Cage Match: Bryan Hollon vs. Brian McLaren (Well, Not Exactly)

Last Monday at Malone University, the community of Canton, Ohio came out to see the slugfest that never was. Many were hoping that Bryan Hollon, a theology professor at Malone, would take Brian McLaren down to the mat by showing the apostasy of McLaren in all its WWE Rawness.

It was not to be. The debate between the two was gracious and kind. the crowd that came to nail McLaren as a heretic no doubt left disappointed.

Bryan Hollon did, however, step up to the microphone and offer a very insightful statement on how he thinks Brian McLaren and the Emerging Church are in danger of “going off the rails.”

First, Hollon said that McLaren misunderstands the nature of the Christian message as it pertains to history. Hollon is troubled by how McLaren states that the Christian church throughout the history has seen doctrinal development and change. McLaren encourages his readers to continue the necessary progression of doctrine in our day. Hollon counters this by stating that there is a core dogma—a central teaching—that has always been there, has not changed, and has been passed along through the church. This is what we affirm in the Nicene Creed when we say, “I believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” The “Church” is “apostolic” because we hold to those core teachings handed down to us from the Apostles of Christ.

Hollon’s second point of contention with McLaren is that McLaren makes too radical a break between modern and postmodern Christianity. Hollon thinks that McLaren caricatures modern Christianity and then “tars and feathers it.” How does McLaren do this? By painting the difference between the modern age and postmodern age in too black-and-white contrasts—Modern Christianity was strictly concerned with rational epistemology, individuality, and “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” while Postmodern Christianity (in McLaren’s words from his book, Generous Orthodoxy) does not claim “to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall.” Hollon refutes this caricature by stating that the Christian church has always seen the “Rule of Faith” to be the route to the “Rule of Prayer,” that sound doctrine is a prerequisite for sound practice. He took the time to read the Hymn “Joy to the World” as evidence that the music of Modern Church took “truth” but then allowed that truth to inform her worship.

The third criticism Hollon offered is that he believes that McLaren has an insufficient understanding of Dogma. Contrary to what Hollon sees in McLaren’s writings, Hollon stated that Dogma is not something to be condemned, but that it helps us to understand Scripture correctly. The “Rule of Faith,” as stated in the Creeds of the church, are the core of our beliefs. These do not change. Hollon thinks that the emerging church and Brian McLaren would benefit from making a clear distinction between “Dogma,” “Doctrine,” and “Opinion.” “Dogma” is the central teachings of the Christian faith – the unchanging truths stated in the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed and the first four ecumenical councils. “Doctrine” is a second order set of teachings, created by different Christian communities as they understand Scriptures in the milieu of their traditions, and “Opinions” are the theological discussions and debates among people that go beyond that. What Hollon thinks McLaren does is conflate these in a way that says that since “doctrines” and “opinions” change over time, “Dogma” does as well. McLaren and others in the Emerging Church conversation also mistakenly believe that if a Dogma is unchanging, this squelches theological discovery. Hollon stated that this is absolutely the opposite of what is the case: Dogma does not exhaust the doctrines of God, they are merely “the kindling for further exploration of God.”

Next: McLaren’s Rebuttal of Hollon’s Statement, the Debate, and then the Inquisition Begins

other posts in this series:
The Inquisition of Brian McLaren?
Brian McLaren: Six Stages of the Emerging Church Conversation
McLaren at Malone: My Musings on the Mêlée

Brian McLaren: Six Stages of the Emerging Church Conversation

Brian McLaren started out the debate at Malone University by mapping out the progression of the emerging church conversation and his contribution to it.

STAGE ONE: He said it started out as a conversation among young, white, middle-class pastors (and him as the old guy at 42) about how to do church in order to reach 18-30 year olds outside of the church. McLaren’s book The Church on the Other Side reflects this conversation.

STAGE TWO: The emerging church conversation quickly shifted from church-focus to how to evangelize and disciple people, and McLaren’s books More Ready Than You Realize and Finding Faith reflect that stage of the conversation (Finding Faith has subsequently been repackaged as two separate books: A Search for What Makes Sense and A Search for What Is Real).

STAGE THREE: The conversation shifted from reaching 18-30 year olds to the realization that the issue is less about the age of people, but the cultural milieu in which we find ourselves. This interest in the cultural milieu of the 21st Century led the conversation into the deep topic of philosophy, especially explorations into how postmodernism has affected our thinking and our ways of knowing. McLaren’s book A New Kind of Christian reflects this stage in the conversation.

STAGE FOUR: The next stage entailed the realization that the conversation was very white and male and middle classed. They began to expand the conversation into seeking to understand church history and other Christian traditions, while inviting women, mainline Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics into the discussion. This led to McLaren’s book, A Generous Orthodoxy.

STAGE FIVE: With this desire to get beyond the particularity of American Christianity, the Emerging Church conversation began listening to those outside the United States, hearing how others see the gospel as focused on Justice and Civil Issues. They discovered that The Kingdom of God is much more the center of the gospel outside of the states. McLaren’s books The Secret Message of Jesus and Everything Must Change reflect this stage.

STAGE SIX: McLaren said that the next stage he senses the conversation moving into is what he calls “Spirituality:” cultivating a deep awareness, love, and worship of God. This is reflected by his new book, Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices.

