to visit me while I was in the hospital. He nearly died of a heart attack 20 years ago, and I can only imagine what it must had been like to face the possibility of one of his children dying before he did.

I thank God for my ministry community in the CCO. Everyone faithfully prayed and fasted on our behalf in this time of need. Herb Kolbe, my supervisor, came and visited on a regular basis. Dan Dupee, the president of the CCO, was instrumental in making sure we were cared for. Bob Cunningham, the CCO's Vice President for Finance and Administration, worked long and hard as a liaison between Linda and the insurance company.

I also thank God for the internet community. Byron Harvey, a friend from my pastoring days in the Evangelical Free Church, made people aware of the emergency. Emails from Linda, our friend Wendy Nowak, Tim Miller, and Matt Robinson went out to the four corners of the earth

as people passed them along; people all over the world were praying for us. These updates were also posted by Scot McKnight (pictured with me in a doctored fake photo, since I don't have a picture of the two of us together!) at his extremely popular blog, Jesus Creed. So many of the readers of his blog (who occasionally pop in at this blog) were praying as well. Amazing. So I thank God for all of you!

To trace the story, read some of these blog posts:

1/26/2008

Christian Politics with "Principled Pluralism"

As I wrote recently, "We Haven’t Advanced Very Far" in how Americans understand the role faith should play in politics.

Christianity is greatly influencing the way this current election is being handled by both the Republicans and the Democrats. After the last twenty-five years of American politics, many of us are sick and tired of the Religious Right. Some of us are going into this election season in the same mode of operation, looking at who is the best "Christian candidate." Others are so sick of the attempts to theocratize the nation that we are advocating for a strict separation of church and state.

Arising out of the chaos of all this, a question is being asked: "Isn't there a way to do politics that is distinctly Christian without advocating a theocracy?" In other words, isn't there a way for Christians to be engaged in politics while being civil? Can't we hold fast to our faith and boldly proclaim it in the political realm without sacrificing the political pluralism needed to live in a free society?

Perhaps my favorite Christian voice in politics is James Skillen of The Center for Public Justice (CPJ). In a document detailing the distinctives of the CPJ, he writes of a very important component of Christian engagement in politics. It's called "Principled Pluralism."

The Center’s philosophy of principled pluralism flows directly from its conviction that governments have not been ordained by God for the purpose of separating believers from unbelievers, giving privilege to Christians and the church, or serving the interests of one nation over others. This is a religious conviction that mandates publicly established religious freedom for all. Governments have the high calling to uphold public justice for all people living within their territories. States are not churches or families; public officials are not national theologians or clergy. States are public-legal communities that exist for the protection and enhancement of the common good.

The word "pluralism" in this context means at least three things. First, it means recognizing that the state itself is but one institutional community among others in society. The American republic, as a political community, is part of a diverse social landscape that includes families, businesses, schools and colleges, social-service organizations, and much more. The jurisdiction of American federal and state governments is (or should be) limited to the making, executing, and adjudicating of public laws for everyone who lives under the jurisdiction of those governments. The authority of government is not limitless. Governments may not ignore or displace other kinds of human responsibility in other institutions.

The word "pluralism" also means, therefore, that government should recognize and uphold the diverse organizational structure of civil society. Government should not treat human beings merely as individual citizens; human beings also exist as family members, faith-community members, economically organized employers and employees, and in dozens of other capacities and relationships. "Principled pluralism" means that government is obligated to do justice to society’s nongovernmental organizations and institutions as a matter of principle. This is why the Center for Public Justice is concerned with the order of society and the proper relation of government to the many different kinds of human relationships and organizations in society.

Finally, "pluralism" means that there should be constitutional recognition and protection of religious life in society. Principled pluralism means that government should give equal treatment to different communities of faith. Government should not have the authority to decide what constitutes true religion. Therefore, government should not try to establish one religion or to enforce secularism in public life. Most religious ways of life seek expression beyond the walls of a church. Most guide their adherents in the way they should live in society and not only in their worship and creedal confessions. Justice, therefore, requires equal treatment of religions in public as well as in private life.

