As a pastor, I get all kinds of questions about Jeremiah Wright, but one of the most confusing things for evangelicals to grasp is how he draws such wild conclusions from the same Bible we study every week. How does Wright take something like the crucifixion of Christ and say that it is about the oppression African-Americans have experienced here in America? Certainly the Bible applies to all of our lives, but how can he make a jump that seems so illogical?
This is really a question of interpretive methods. Every single person that opens a Bible interprets it. If you use of English translation of the Bible, then other people have already interpreted some things before you even pick it up! Some Christians don’t like to admit this, but the truth is we all come to the Bible with perspectives, expectations, experiences and a worldview – all of this helps inform us of the Bible’s application (of course, the Holy Spirit speaks through Scripture but we also hear our own voices too). This is interpretation. And methods of interpretation have not always been the same.
Modern evangelicals are deeply impacted by the Enlightenment. That means that evangelicals place primary importance on the original meaning of the text – whatever it meant to St. Paul is what it should mean to us today. This has not always been the case. The New Testament writers often were not very careful with keeping the original meaning of the Old Testament when they quoted it – and everyone did that back then. In early Christian times, the primary way to interpret the Bible was something called the Allegorical Method. This meant that every single word/number/image in the Bible had several levels of complex (and often crazy) meanings.
But it was during the Enlightenment that we finally get to what we would consider ‘normal interpretation.’ And yet even this, like any human philosophy, cannot fully encompass biblical truth. This kind of interpretation is often overly scientific and loses both the artistic and fluid elements of the Bible. The modern scholars who reject the Bible do so based on their rigid Enlightenment worldview.
Then people started reacting against the Enlightenment – we now call the movement Post-Modernism. This philosophy downplays the original meaning and says that YOUR story is as important as the ORIGINAL Bible story. Post-modernism rightly acknowledges that we all interpret the Bible and that we do so with our own thoughts/fears/experiences. But some go too far. They believe you should actually re-interpret the Bible to include your own story. If you do this with the black experience, you get Liberation Theology. So here it is: Jeremiah Wright is self-consciously reading the black experience into the Bible. He is not trying to be an evangelical. He is not trying to get at what Paul really meant. He wants to read his story into the Bible. This is not an African-American thing; it is a Post-Modern thing. And that is why not all African-American Christians hold to Liberation Theology.
And before you throw too many stones at Wright’s Post-Modern methods, you should know that most of mainstream Christianity is up to its eyeballs in it. Whether it is the Emergent Church, the Purpose Driven Life, or the Contemporary Church Movement, almost all of us are trying to make our story the central theme of the Bible in some way or another.
5.14.2008
4.18.2008
COLOSSIANS & NEW PERSPECTIVE
In our church's study of Colossians I have been referring to several commentaries. I find myself looking at three sources related to the New Perspective in particular (a Colossians commentary by James Dunn, one by NT Wright, and a book about Paul by NT Wright). Up to this point I have found this body of work to be mostly helpful but in Colossians 1:21 I am starting to see the ways part between New Perspective and Reformed Theology.
Colossians 1:21-23 speaks of our reconciliation with God. It is clear from the previous verse (20) that this is a pretty big deal. Verse 20 says that God has reconciled all things to himself -- things both in heaven and on earth. Could there be any loftier language about reconciliation?
And yet, what does J.Dunn do with this? Though he admits that v.20 is cosmic in scope he swings us from the cosmic to the minuscule: reconciliation in v.21-23 is all about the Gentiles coming into the church (p.106). Such a swing almost makes me dizzy! But you see, he has to do this. When you start out with a presupposition that all justification-language and reconciliation-language is about Jew/Gentile relations then you have to squeeze and push every text to make it fit. And so here we see Dunn is faced with cosmic reconciliation and yet he is driven by his presuppositions to make the text say something different. To his credit, NT Wright (who I believe to be more 'conservative') correctly identifies that this is about reconciliation with God and does not limit it to Gentiles coming into the Jewish faith.
I don't preach against New Perspective very much for two reasons - one, I think there is a lot we can learn from it and we should be reasonable in our critiques, and two, NP is simply not something that our people are being confronted with in a potentially damaging way. Since I am not going to make much of this in the sermon I thought I should mention it in this blog.
Col 1:21-13 is where the New Perspective gets potentially dangerous. I love a lot of their stuff on Jesus. I love a lot of their stuff regarding the Jewishness of early Christianity. But the truth is, if you go very far with it, you can find yourself with another redeemer other than Christ. Your redeemer cannot simply be inclusion into the church. Your pattern for faith cannot simply stop with Israel. This was Paul's problem with what was going on in Colossae, he warned against false redeemers. He warned against things that took the place of each person's relationship with Christ. These other redeemers were powerless against sin (Col 2.23) - Christ was the only one who successfully disarmed the evil powers (Col 2.15).