As I listened to Brian map out these stages, I thought, “This explains a lot about Brian’s journey and that of others who have been involved in this emerging church thing.” For me personally, it brought to mind my early connections with Brian. As I led a new church plant in 2001, his The Church on the Other Side was very helpful. The first book I led our church leadership through was More Ready Than You Realize, and I gave away a case of Finding Faith to people that I was sharing my faith with. These three books were, and continue to be, three of my all-time favorites. I began this blog after attending the Emergent Conference in 2004, spending a weekend as part of Brian McLaren's Emergent Conference cohort, meeting with him several times during the conference to discuss with him the conference and processing it into my ministry.

From what Brian McLaren said at Malone, this much is certain: He is on a spiritual journey, a journey that is continuing to evolve as he engages in new conversations, exploring the implications of the Gospel on different aspects of life. This is why his books have become more and more controversial. People were fine with him exploring how to do church to reach a new postmodern, post-Christian generation. They are less comfortable with the McLaren that is becoming more and more political (now that he is no longer pastoring a local church, he calls himself an “activist”), and especially as he becomes more and more ready to question the standard theological assumptions of American evangelicalism. The church has always been uncomfortable with “activists,” especially if they perceive that the activist is thrying to change them!

However, this should inform how the church should interact and interpret Brian McLaren. He is just a person who thinks deeply about things, is in conversation with a lot of people about these things (both personally and through research), and writes about where he is on this journey. Where will Brian McLaren be in 10 years? Only God knows (I mean that literally, not with my eyes rolling and throwing my hands up, exclaiming, "God only knows!"). :-)

But it is certainly exciting that the stage he’s in now finds him exploring the ancient Christian spiritual disciplines, like fixed-hour prayer, fasting, and the observance of the Sabbath. This stage might bring many of his skeptics back into listening to him again.
_
other posts in this series:
The Inquisition of Brian McLaren?
Cage Match: Bryan Hollon vs. Brian McLaren (Well, Not Exactly)
McLaren at Malone: My Musings on the Mêlée

The Inquisition of Brian McLaren?

Malone University, in a bold move that should be applauded, brought Brian McLaren to campus. He spoke in Chapel on Monday morning and then debated Bryan Hollon, a theology professor at Malone on the topic, Emerging or Diverging: In What Direction is the Emerging Church Movement Headed?

I talked some with Brian before his morning message in Malone’s Chapel. I was pretty impressed that he recognized me. I first met Brian back in 2003, and I spent a weekend with him back in 2004 as part of a learning cohort on how to reach an emerging generation of post-Christian people. Besides this blog which has been engaging in the issues of the emerging church since its inception, I have also been involved with the Emergent Cohort for Akron-Canton, where we talk about the issues of how the Christian faith needs to be lived and proclaimed in the 21st Century.

First, I’d like to make some general observations about McLaren's visit to Malone. Later this week, I'll go into detail about what McLaren said, what Hollon said in debate, and what the audience contributed.

McLaren’s morning chapel message was very good. He talked about the Kingdom of God and how that message was radical for its time in that it was in opposition to the Kingdom of Caesar. McLaren pointed out that while Caesar’s kingdom was one of peace through violence, Jesus’ kingdom was one of peace through sacrifice. Very moving and very biblical. One person I met that morning said she came expecting to hear heresy, and found nothing in the message that wasn’t solidly biblical and applicable.

The debate that evening was open to the public, free of charge. And many people came. There were protestors handing out print-outs in the parking lot listing quote after quote from McLaren that they felt proved that he is a heretic. The crowd inside felt very split. There were as many staunch proponents of McLaren as staunch antagonists. My hope was that there were just as many who were open-minded and discerning, seeking first to understand before coming to judgment.

At times the event felt like an inquisition - the questions from the floor were often inappropriately hostile. However, McLaren kept his cool and was always very gracious. He certainly has some controversial positions theologically, and I think that Bryan Hollon, the professor from Malone that debated him, did a very good job of pointing those out. He was gracious as well, saying that McLaren had a lot to offer the church in terms of understanding the theology of the Kingdom of God and very authentic ways of reaching young people in today's culture.

Next: What McLaren said

other post in this series
Brian McLaren: Six Stages of the Emerging Church Conversation
Cage Match: Bryan Hollon vs. Brian McLaren (Well, Not Exactly)
McLaren at Malone: My Musings on the Mêlée

March Madness All Academic Bracket

Inside Higher Ed has once again published the NCAA Men's tournament bracket, selecting winners based on the NCAA Academic Performance Rate.

This year's final four:
___BYU
___Kansas
___Villanova
___North Carolina

According to the nationally comparable academic scores, the Tar Heels would win it all!

Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?

MSNBC is now conducting an on-line "Live Vote" on this question.

I don’t know. I have mixed feelings about this issue.

I certainly hope that Americans would embrace the idea of “In God We Trust.” In fact, this is my prayer – that each and every person would trust Jesus Christ as his or her savior. I also hope that society and government in the United States would be in line with the will of God. This is my prayer – that Christians would be so convincing in the public square that others would see the wisdom of our suggestions and decide to pass laws and structure society in such ways that are in accordance with the way God has created us to live.

But I also feel that the civil religion that we have had in America – the one that gives God a hat-tip here and there, that makes Christmas a civil holiday for the purpose of driving our economy and feeding our consumeristic greed, that makes Easter Bunnies more important than the empty tomb – does more harm than good to the cause of proclaiming Christ.