All three of the meanings of pluralism articulated above are essential to the Center’s Christian-democratic, principled-pluralist understanding of a just political community.

Skillen wrote a book on this subject, Recharging the American Experiment: Principled Pluralism for Genuine Civic Community, and Os Guinness has recently written a book pleading for the same kind of thing: The Case for Civility: And Why Our Future Depends on It.

technorati: social action, politics, justice

1/23/2008

Yes, Income Redistribution is WRONG.

Commenters on my last post had some great input about how income redistribution is wrong. Yes, I agree.

It is wrong for the government to coerce the rich to give to the poor, and it is wrong when the government is set up as a plutocracy to redistribute wealth away from the rest of society for the benefit of the rich. Here's some words from a new book for us to ponder.

We now have almost three decades of experience with the idea that markets will solve our problems. The promised results are not there and there is no reason to believe that they are over the next horizon, just a few more subsidies away. Electricity costs more and its delivery is less reliable. Many hundreds of billions of tax dollars have been diverted to the rich, leaving our schools, parks, and local government services starved for funds. Jobs and assets are going offshore, sometimes to the detriment of not just the economy, but national security.
We have layered subsidy upon giveaway upon legal absolution for reckless conduct in a chaotic attempt to protect jobs, and it has not worked. We pour billions into subsidies for sports teams and golf courses. Our health care system costs us far more than that of any other industrial country and yet we live shorter lives than the Canadians, Europeans, and the Japanese. We stand alone among modern societies in making tens of millions of our citizens go without health care, many of whom die or become disabled because of this nutty idea that medicine is a business, not a service. We have erected obstacles to the earnest but poor who seek to better themselves through library study and higher education.

And our politicians in both parties are hypocrites of the first water, nearly every one of them. They vote to make the poor sacrifice again and again so that the rich can have more, yet they run for office handing out photos showing that they regularly attend religious services. To those who do not get this last point, take a moment to ponder the inner thoughts of the Pharisees. Do you think they thought themselves evil? Of course not. In their own minds, they had justifications for what they did, assuring themselves that they were the most moral of men.

Except for our technology, our electricity and powerful motors, we are the same as the ancients. And like great societies that we can look back upon, which reached a high point and then headed down the road to oblivion, we too are taking from the many to give to the few. “He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want,” it says in Proverbs 22. Wise words to memorize.

We have become a society in which this injunction, and many others like it, is ignored. Even when we seek to help people, as with the drug benefit for older Americans, the mechanism often is designed first and foremost to take care of the corporate rich. The net effect of our policies, the evidence for which is overwhelming, is that we are redistributing income up. Through subsidies and tax cuts and rules that depress the incomes of most workers, the immediate future looks very bright for the already rich. Indeed, to borrow from the song, their future’s so bright they gotta wear shades.
Excerpted from Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston (January 2008).

Let's honestly dialogue with the viability of the idea that the American political system is becoming increasingly corrupted by what Johnston is identifying here.

technorati: social action, politics, justice

1/21/2008

Inequity between the Rich and the Poor

Byron asked, in commenting to me on my previous post on Faith and Politics, "What does being "pro-rich" mean? What's wrong with it?"

Here's what I mean:

It means that oppressive income inequity is a Christian issue. In the United States, we are in danger of entering another "Gilded Age" like at the turn of the previous century, where we had anti-democratic concentrations of wealth and power. We are experiencing an increasing disparity between the ultra rich and the rest of the nation.

There is certainly nothing wrong with wealth made by working hard, working smarter, being entrepreneurial so that you can sell products in a robust capitalistic economy. But the rich no longer primarily get rich by these means; they get rich through investments that are tax-sheltered and by hoarding their wealth by not sharing in the tax burden. They get rich by getting the government to pass laws so that they can increase wealth, do business without risk (by government bail-outs) and through tax subsidies for corporations so that the taxpayers carry the burden of the risk of their doing business. Government is not meant to be in bed with the rich for their benefit. This is anti-democratic.