If reconciliation is really about Gentile inclusion into the Jewish faith, then what power is there in that? Though inclusion is a biproduct and often overlooked in its significance, I believe J.Dunn would have us following another redeemer if he could - primarily unity. Unity cannot save you - it cannot disarm those powers, it cannot raise you from death (Col 2.12), it cannot absolve your guilt (Col 2.14) and you will not be able to turn to it when all else is leaving you (Col 3.24). Only the Christ who could reconcile all creation to himself could cosmically reconcile hostile sinners to a holy God. What an amazing work and any interpretation that falls short of that should be discarded.
Colossians 1:21-23 speaks of our reconciliation with God. It is clear from the previous verse (20) that this is a pretty big deal. Verse 20 says that God has reconciled all things to himself -- things both in heaven and on earth. Could there be any loftier language about reconciliation?
And yet, what does J.Dunn do with this? Though he admits that v.20 is cosmic in scope he swings us from the cosmic to the minuscule: reconciliation in v.21-23 is all about the Gentiles coming into the church (p.106). Such a swing almost makes me dizzy! But you see, he has to do this. When you start out with a presupposition that all justification-language and reconciliation-language is about Jew/Gentile relations then you have to squeeze and push every text to make it fit. And so here we see Dunn is faced with cosmic reconciliation and yet he is driven by his presuppositions to make the text say something different. To his credit, NT Wright (who I believe to be more 'conservative') correctly identifies that this is about reconciliation with God and does not limit it to Gentiles coming into the Jewish faith.
I don't preach against New Perspective very much for two reasons - one, I think there is a lot we can learn from it and we should be reasonable in our critiques, and two, NP is simply not something that our people are being confronted with in a potentially damaging way. Since I am not going to make much of this in the sermon I thought I should mention it in this blog.
Col 1:21-13 is where the New Perspective gets potentially dangerous. I love a lot of their stuff on Jesus. I love a lot of their stuff regarding the Jewishness of early Christianity. But the truth is, if you go very far with it, you can find yourself with another redeemer other than Christ. Your redeemer cannot simply be inclusion into the church. Your pattern for faith cannot simply stop with Israel. This was Paul's problem with what was going on in Colossae, he warned against false redeemers. He warned against things that took the place of each person's relationship with Christ. These other redeemers were powerless against sin (Col 2.23) - Christ was the only one who successfully disarmed the evil powers (Col 2.15).
If reconciliation is really about Gentile inclusion into the Jewish faith, then what power is there in that? Though inclusion is a biproduct and often overlooked in its significance, I believe J.Dunn would have us following another redeemer if he could - primarily unity. Unity cannot save you - it cannot disarm those powers, it cannot raise you from death (Col 2.12), it cannot absolve your guilt (Col 2.14) and you will not be able to turn to it when all else is leaving you (Col 3.24). Only the Christ who could reconcile all creation to himself could cosmically reconcile hostile sinners to a holy God. What an amazing work and any interpretation that falls short of that should be discarded.
3.22.2008
EASTER STORY
This week a homeless man walked up to me as I was getting out of my car and entering the church. He looked badly beat up and said he had not eaten in two days. What is more, he wanted to hear me share the gospel -- he was literally asking to hear it! My wife and kids were inside the church so instead of taking him there, we went to Sonic where I bought him a meal. As he ate we talked about his story and Jesus'. I invited him to worship with us and dropped him off where he was heading. Everything went well -- odd, but well.
I got back to the church only to hear my wife tell me that she had watched this same man try to break into her car as it sat in the parking lot. My blood boiled! Now I realized his desire to hear the Gospel was most likely manipulative and who knows what else about this man had been fake. I was so angry that the man I tried to help had actually tried to take advantage of me... Then I started reading the Easter story.
How did Jesus do it? How did he keep his mouth shut as he heard false accusations aimed at him? How did he remain on the cross as the people mocked? How did he not protect himself when so easily could have? How did he forgive those people? And how does he still forgive ME? As he works for my good, claims me as his own, and slowly continues his redemptive work, I steal his glory, I run from his help, I look for anything but him for my salvation. He is good, indeed. Happy Easter.
I got back to the church only to hear my wife tell me that she had watched this same man try to break into her car as it sat in the parking lot. My blood boiled! Now I realized his desire to hear the Gospel was most likely manipulative and who knows what else about this man had been fake. I was so angry that the man I tried to help had actually tried to take advantage of me... Then I started reading the Easter story.
How did Jesus do it? How did he keep his mouth shut as he heard false accusations aimed at him? How did he remain on the cross as the people mocked? How did he not protect himself when so easily could have? How did he forgive those people? And how does he still forgive ME? As he works for my good, claims me as his own, and slowly continues his redemptive work, I steal his glory, I run from his help, I look for anything but him for my salvation. He is good, indeed. Happy Easter.