This latter concern of mine is confirmed, I think, by MSNBC’s way of wording the question:

Should the motto "In God We Trust" be removed from U.S. currency?
_Yes. It's a violation of the principle of separation of church and state.
_No. The motto has historical and patriotic significance and does nothing to establish a state religion.

If the motto “does nothing to establish a state religion,” then why are so many Christians so eager to vote “No” for this? It is because we know instinctively that the separation of church and state is an important foundation to the United States. We know that faith cannot be established by the state. We do not want the government to tell us what church we must attend, what religious beliefs we must affirm. In other words, we really like the First Amendment.

But why, then, would so many Christians not vote “Yes” for this? It is because they want some affirmation of Christianity in the government. They want this to be a Christian nation, honoring God with all we do, seeking his will in our government and our society.

But, this brings us to yet another question. Why do so many Christians want to thrust our personal religious belief onto the rest of the American public? Shouldn’t “In God We Trust” be more significant to us than just some nebulous “historical and patriotic significance?”

Don't get me wrong. I personally trust in God. I definitely want my nation to operate its government and its society in accordance to the will of the God I trust.

But this is certain: The Christian faith can never be a coercive religion. We must not ever think that we can force others to affirm a trust in God. This is a personal choice, one that a person should take seriously. It should not be relegated to a simple motto that anyone can shrug their shoulders at when they see it on the money with which they buy things they do not need as their debt continues to soar and as they continue to indulge in the American way of consumerism.

Christianity is bigger than America. And Faith is bigger than a motto.

The Economics of the Kingdom

Here’s a good definition of Capitalism (courtesy Wikipedia): “An economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled.”

Here are a couple issues that arise from believing in strict “free-market,” “laissez-faire” or "pure” capitalism.

The first comes from thinking that everything needs to be “privately owned and controlled.” There is no room for common resources, common capital, and common services. Everything, including our natural resources like water and air, as well as our common services such as fire fighting and the military (think of Private Military Companies like Blackwater in Iraq) must be privatized. Is there a danger with this?

Another issue that arises from believing in purely private ownership is that we begin to believe that the goal in life is to own stuff. That what I have is mine, and not somebody else’s. The top priority in a capitalistic worldview becomes our personal material well-being (for each individual, as well as for our nation).

However, this runs contrary to the biblical teaching of Stewardship. Certainly, we “own things,” but what this actually means is that God has entrusted to us these possessions – that they are actually his. Everything we have is actually entrusted to our care, including nature, our fellow human beings, our health and our time.

One of the great Christian economists of our generation, Bob Goudzwaard, wrote these helpful words. As I read them again this week, I was struck about how incredibly insightful they are in light of the current economic crisis.

Is our society characterized by this kind of stewardship? This has become a rhetorical question. Christians no less than nonchristians have frequently acted as if economic means and technology are ends in themselves. We take a steady annual growth in material welfare for granted as if it were a right we are entitled to. We also convince ourselves that our own ever increasing wealth will enable us to preserve nature more carefully as well as provide some aid to the poor nations. But our thinking presupposes that our own material well-being, personally as well as nationally, must receive priority.

I am inclined to state that in this framework of thought things have been turned upside down. Mind you, the question is not whether economic growth in itself is good or bad. Our concern here is with the sequence of things. Stewardship means: first take care of the earth for which God has made you responsible, first see to it that others have enough, and then you will discover that there is plenty left for you and your own society. This is what I would call the economics of God's Kingdom. First seek that Kingdom and all things will come to you as a matter of course.

How can capitalism help or hinder our calling to seek first the Kingdom?

Market Economy vs. Market Society

As we said in our last post, capitalism, as a system, is neither moral nor immoral—it is just one economic system, one that seems to us fallen creatures to be the best that humanity has created thus far. Christians can, and probably should, support free market capitalism.

But I want to quote Gideon Strauss of CARDUS (formerly the Work Research Foundation), who makes a very important distinction. I think that those Christians on the two extremes of the economics debate (those who believe that markets need to be completely unfettered with no intervention and those who are wary of free market capitalism because of the abuses and vices that occur in the system) can learn from this very balanced assessment of the reality of where we are and what we should do.

We believe markets to be the best way—no, the only sane way—to structure interactions in economic life. We don't only believe this because of the historical evidence from the complete failure and ghastly horror of socialism and fascism, but even more because we consider markets to be built into the very design of economic life. Markets as the proper setting for economic interaction, for buying and selling, are in our view a feature of the structure of reality. So we flagrantly support the idea and the reality of a market economy.

But this does not mean we support the idea of a market society. Human life is not all about economics. Contrary to rational choice theory, we human beings do not make all of our decisions simply in terms of cost/benefit analyses.

While economic life needs room to flourish, and needs protection from the encroachment of excessive government intrusion, it also needs limits. The sphere of economic life does not only provide businesses with a space for their wealth-generating manufacture of products and provision of services, and labor unions with a space for negotiating fair participation in these activities—it also sets the outer limits for business and labor.

There are many spheres of human life where economic considerations appropriately play a role but do not dictate decision-making. Families, schools and hospitals all have to balance their books—but they don't exist to balance their books. In each of their cases, love, learning, and care, respectively, trumps the bottom line.

One of the great challenges facing us is cultivating a society in which economic markets can flourish, but without overwhelming other spheres of human life.

What do you think?
_

Is Capitalism God’s Ordained Economic System?