Republicans pass tax laws that are clearly for the purpose of making the rich richer and that do not help the middle class and the poor. In 2006, the average tax cut for households in the top 1% of American income helped the rich increase their income by 5% (those with incomes of more than $1 million - the top 2/10 of the top 1% of Americans - felt a boost of 5.7%). That’s much better than the 2.5% increase for the middle fifth of households, and scandalously greater than the 0.3% gain for the poorest fifth of households.

Also, tax cuts have been designed to protect the dynasties of wealth in this country through eliminating estate taxes enabling the transfer from one generation to the next huge wealth without any taxes being charged. The Republicans labeled these “death taxes” making it sound as if everyone who makes money through Daddy being rich should be able to get that money free and clear as if it was not income. Warren Buffet, however, just testified to congress that the use of the phrase "death tax" is "intellectually dishonest" and "clever, Orwellian and dead wrong." He testified that “dynastic wealth, the enemy of meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy."

Roth IRAs is another example. They were originally created to help regular Americans with retirement. In May, Roths were made available to the very rich. Now, Roths are being used not as retirement accounts for the middle class but as tax shelters for the very rich.

While the the Republicans and President Bush have worked hard to help the rich with these tax laws, they have cut $39 billion over the next five years from domestic programs like Medicaid and food stamps, and $99.3 billion from 2006 to 2015.

Evangelical Christians, instead of trumpeting the Republican part line, need to ask some hard questions about these facts.

There are going to certainly be some who favor a trickle-down economic theory. And that’s fine. It is part of the debate.

But it seems that the Christian needs to first know the facts and then assess these from a Christian vantage-point that takes serious the Bible’s injunctions about how societies and governments often do their best to favor the rich and oppress the poor.

"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." (Pr 14:31) "He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich—both come to poverty." (Pr 22:16) "A ruler who oppresses the poor is like a driving rain that leaves no crops." (Pr 28:3).

"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless." (Isaiah 10:1-2)

"This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor.'" (Zechariah 7:9-10).

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor." (Jesus in Luke 4:18)

technorati: social action, politics, justice

1/18/2008

Faith and Politics: We Haven’t Advanced Very Far

This year’s election has been one infused with religious rhetoric, from both the Republicans and the Democrats.

Romney made a speech on December 6th about his Mormon faith and attempted to speak about how faith can properly interact with politics. Romney called Jesus Christ “the Son of God and the Savior of mankind" (though Mormonism's understanding of these terms differs significantly from that of Christianity). He then went on to say,

“It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. . . . Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?”

John McCain has spoke at Liberty University to bring back the Religious Right. Rudi Giuliani being both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage has raised eyebrows, especially when some evangelicals support him due to his steadfast stand on military strength against terrorism (even Pat Robertson endorsed him). Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, is open about his faith, saying in a recent advertisement, “Faith doesn’t just influence me; it really defines me. I don’t have to wake up every day wondering, ‘What do I need to believe?’” as the words "CHRISTIAN LEADER" floated across the screen.

The Republicans are fragmented between several camps because of the inconsistencies of the Republican party platform have finally shown up as large cracks. How can the same party be pro-Christian values and pro-rich? How can the same party be pro-war and pro-life? The wide-open race among the Republicans is also a product of “President Bush’s unpopularity and the fact that even members of his own party want to turn the page on the past seven years.” Bush's identity as an evangelical Christian has muddied the waters in that many of his own (that is, evangelicals) feel that he has led them astray. Some are still with him, siding with him on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage. Others are supportive of the war in Iraq. However, many others are showing concern about poverty. Others believe that a Christian president should seek peace and not jump to preemptive war. Others are very concerned for the environment and global warming, and therefore disagree with Bush. The cracks are beginning to show: and they run between these very Christian concerns.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards have also told us about their personal Christian faith.

Obama came to faith in a United Church of Christ.

Clinton has been a committed Methodist since she was a child.

Edwards has been a life-long Southern Baptist who admits his faith waned until it came “roaring back” after the death of his son in 1996.

All three say they see their Christian faith in terms of social justice. But the democrats are very new at using religious rhetoric in politics, and they appear to be as pandering to religious voters as the Republicans have been.