3.14.2008
REWARD THEOLOGY
Why do I have such a hard time with Jesus talking about rewards? As I have wrestled with the upcoming sermon (on Matthew 10:40-42) I realize that something inside of me recoils at this idea of Jesus promising rewards.
One reason I don't think I like it is because my understanding of the Gospel is that there is no reward except that which Jesus won for us on the cross. Jesus won the great reward and that is the end of the story. That sounds nice but it isn't really the whole story. Though "the great reward" (unity with Christ) can only be won by the life/death/resurrection of Christ, the Bible clearly talks about all kinds of other rewards or prizes we might earn through good old fashioned work.
I think the real problem I have with a "reward" is what it implies. If we are going to receive rewards then it stands to reason that we will be JUDGED. And I cannot stand this concept! Honestly, I wouldn't believe it if it were up to me. I only believe in judgment because my understanding of God is sculpted from the Bible and not my own personal whims. But there it is; so here is my struggling belief.
But then I realize, I actually do love judgment if someone wrongs ME. If my wife wrongs me I want to call her to account. If my children wrong me, the same. If people in my church wrong me I either call them to account in real life or play a make-believe version of the conversation over and over in my head until I am satisfied. And I LOVE to reward people for good behavior. The real truth is, I just don't like the idea of other people (or God) judging me. I want to be the judge, I don't want to be judged. Whether or not I get punished or rewarded, the whole idea of being judged is... well... degrading!
And that about sums it up with me. This is just one more place where I am reminded that God is God and I am not. He is the Creator; I am the creature. That is not always a fun truth. But praise God for Christ. In Him I can have all these arrogant thoughts and still know there is one reward I can never lose. No matter how many crowns I may or may not have in heaven, I can rest knowing that heaven is as much mine as it is Jesus' -- because I am in Him. And who knows, maybe this kind of thinking will free me up to live a life God will gladly lavish with rewards.
One reason I don't think I like it is because my understanding of the Gospel is that there is no reward except that which Jesus won for us on the cross. Jesus won the great reward and that is the end of the story. That sounds nice but it isn't really the whole story. Though "the great reward" (unity with Christ) can only be won by the life/death/resurrection of Christ, the Bible clearly talks about all kinds of other rewards or prizes we might earn through good old fashioned work.
I think the real problem I have with a "reward" is what it implies. If we are going to receive rewards then it stands to reason that we will be JUDGED. And I cannot stand this concept! Honestly, I wouldn't believe it if it were up to me. I only believe in judgment because my understanding of God is sculpted from the Bible and not my own personal whims. But there it is; so here is my struggling belief.
But then I realize, I actually do love judgment if someone wrongs ME. If my wife wrongs me I want to call her to account. If my children wrong me, the same. If people in my church wrong me I either call them to account in real life or play a make-believe version of the conversation over and over in my head until I am satisfied. And I LOVE to reward people for good behavior. The real truth is, I just don't like the idea of other people (or God) judging me. I want to be the judge, I don't want to be judged. Whether or not I get punished or rewarded, the whole idea of being judged is... well... degrading!
And that about sums it up with me. This is just one more place where I am reminded that God is God and I am not. He is the Creator; I am the creature. That is not always a fun truth. But praise God for Christ. In Him I can have all these arrogant thoughts and still know there is one reward I can never lose. No matter how many crowns I may or may not have in heaven, I can rest knowing that heaven is as much mine as it is Jesus' -- because I am in Him. And who knows, maybe this kind of thinking will free me up to live a life God will gladly lavish with rewards.
2.26.2008
WHY THE CHURCH?
Is the church necessary for the Christian life? I have met a surprising amount of devout Christians that do not go to church, or maybe they move from church to church so often that they effectively have no church home. That makes me wonder if the church is a necessary institution. As a pastor I may be biased but the question is real – even for me.
Jesus can save anyone, even without the church. And yet He did envision a church that He Himself would build (Mt 16:18). To say that Jesus was not interested in the church is simply not true – He died to build a church. The Bible teaches us that Jesus considers the church to be His possession, bride and body – it is His physical representation on this earth. Even though it is far from perfect, Jesus still uses it. As many have said, He can make a straight line with a crooked stick.
There is a movement in our culture to do church on our own. Or maybe you have heard people talk about following Christ without getting into religion. Such talk is genuine but it is a bit like my preschool-aged daughter saying she wants the benefits of being in our family but she will go about it by living under a bridge. We often think that if we read devotional books or even the Bible we’ll be equipped for the life of faith. I have heard the slogans: “Just me and God!” or “No creed but Christ!” Those may be catchy, but are they right?