There is a lot being bandied about (especially in conservative Christian circles) that President Barack Obama is ushering in a new age of socialism into the United States of America. It reminds me of when it was godly America versus the godless Communists – the arguments given were in black and white terms—capitalism and free markets are God’s moral system, socialism is a godless system.

What should we say? Well, I believe that history as shown that we should embrace markets. Markets have proven to be the best way to structure interactions in economic life. Marxist Socialism failed because it had major flaws inherent in the system. But, is capitalism God’s ordained economic system?

Michael Kruse is helpful here when he writes,

If the question is whether or not free market capitalism is the biblically prescribed model for the economic life, then the answer is an emphatic “No.” There is no culturally transcendent economic model given in the bible. Therefore, no economic model is Christian. Those that would take capitalism (or any other economic system) down to the river and baptize it as THE Christian model engage in idolatry.

If the question is whether or not free market capitalism emerged from a society with a distinctively Christian ethos, then the answer would clearly be “Yes.” The ideas of human beings created in the image of God, linear time, progress, future orientation, and vision oriented ethics, were the soil from which capitalism grew. This is NOT to say that free market capitalism is the best of all economic systems that can, or ever will be, conceived. It is merely to acknowledge the roots from which it sprang.

The third way of interpreting this question is to evaluate the degree to which free market capitalism moves us in the direction of the coming age of shalom. It is this evaluation that has to be asked about every human construction, always with an eye to the fallen state of humanity and the inability to achieve utopia in our present age.

NEXT:
Market Economy vs. Market Society
Kingdom Economics vs The American Dream
Should We Want a Completely "Free Market?"

Are you going to send a Red Envelope? Read this first.

Have you received this email or been recruited on Facebook to join this cause?
___

Dear Friends and Intercessors:
_This afternoon I was praying about a number of things, and my mind began to wander. I was deeply distressed at the symbolic actions that President Obama took as he began his presidency. Namely, that he signed executive orders releasing funds to pay for abortions, permission to fund human stem cell research, and federal funding for contraception. I have been involved in the pro-life movement for nearly 20 years, and it pained my heart to see a man and a political party committed to the shedding of innocent blood. This man, and this party lead our country, but they do not represent me or the 54% of Americans who believe that abortion is wrong and should no longer be legal.
_As I was praying, I believe that God gave me an interesting idea. Out in the garage I have a box of red envelopes. Like the powerful image of the red LIFE tape, an empty red envelope will send a message to Barack Obama that there is moral outrage in this country over this issue. It will be quiet, but clear.
_Here is what I would like you to do:
_Get a red envelope. You can buy them at Kinkos, or at party supply stores. On the front, address it to:
___President Barack Obama
___The White House
___1600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.
___Washington , D.C. 20500
_On the back, write the following message:
_This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.
_Put it in the mail on March 31st, and send it. Then send this website to every one of your friends who you think would send one too. I wish we could send 50 million red envelopes, one for every child who died before having a a chance to live. Maybe it will change the heart of the president.
_Warmly, Christ Otto
_Let's Send 50 Million red envelopes (and Counting) to the President!
___

I sure wish that Christian campaigns like this didn’t say that our president and the Democratic Party are “committed to the shedding of innocent blood.”

As I've said before, I definitely believe that the center of the “Pro-Life” issue is a strong opposition to abortion. However, a consistent “Pro-Life” policy also includes such issues as war, poverty, hunger, disease, an unjust legal system, and the environment. All these issues are a part of a holistic and consistent “Pro-Life” agenda. Therefore, many Christians who see “Life” issues beyond the core issue of abortion law (i.e., Roe v. Wade) voted for Barack Obama, believing that these many issues also weigh heavily in this issue. For these Christians, of which I am one, President Barack Obama not only is the leader of our country, he also “represents me.”

At the same time, it deeply troubles us that President Obama is a proponent of abortion-on-demand. We understand that he wants to honor a woman’s right to choose, because women have had their rights terribly trampled on for so very long. But we insist that women’s rights do not trump the unborns’ right to life. This is a difficult issue, but Christians, at our best, are a people who stand up for the needs of the oppressed and for those who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. We are to act for justice as we walk humbly with our God. The unborn are the most oppressed people in our society – their very lives are in danger due to an extremely unjust law in our land.

Therefore, I signed the petition sent to the president on the day he was inaugurated to urge him not to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)”. Find the petition at fightfoca.com.

So far, I feel that President Obama has been very careful in his actions in regard to the pro-life/pro-choice issue. He did not take any vocal or symbolic action on the 30th Anniversary date of Roe v. Wade (Jan 22) – even though he had a lot of pressure from pro-choice advocates to do so. Instead, his executive orders (which were not unexpected, especially his reversal of the Mexico City Policy) were done very quietly and away from the anniversary date so as to not make huge symbolic statements. Obama has sought to use rhetoric that does not inflame or contribute to the heat of the debate.

He certainly is pro-choice – he has made that clear. But he is a different kind of pro-choice president, one that can be reasoned with -- one that, I believe, we can make headway with. I hope that the Red Envelope campaign does not inflame the debate. I believe that Christians must realize that abortion is an economic issue. President Obama recognizes abortion for what it is: a tragic moral choice often confronted by a woman in adverse economic and social circumstances (struggling as a single mother, without a steady income, without good employment prospects, without health-care guarantees, and a stigmatic and cumbersome adoption procedure). While President Obama can be properly labeled “pro-choice, he has proposed to reduce the incidence of abortion by helping pregnant women overcome the ill effects of poverty that block a choice of life.