So, Christians are trying to figure this out. The question we think we need to ask is: “Who is the candidate that best reflects Christian religious convictions?”

The reason the candidates are speaking “religious talk” is to pander to the many Christians who simply believe that if we have a person of faith in office, we will be somehow better off. If the president reflects God’s values, they think, God will then bless the nation and divinely lead us.

But this is simply too shallow for a truly Christian political philosophy. It doesn't take seriously God's "common grace" in political institutions and it does not see the role of religion in government as part of an overall "Principled Pluralism," seeking to find biblical principles of justice that apply without preference for anyone's professed faith over another, in a diverse society. (To understand these terms, see Wikipedia's entry on the Cultural Mandate.) It also does not honor the way that the American Constitution has set up the place for religion in the public discourse of politics.

The question that we Christians need to be asking ourselves is: Can we have a dialogue about how our Christian faith informs the role of government in society in relation to the other institutional and organizational spheres in society?

We need to understand the role religion has in politics, one that does not infer a theocratic paradigm.

As James Skillen recently wrote in The Center for Public Justice’s Root & Branch,

“What is missing from the candidates' professions of Christian (and Mormon) faith is a philosophy of the political community that clarifies the responsibilities of government in relation to the responsibilities that belong to all the other institutions, organizations, and relationships of human society. What we need is a Christian public philosophy that connects directly to office holding, policy formulation, and governing. Americanism and the liberal political tradition do not generate such a philosophy, and that is why we have what we have.”

technorati: social action, politics

1/17/2008

The Purpose-Driven Image of God

Just having "Purpose-Driven" in the title of this post guarantees readers!

The book with that title has sold over 25 million copies. Evangelical Christians hand out these books to their non-Christian friends, hoping that they, too, will find purpose through Christ.

Rick Warren, who I deeply admire and have learned a lot from as a pastor and ministry leader, states that the five purposes of God for humanity are these:

Purpose #1: You Were Planned for God's Pleasure (Worship)
Purpose #2: You Were Formed for God's Family (Fellowship)
Purpose #3: You Were Created to Become Like Christ (Discipleship)
Purpose #4: You Were Shaped for Serving God (Ministry)
Purpose #5: You Were Made for a Mission (Evangelism)

Now, these are tremendous insights into the nature of Christian discipleship, and I thank God for Warren’s success in getting this message out. But are these really God’s revealed purposes for humanity? Are these the purposes for the redeemed humanity in the community of Christianity?

When we start with where the Bible starts, with the Imago Dei, then we begin to understand the fundamental purpose of humanity, and therefore the purpose of those who are redeemed toward that purpose.

In Genesis 1:28, God says to those first humans, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

There is the mandate for humanity; in that verse we find our purpose. This has been called the “creation mandate” or the “cultural mandate” by theologians. It is the mandate that God gives to us humans.

As I think of the many evangelical churches doing “Forty Days of Purpose,” I wonder if we haven’t missed the point. I ask,

Shouldn’t the purpose of humanity be directly linked to what God mandated in the first chapter of Genesis? Shouldn't our "purpose" have something to say about our care of the earth and of the creatures living here?
Shouldn't our "purpose" have something to say about our doing the work of cultivating the earth and creating a culture in society?
Aren’t we humans, as a corporate race, meant to be the image of God together? Does the very notion of having a “purpose-driven life” feed into an individualistic, Americanized Christianity?
What would the cultural mandate of Genesis 1:28 look like if there had been no Fall?
What does the cultural mandate need to look like now in light of the Fall and of the redemption that is in Christ?

There are deep implications of the Imago Dei in humanity for our understanding of why we exist as the human race. Since humanity is created in the image of God, we are to reflect God back to him in worship and out into his creation in service, we are to represent God as we fill the earth and subdue it, as we rule over the non-human creation.

The Imago Dei sets us on the right course for living the "purpose-driven life." Your votes in the poll in the side column reveal that we are beginning to understand the importance of the Image of God, and that we are starting to move in the right direction.

technorati: emerging church, image of god, imago Dei, theology

1/16/2008

New Poll - Imago Dei

Be sure to vote in the poll found on the side column -

What is the meaning of the Imago Dei (Image of God)?