Again, Jesus envisioned a church. And it was supposed to have spiritual authority, not just spiritual access. The church, as He built it, was not just an avenue to a personal relationship with Him; it was intended to have authority in peoples’ lives (Matt 18:17). Paul sought a commission by the church after he was called to the ministry (Gal 2:2), as did Timothy (2Tim 1:6). And when Paul started a church he put leaders in charge for the care of the people (Titus 1:5). Nobody in the Bible was a solo Christian.
My hunch is that we do not like church because we are uncomfortable with two things: intimacy and authority. A good church has both. It is much easier to gather with our friends than a bunch of people that are weird or just plain different than us. But the church is a whole body and not a bunch of legs. It has to be a place where people are different from each other or it will not be a dynamic, living organism. If you isolate yourself both the church and you will suffer.
We also don’t like someone telling us what the Scriptures mean or how to live our lives. And yet Peter says that the church needs to be shepherded by those God has called (1Pet 5:2). If a church is worth its salt it will not tell you what to think, it will give you the tools to think for yourself. But the truth remains that God is in charge of His church and He has called some to lead it on this earth (Eph 4:11-12).
Jesus did not die on the cross to create the Christian book or music industry. Nor did he do it to create good Bible studies. Jesus Christ gave his life to create his kingdom on this earth – to create the church. I believe the church is necessary for Christians. I believe having a real church home is not just important, it is commanded by God (Heb 10:25). It’s not that I always love going to church because I certainly don’t, but God loves it. And that is what matters most.
Jesus can save anyone, even without the church. And yet He did envision a church that He Himself would build (Mt 16:18). To say that Jesus was not interested in the church is simply not true – He died to build a church. The Bible teaches us that Jesus considers the church to be His possession, bride and body – it is His physical representation on this earth. Even though it is far from perfect, Jesus still uses it. As many have said, He can make a straight line with a crooked stick.
There is a movement in our culture to do church on our own. Or maybe you have heard people talk about following Christ without getting into religion. Such talk is genuine but it is a bit like my preschool-aged daughter saying she wants the benefits of being in our family but she will go about it by living under a bridge. We often think that if we read devotional books or even the Bible we’ll be equipped for the life of faith. I have heard the slogans: “Just me and God!” or “No creed but Christ!” Those may be catchy, but are they right?
Again, Jesus envisioned a church. And it was supposed to have spiritual authority, not just spiritual access. The church, as He built it, was not just an avenue to a personal relationship with Him; it was intended to have authority in peoples’ lives (Matt 18:17). Paul sought a commission by the church after he was called to the ministry (Gal 2:2), as did Timothy (2Tim 1:6). And when Paul started a church he put leaders in charge for the care of the people (Titus 1:5). Nobody in the Bible was a solo Christian.
My hunch is that we do not like church because we are uncomfortable with two things: intimacy and authority. A good church has both. It is much easier to gather with our friends than a bunch of people that are weird or just plain different than us. But the church is a whole body and not a bunch of legs. It has to be a place where people are different from each other or it will not be a dynamic, living organism. If you isolate yourself both the church and you will suffer.
We also don’t like someone telling us what the Scriptures mean or how to live our lives. And yet Peter says that the church needs to be shepherded by those God has called (1Pet 5:2). If a church is worth its salt it will not tell you what to think, it will give you the tools to think for yourself. But the truth remains that God is in charge of His church and He has called some to lead it on this earth (Eph 4:11-12).
Jesus did not die on the cross to create the Christian book or music industry. Nor did he do it to create good Bible studies. Jesus Christ gave his life to create his kingdom on this earth – to create the church. I believe the church is necessary for Christians. I believe having a real church home is not just important, it is commanded by God (Heb 10:25). It’s not that I always love going to church because I certainly don’t, but God loves it. And that is what matters most.
(Originally published in the Joplin Globe)
2.20.2008
ER ON POSTMODERNITY
Whether or not you like the show "ER", you should really watch this video. In less than three minutes they uncover and effectively communicate the Achilles heel of postmodern philosophy.
TIM KELLER IN NEWSWEEK
Newsweek magazine has written an article about Tim Keller. For those who don't already know him, he is one of the best communicators in the PCA. He pastors a church in New York City.
In some ways, Keller's ministry is an important model for us as we plant this church in Joplin. Though I do not consider myself part of his "cult following," I do believe he has done a masterful job of creating a place for thinking people to worship and ask questions. This is something we are trying to create here in our little town.
In some ways, Keller's ministry is an important model for us as we plant this church in Joplin. Though I do not consider myself part of his "cult following," I do believe he has done a masterful job of creating a place for thinking people to worship and ask questions. This is something we are trying to create here in our little town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