It’s not perfect, granted. Would I rather have a staunch pro-life president? Certainly! But what does that mean? Politicians can claim to be “pro-life” by saying they oppose Roe v. Wade, but many of their policies actually are more harmful to life than a politician that does not make that superficial claim. Much of the Republican talk about being “pro-life” has been very empty rhetoric. They have had the White House and the Congress for years, but we saw very little movement on the issue – only at election time do we hear about it. They have never offered a realistic plan to lower abortion rates. More and more evangelicals are walking away from the Republicans – perhaps they will stop giving lip-service to this important issue and quit thinking they have our vote in their pockets just because they say they are “pro-life.”

What we need is for Republicans and Democrats to work together in order to make progress with legislation that is realistic. The Democrats have proposed comprehensive legislation called the 95/10 Initiative that aims to reduce the number of abortions that take place in this country by 95% within 10 years. Now get this: Barack Obama actually supports this and similar legislation!

While Red Envelopes are being mailed and people are saying things like, “Barack Obama doesn’t represent me!” there are Democrats offering a realistic plan that can move us around the difficult cultural impasse that has bogged us down for far too long.

While I am not necessarily opposed to the Red Envelope campaign, I wonder if the rhetoric of "Christ Otto" (if that's a real person) is more derogatory and inflammatory than it needs to be.

What do you think?

Sabbath Rest for the Christian

A Christian Perspective on Work, Part 5

Work is a good thing. Work is a major part of who we are as human beings and is part of the created order, not a result of the Fall. We should find satisfaction in our work. It is good that God provides through our work. Also, work is the means by which we cooperate with others for the good of society (the biblical idea of “Shalom”).

There are two extreme positions in our culture as it relates to work.

The first is echoed in what the rock band Loverboy used to sing, “Everybody’s working for the weekend.” Work is a necessary evil – it provides the paycheck that allows us to enjoy what life’s really about: Leisure! Those who declare “T.G.I.F.!” would find the idea of “thanking God for work” a strange notion. Work is only the means to the end: Friday, the weekend, fun, vacations, etc.

Another extreme is echoed in how we ask people to introduce themselves: “So, tell me, Bill, what do you do for a living?” Our society has allowed our work to be the major way we identify ourselves. If we are not working in a prestigious position, we may feel less of ourselves. If we feel that we are not accomplishing incredible things on a daily basis in our work, our identity as a human being is somehow lessened. This leads to what we call “workaholics.” But unlike other “-aholics,” a workaholic is often admired. He or she is driven to succeed, is seen as a leader, and is often offered the promotions.

How do we guard against these two extremes? The answer is found (can you guess?) in the Bible. The Fifth Commandment was, “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath to the LORD your God” (Exodus 20:8-10). Following the example of God found in the Creation Week of Genesis 1, the people of God were to rest on the seventh day. But why were they to rest? To remember that God is their deliverer. They had been in slavery in Egypt, but were saved from that bondage and brought into the Promised Land of Rest. “Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.” (Deuteronomy 5:15)

The Sabbath rest not only reminded the Old Testament people of God who their creator is, but also who their savior is. Honoring the Sabbath was essential to remembering that God had delivered the Israelites from bondage. They were to take one day each week and rest, meditating on the freedom that God had provided for them. Honoring the Sabbath also meant that they ceased working in order to show their trust in Yahweh’s provision. The promise God gave to the Israelites was that in honoring the Sabbath they were to not find their identity in their work alone, but that they would “find their joy in the LORD” (Isaiah 58:14).

That’s fine for the ancient Israelites, but what about today’s Christians? How do we move beyond the two extremes of either working for the weekends or finding our whole identity in our careers?

Jesus offers this wonderful promise:
“Come to me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)

The new kind of sabbath rest is offered in Christ, and it is not limited to the weekends. The New Testament paints the picture that since Jesus did all the work of salvation on the cross, we are able to enter God’s rest, the work has been accomplished.
“Now we who have believed enter that rest… There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; for those who enter God’s rest also rest from their own work, just as God did from his.” (Hebrews 4:3, 9-10)

Jesus Christ delivered us from our bondage, he did all the work on the cross. Therefore, for the Christian, the sabbath is not just limited to a Saturday off of work. It is an attitude that flows from the grace of Christ’s work on our behalf. Because we have already entered into the "rest" of being in a relationship with Jesus, our perspective is different. We not only take time each week to stop from our work, but we see all of life with the orientation of what Mark Buchanan (in his book, The Rest of God) calls a “Sabbath heart.” He writes, “A Sabbath heart is restful even in the midst of unrest and upheaval. It is attentive to the presence of God and others even in the welter of much coming and going, rising and falling. It is still and knows God even when mountains fall into the sea.”

But even with this beautiful gift of rest, we still struggle in a fallen world. We must find balance in our lives that reflects the rest that we have in Christ. Establishing a rhythm of work with rest is a wise practice in order to find this balance.