Evangelism and the Image of God

On college campuses, where I spend a lot of time in my capacity as Area Director for a college outreach ministry, I often run into some very zealous evangelists. They are very excited and dedicated people, sometimes carrying crosses, always handing out pamphlets, and often engaging students in conversations about how depraved they are. I have no doubt that these evangelists are on campus because they deeply care their about cause and about the students they are talking to. But I roll my eyes as I listen intently to their message.

They stand there, talking down at these students. Their message starts with each individual’s sin and ends with the biblical solution to that sin: Jesus dying on the cross for their atonement. The essence of humanity, according to these evangelists, is our individual depravity. We each are sinful through and through, and thus each of us is destined to hell. God wants us to escape this evil world and the lusts of our flesh and lead us away to heaven, where we will can with God forever.

As I walk away from the Student Center and all that confrontational stress, it strikes me: I actually feel sorry for these evangelists! Since all humanity is created in the Image of God, each and every human being has dignity. Period.

Now, these evangelists were not out-right heretics like the ones that come to my door (denying the divinity of Jesus). They are not that bad. But they have bought into a form of Christianity that does not embrace the fullness of what it means to be human and the true greatness of the redemption in Christ.

The ultimate essence of what it means to be human is not that we are sinners. Human essence is the imago Dei, the reflection of the divine Trinity. There is a divine spark in each and every person and in each and every human community. Certainly, sin has entered into that and severely taints this and very often grotesquely twists it. Certainly, ever since the Fall, humanity has taken on a new nature: the sin of Adam. But this is not the ultimate essence of humanity – it is not what God has created us to be. God greatly prizes us because we are made in His image. This is why he so loved the world that he gave his one and only son. God sees our potential as his “image and likeness,” and therefore does not let us go to destroy ourselves and our society. He has created people that are special to him, and he will redeem a people that are special to him.

Without starting with where the Bible starts in defining humanity – as the “image of God” – these evangelists truncate the gospel to just two things: sin and atonement. While that is certainly a major part of the story, the story is bigger than that. Without a view of humanity that starts with the Imago Dei, these evangelists are missing the richness of the gospel.

We need to explore afresh the implications of the Imago Dei in humanity in order to understand and proclaim of the gospel of redemption. Since humanity is created in the image of God, we are to understand what it means that God is redeeming this image in us through Christ.

technorati: emerging church, image of god, imago Dei, theology

1/15/2008

Trinity and the Image of God

Every now and then, I hear a knock on my front door. As I approach the front of the house, I think, Maybe it’s a neighbor kid wanting to play with Joel, Kaira, or Trey. Or, maybe it’s my neighbor wondering when I’m going to return the powertool I borrowed some time ago. Or, maybe it’s Girl Scout cookie time.

No, it’s not them. It’s a couple of men in suits, one older, one younger. I’ve seen them before. I have no doubt that they are on my front porch because they deeply care about their cause and probably about me too. But I roll my eyes and open the door. This particular day, I’m wearing a t-shirt from the seminary I graduated from, which is the center of our conversation. You see, I graduated with a Master of Divinity from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and emblazoned in huge blue letters across my gray long-sleeved t-shirt was the word TRINITY.

As we talked for the next half-hour, it became increasingly apparent that we were going to go nowhere beyond this basic disagreement. I am a Trinitarian. They are not.

As they left and I closed the door and sat on my couch reflecting on this encounter and praying for these two men, it struck me: How I pity them! The Trinity is not just some theological, ivory-tower concept to me. It is the meaning of who God is, and, by extension, of who I am as a human being. Without a Trinitarian view of God, they are missing the richness of the glory of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, all united as one yet relational through and through.

Without a Trinitarian view of God, they are missing the richness of this three-person, united, relational God creating humanity in their image. If God is that deeply relational, then what does that say about those creatures that are made in his image?