In order to find a sabbatical balance in life, consider these ideas:
1. Sabbath means ceasing from work. In Christ, we cease from works-righteousness, but we also must train ourselves to cease from our frantic focus on productivity. Taking a time away from work tells God (and yourself!) that God is actually the provider, no matter how hard you work. Since the Sabbath is truly fulfilled in Jesus, I can cease from trying to prove myself to myself, to others, and even to God! Since Jesus frees me from the burden of good works, I can enjoy doing good work – without trying to win God’s approval in doing so.

2. Sabbath means resting. The rhythm of work with rest is set in all of us. As we need to sleep each night, we also need to rest from bread-winning each week – so that we can rejuvenate our bodies, our minds, and our emotions. Not only that, we need to be refreshed and reinvigorated spiritually, so that we can be ready once again to do our work in a fallen world, because it is often very hard work to be creative and/or redemptive in our tasks for the glory of God.

3. Sabbath means worship. We need to take time out to purposely recalibrate our lives onto the person of Jesus Christ. We need to deliberately reconnect with other believers as we worship together the Lord of our lives. As we celebrate who God is and what he has accomplished in Christ on Sunday, the effects are felt throughout the rest of the week. As Gideon Strauss wrote, “If we give corporate worship its proper place, we have done perhaps the most important needful thing in the process of putting work in its proper place.”

4. Sabbath means celebration of life. Yes, we need to enjoy the goodness of all that God has given us. Rest is not only taking a lazy Sunday nap, but also playing a fun game of tag with the kids. It’s going for a hike in the state park. It’s enjoying your favorite hobby. It’s enjoying music. It’s having a wonderful meal with friends and family.

_

The Shack in Review

Stephen Shields, in another of his very helpful reviews and compendiums of what other people are saying on the internet, offers Some Thoughts on The Shack:

As of today, The Shack has been #1 on the New York Times Bestseller List for 36 straight weeks. At the time of this writing, The Shack was the #6 best-selling book of all categories on Amazon.com.

I cannot remember when I've finished a book and then promptly began it a second time the very next day, but that's exactly what I did with The Shack a couple of weeks ago. I finished my second reading of the book a few days ago.

I found the book to be quite powerful. Realizing that the book is controversial, I nevertheless am giving the book a qualified recommendation and am encouraging my friends to read it discerningly.

Some of the critiques that one reads of Young's work are theological. I do not believe it's invalid to criticize the theology behind a creative piece of fiction, but I do think it's unrealistic to expect comprehensive systematic theology from such a work. Some things are simply not addressed in a work of fiction that we would expect to be addressed in systematics. And so I'm hesitant to agree with those critiques that have foundation in a charge of incompleteness. Nevertheless, I did find theological shortcomings in the book and also appreciated other aspects of the work.

I did not agree with all of the comments in the book regarding authority and hierarchy. I got the impression from reading The Shack that all hierarchy is an unmitigated wrong. I, on the other hand, believe loving authority is not only legitimate on earth but that we also see it in the Godhead (in distinction from what Sarayu claims on p. 122).

I also was not sure what Young was getting at when he had Jesus say that He did not wish for folks to become Christians (p. 182). I have no problem with anyone saying that organized Christianity does not always equal true Christianity, but Jesus comments here seemed to be overstatement.

One critique of The Shack is that it promotes Ultimate Reconciliation (UR). When I read the book, I wondered about this myself. My feeling is that the book had the flavor of Ultimate Reconciliation. Moreoever, Young's story collaborator Wayne Jacobsen in his article Is THE SHACK Heresy? asserts earlier drafts of the the book did reflect William P. Young's leanings toward Ultimate Reconciliation at that time.

However, Jacobsen writes, "While some of that was in earlier versions because of the author’s partiality at the time to some aspects of what people call UR, I made it clear at the outset that I didn’t embrace UR as sound teaching and didn’t want to be involved in a project that promoted it." However, Jacobsen also implies in his article that the collaborative process itself had an affect on Young's theological views including, it would seem, any predispositions Young had toward UR. And I believe Young when I heard him say emphatically in interviews that he believes in Hell.

Regarding the critique that the book does not accurately convey the Trinity, for myself I was not looking for it to definitively portray the Trinity. It's a work of creative fiction and clearly the author took some liberties. When I have taught theology I have told my students that the day that I explain the Trinity to them in such a way that they go, "Ok, now I get it! That makes perfect sense" that is the day that they can be assured that I have no idea what I'm talking about. We should not be shocked that our finite minds cannot completely comprehend the One Who is infinite. And I felt that there was a definite tension in Young's portrayal of the Trinity that was consistent with the mystery of "God in three persons." But do I think Young got it right? No, of course not. But I do feel that he gave an interesting portrait of God.

One aspect of the book I appreciated was the honest treatment of the most difficult theological question encapsulated in Mackenzie's terrible tragedy: Why would a loving, all-powerful being allow six-year-old Missy to be brutally murdered? I was satisfied that Young did not attempt to provide a definitive theodicy but that in the book the author gave some hints toward an answer that had to do with humanity's freedom to choose. I personally believe that a completely satisfying theodicy is not possible this side of the Jordan. I appreciated that Young did not wrap this theological problem up in a artificially contrived bow.

But perhaps the aspect of the book I appreciated the most was the portrayal of God's personal involvement with Mack. I do believe that God's omnipotence implies his ability to deal with each of his creatures with loving individuality. It was moving to see Young's portrayal of this.

And so I found the book helpfully provocative but I am sensitive to, and in some cases sympathetic with, those who might critique its theology in places. I am also open to being shown that I have missed theological deficiencies in the book that should be highlighted.

But all these concerns expressed, I cautiously recommend The Shack as one way to helpfully challenge our paradigm of God in a way that might lead to a fuller understanding of Him.

Other Information Available Online About The Shack:

• You can learn more about William P. Young here.
  
  
• See a video of William P Young sharing the story behind the story.
  
  
• Mark Driscoll on The Shack (mostly critical)
  
  
• Wayne Jacobsen: Is The Shack Heresy? (mostly favorable)
  
  Jacobsen is an author who was one of Young's collaborators on the story and co-founded Windblown Media that publishes the book.
  
  
• Tim Challies' Review of The Shack (pdf) (mostly critical)
  
  
• Al Mohler on The Shack (audio) (mostly critical)
  
  
• Greg Boyd on The Shack (mostly favorable)
  
  
• Christianity Today Review: Fiction for the Faith-Starved by Cindy Crosby (mostly favorable)

---
Thanks, Stephen, for this helpful post!
-Bob
_

Byron Borger Gives Us a Shout-Out

Integrate: When Faith and Work Meet is coming up in a week and a half, and Byron Borger is writing about it at Hearts and Minds.

AND... He is offering a 20% Off Special!!

Check it Out:
InteGratE and Books on Work
_

A Comma or a Period?

Is God Still Speaking? And How Do We Know We Are Hearing God's Voice?

I’ve been intrigued by the promotional campaign, “God is Still Speaking,” which features a giant “Comma.” At the Still Speaking Store, you can buy banners, posters, apparel, party supplies, pens, and more with the Still Speaking logo.

This is the United Church of Christ's reaction to the conservative evangelical belief that God has already spoken in his Word, the Bible. It is a counter to the phrase often heard in conservative circles, “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.”

Period. Period. Period.

I have to admit that the "that settles it" approach is a very simple and narrow way of thinking about how God interacts with us. It is truncated and anemic. It is not a fully-formed theology of understanding how we interact with God’s Spirit as we are formed by the teaching of the Bible.

Most evangelicals believe that God does indeed still speak. At varying degrees, evangelicals believe in prophesy for today. At varying degrees, we believe that God speaks in and through culture and circumstances. At varying degrees, we believe that theology is a constant science of connecting the Bible to our contemporary culture and circumstance.

Admittedly, we evangelicals have a sad history of not being humble in our theological convictions. We tend to come to some theological conclusion and then draw a heavy line in the sand saying, "This is orthodoxy and can never change." But when we do this, it causes strife and division within our own community, creating new denominations based on every new line drawn in the sand. A new line is drawn, and a new denomination is born. Some Christians attempt to embrace the phrase, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity,” but we mostly fail miserably at it, for we all have different definitions of “essential” and “non-essential.”

I am sympathetic to the UCC’s new catch-phrase, “God is Still Speaking,” but I am also wary of it. The statement that accompanies the comma campaign is “No matter who you are, or where you are on life's journey, you're welcome here.” In other words (and I don’t think I’m being presumptuous with this), if you are openly gay and want to continue in your lifestyle, the United Church of Christ can be your home.

The UCC is capitalizing on the fact that evangelical churches are known as not being welcoming to homosexuals. This is granted. It is also sad. Evangelical churches have struggled with balancing their proclamation of the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality with living out the Bible’s calling to welcome all sinners into the loving and transforming community of the Church.

But what the UCC is saying is that they have definitively heard the voice of God on this issue – that God is “still speaking,” and has said that homosexuality is not a sin after all.

I want to embrace the idea that “God is Still Speaking,” but I want to be sure that what we are hearing is not our own fallen notions of right and wrong, or worse yet, the voice of the deceiver, Satan.

How do we discern that what we are hearing is actually God speaking?

The only controls that I can think of are these: Scripture, Tradition, and Community – all working together in the on-going work of understanding what God is saying to us in our contemporary culture and circumstances.

Some who claim to be Christians put all their marbles in the bag of “Scripture” and disregard what the Church has always believed (ignoring tradition) and neglecting interacting with other members of the community of believers. This creates all-new ideas about the Bible's teaching and often results in division and strange and novel doctrines.

Others who claim to be Christians put all their marbles in the bag of “Tradition” and ignore that, often, their church tradition rubs against the Scriptures. The Bible can take a backseat to what the church's leadership says is doctrine, in spite of no solid biblical teaching on the tradition.

The UCC is putting all their marbles in the bag of “Community.” Since they, as a group, have decided that the loving thing to do is to never tell someone that homosexuality is a sin, then that trumps Scripture and Tradition.

This is a problem that I see rising up in the emerging church as well. We are not paying enough attention to all three controls for hearing God correctly. If we do not do so, we will fall into the same mistakes that have happened before.

And that is not very "emerging" at all!

Focus on the Family's THE TRUTH PROJECT

Does The Truth Project Have a Hidden Agenda? And If So, Is It Really Seeking "Truth?"

Many evangelical churches have been using Focus on the Family's new video curriculum, The Truth Project, taught by Dr. Del Tackett, in an attempt to educate their members in a Christian World View.

However, I think it would be wise for us to understand the manipulative slant that Focus on the Family gives in this video series.