There are huge implications of a Trinitarian theology for our understanding of ourselves as human beings. Since God is inter-relational in essence, when God says, “Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness,” and then we read, “so God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them” in the first chapter of the Bible, we are invited to begin the journey of exploring what it means to be relational creatures, created to be like the relational Creator.

technorati: emerging church, image of god, imago Dei, theology

1/09/2008

Kingdom and the Image of God

In light of Scot McKnight's current series at Jesus Creed called "Keys of the Kingdom," it got me thinking...
How does "Kingdom" relate to the Image of God (or the "Eikon" in Scot's vernacular).

The Kingdom of God is the gospel that Jesus preached. This is how Jesus’ ministry is described in Matthew: “Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people” (Matthew 4:23). And as we read through the Gospels, it becomes clear that this was how he expressed his mission, time and time again.

Kingdom
A kingdom is a place and a people that are ruled over by a sovereign. This king (or queen) decides what is best for the kingdom and the people go about doing this ruler’s will. “Kingdom” is a very human term for the governing of a place and the society that lives in that place. In fact, by far the most common reference in the Bible is to human kings and kingdoms.

King
The King, then, is the person who is sovereign (the ruler) over that place and that people. As an American, I do not fully understand kingdoms or kings, because I have no experiential reference point for it. But as I watch nations with monarchs and read the history of kings and queens, I am struck by how those under their sovereignty show devotion to the ruler. In our western democratic political philosophy, we scoff at this because we know the evil of absolute power, that individuals with this kind of power will always be corrupted by it. We know that humans in power inevitably distort shalom. But imagine, if you can, a King or Queen that is benevolent, caring, wise, charitable, seeking universal flourishing for all his subjects. We know that nobody in power can be all these things all the time, but just imagine if they were this way most of the time.

Now imagine if God were the King: always benevolent; always loving; always wise; always full of grace and mercy; always seeking shalom. This is how YHWH is pictured in the Old Testament. We are introduced to this when Moses sings, “The LORD will reign for ever and ever” (Ex 15:18). YHWH confirms himself as King, proclaiming, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool” (Isaiah 66:1).

Now, just imagine how human beings would have been had there had been no Fall. We, too, would always be benevolent, loving, wise, gracious, merciful, seeking universal flourishing for all humans and for the rest of Creation.

Imago Dei
Remember that humanity is created in the image of God (Imago Dei). According to the first chapter of Genesis, this means we are given the authority to rule over the earth as God’s viceroys. We are to rule as kings over the earth, representing the ultimate KING to the creation. This is truly amazing, especially in light of Ancient Near Eastern thought, where the gods would allow kings to be their "images" in particular places. The Genesis account democratizes the authority of king to all of humanity, and places under our care the earth that God has created.

So God created man in his own image,
_____in the image of God he created him;
_____male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." (Genesis 1:27-28)

However, because of the Fall, this ability has been severely damaged and twisted. Though we were created to be kings, we are instead a catastrophe.

Jesus came to redeem our image-bearing capability. Jesus, God in human flesh, is the Christ. Christ is the Greek word for Messiah, which literally means “Anointed One,” or “King.” Jesus is the “Son of David,” the anointed king par excellence from the line of David. As both “Son of God” and “Son of David” Jesus is the catalyst for redeeming humanity’s image-bearing purpose.

King of kings
This is why, I believe, Jesus is called the “King of kings and Lord of lords” in Revelation 19:16. We skip over that phrase thinking that it simply means that Jesus is the head honcho, the most powerful sovereign in the world, and that all the other "kings and lords" (the rulers of the nations) are nothing in comparison.

I think that misses the point. Jesus is the King of kings and Lord of lords in a positive way. As the redeemer of the image of God in humanity, he is the King of us little kings, the Lord of us little lords... I think that is us we're reading about! All of us, not just the heads of nations. We are all meant, as the human race, to rule over this earth.

We have been redeemed to rule, to "have dominion" over the earth. And because of the grace of God who heals us of our sin and cleanses us of our selfish desire for power for our own sake, we will one day again rule with benevolence, love, wisdom, grace, and mercy...
Seeking universal flourishing for all God's creation.

technorati: emerging church, image of god, theology,