Two bloggers that I just discovered take The Truth Project to task. Check out these insightful critiques of this series:

On not taking postmodernism seriously enough

This video highlights how unhelpful terms can be. "Postmodernism" according to Tackett is a false worldview that he groups next to "secular humanism," "Islam," among others. From my understandings, the philosophical foundations for this argument is not very accurate. Towards the end of the video the professor uses a chart which shows "Truth" on one side (what we're all after) and all the other "world views" on the other side throwing their lies at us, deceiving us. That is foundationalism. If we could just see those foundations, just weed out all the manipulations and half-truths and lies, we'd only be left with "truth." Tackett never addresses how we can do that when the only thing we have to work through are all those -isms and -ologies that shape our thinking.

On the nature of Man and God

His (Tackett's) discussion of sin was largely individualistic (our choices). His discussion of God was entirely individualistic (our own personal relationship). The remaining "pillars" that he sets out to address in the end of this series (economy, work, politics) are going to be malnourished because of this complete ignoring of the communal aspect of the essence of God: in theological jargon, a "functional trinitarian theology." This is where theology has moved in recent years, and to ignore it completely shows the reliance of antiquated, foundational modernistic philosophy underlying this entire video series.

On faith as it relates to science

The unfortunate aspect of the sessions are his insistently argumentative and combative tone when it comes to those to whom he disagrees - and in science he finds his enemy in Darwin. On several occasions, as he has throughout this series, he mocks and laughs at those who do not believe. If he had left the tone worshipful and awe-inspiring of the created order God has made . . . I would have nothing negative to say in regards to these two weeks. However, Tackett cannot leave it at that. He must deal with the "perniscious liars" who "manipulate truth" and are basically out to get us. I, again, cannot follow the rationale that gets him there. For Tackett, it's basically a black and white issue. God created everything (nearly, if not completey) literally as it is portrayed in the Bible. Anyone who sheds doubt on this fact is a pernicious liar and the Evil One has overtaken them. When you get through the two-week lesson you are led to believe that anyone who believes is evolution is completely ignorant and totally misled by the lies of the world. He, once again, builds up a strawman and blows him down.

On faith as it relates to history

I find it truly ironic that he accuses the "world" of myopia when that is exactly the problem I see inherent in his belief system in regards to history. He has a great moving moment in light of a painting of the Pilgrims and talks of the great sacrifices they made to follow what they thought of as God's will - coming to America, expanding the kingdom he even says. What a great people they were, following God's will even to the point of death from the elements. It's interesting that he determines that this is the meta-narrative, the guiding story and following of God's people that will lead no doubt to where he's headed with the session entitled the "Great American Experiment" looming. It was God's will that this nation was founded. Upon the great principles of God. Perhaps that discussion can be had in political circles - but NOT theological ones.

On how faith relates to work

I knew there would be some underlying agenda-driven points along the way. It met me squarely with this video on labor. Now, I do applaude the inclusion of this topic in the series. He is right that we too often do not speak of the place of labor in our theological framework. And for the first part of his video I felt he did a fair job of presenting a biblical perspective. Our role in work is rooted in God's working in the Genesis account. God worked. He created us to work. Work is not inherently evil. The Fall did affect work...
When he moves away from Genesis, however, he begins some hermentuetical gymnastics to make his right wing political ideology fit the Bible... Some of his statements and teachings in this series are downright misleading and un-biblical. I am flabergasted that he would spend 15 minutes of his hour long session on the gleanings passage and NEVER mention jubilee. Jesus reads from the text in Isaiah at the beginning of his ministry in Luke stating that he has come to fulfill this (in their hearing). Israel was intended to be built around the idea of redistrubtion of wealth - something he lists on the screen that the Bible teaches is a SIN! A sin! It is a biblical teaching! I'm not supporting socialism or anything like that . . . my point is that Tackett has allowed his culture to dictate his understanding of the text. The Bible does teach that this is a sin.

On "Culture" being evil and the enemy of Christianity

One of the first things the presenter does, and continues to do throughout the video, is refer to culture in a negative light. Culture is portrayed as "anti-God"... I think culture needs to be critiqued and looked at objectively, but it is neither good nor bad on its own. A demonizing of culture leads to an unhealthy view of those outside of the Christian subculture. This creates a fear response and often paranoia amongst many of the Christian populace.

On the purpose of Jesus' incarnation

At the beginning the presenter poses the question "Why did Jesus come into the World?" His "class" gave varied answers, many of which could be justified scripturally, but he stated that they were wrong (he might argue that they were wrong in reference to his particular scripture reference, but he never made that clear). He uses Jesus' statement in John to build his case. "In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me." John 18:37b
The video seeks to prove to the listener that Truth is the point of everything God ever did and that one is either for or against it. Much of his argument throughout the video relies on proof-texting. Henry Neufeld gives a good definition of proof-texting:

"By proof-texting I mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances."

To discuss the scriptural reasons of why Jesus came would not have helped his argument. He wanted to divide everything into black and white terms. Therefore, other reasons were not mentioned and the answers of his class were dismissed.

Here are a couple of other reasons Jesus came: (these are just a few of the more blunt ones; inferred would be much longer)

• "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." John 3:17
• "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst." 1 Timothy 1:15
• "Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." Hebrew 10:9-10
• "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." John 10:10
• "For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me."John 6:38
  

These scriptures, and others like them, do not lend themselves to drawing a line in the sand... The purpose of this video was to bifurcate (his word) humanity to those who follow the Truth (by his definition) and those who do not.

Have you seen The Truth Project? What have you thought of it?