In the middle of December I was on a bit of a rant tweeting about how Christians so often misunderstand work and vocation. I find myself returning to this topic more and more because I think it is so important. Browse through the gallery to see the tweets:
Then Steve Bishop posted this cartoon the other day and I thought that it did a good job illustrating the way the church often adds to the problem.
It's my hope that in 2012 churches will do a lot more to help believers think about their work from a Christian perspective.
Recently, I came across something called The Colossian Forum, a new initiative to designed to facilitate conversations on the relationship of faith and science, especially for those who are preparing young students to go to university and out into the world. One of the people behind the project is James K.A. Smith, professor of philosophy at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
What I find most encouraging about their work is that they are not attempting to hold one position above another, or to take sides on different points of contention, but they are giving people the tools to think about the often controversial relationship of faith and science and how Christ can be exalted as Lord in the midst of differences of opinions on this matter.
Here's an 8-minute clip in which members of the Forum talk a bit more about their work.
Simon Smart, of the Sydney-based Centre for Public Christianity, sat down with Kevin Vanhoozer to talk a little bit about the importance of looking at culture through a theological lens, and the responsibility of the church in the world. Vanhoozer contributed to a book a few years ago called Everyday Theology, which forms the basis for their discussion, and looks at the calling and challenge of living as a faithful disciple of Christ in all parts of life. The two part, 15-minute discussion is below:
I did not know any of those who died in the 9/11 attacks. Still, it was way too close to home for comfort – New York City was only 445 miles away from the city I was living in at the time. In response, Canadians firmly took the hands of our friends and stood beside them as they dealt with the tragedy, promising to do whatever we could to help our neighbours. Few of us, I think, could resist the desire to see Osama bin Laden and his henchmen killed. That was the justice we wanted to see exacted.
And yesterday we got it.
The news took me by surprise. I cannot deny that there was a sense of satisfaction in reading this news, but beyond that it I really did not know how to react. Many of the things I read on Facebook rubbed me the wrong way – friends cheering for America and rejoicing in bin Laden's death, all coloured by a spirit of vindictiveness. What troubled me more was that many of these were Christians. While Christians should certainly be passionate about justice, the Bible is abundantly clear that we should not take delight in the death of our enemies (Proverbs 24:17, Ezekiel 33:11), but that instead we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:43-44). I am just as guilty as anyone else in neglecting to do this; I think I prayed for bin Laden's repentance maybe three times. Jesus never said this command would be easy.
I am thankful for those who took the time to carefully reflect on bin Laden's death, including my friend, Gideon Strauss, who, in response to the event, wrote a very helpful piece in the online edition of Christianity Today yesterday, arguing that while justice has been done, we need to take time to have some serious conversation about this, epecially as we reflect on our own depravity. Gideon writes,
I believe it is necessary for Christians to pause, and to consider the death of Osama bin Laden within the deeper perspective of human sin and divine grace. In the end, no death should give us pleasure. Another Scripture passage coming across the Twitter transom has been Ezekiel 18:23: "Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?"
...Rejoicing in the death of another, however wicked, involves forgetting the depths of our own depravity and the astonishing reality of our own salvation.
...And as we gain some distance from the events of yesterday, we do need to continue in serious conversation, with one another as believers and with our fellow citizens and friends, about war and justice, about life and death, about retribution and peace.
Read the rest of the article here, and let's heed Gideon's call to have these serious conversations.
Well aware of the fact that I said just yesterday I would not be posting again until after Easter, I could not pass up sharing this with all of you. Steve Bishop posted the following on his blog yesterday, a summary of the contours of the Neocalvinist tradition drawn up by Mike Goheen and Craig Bartholomew. Clarifying what Neocalvinism is all about is especially important because there are many misleading caricatures of Neocalvinism by its opponents, particularly those who hold to something known as two-kingdom theology, and because of the constant misapplication of the term "Neocalvinist" to the New Calvinists (men like John Piper, Kevin DeYoung, Mark Driscoll), thanks to a careless terminological error in Time magazine last year.
Neocalvinism finds its roots largely in the thought of Abraham Kuyper, who has famously said, "In the total expanse of human life there is not a square inch of which Christ, who alone is sovereign, does not declare, 'That is mine!'" With that as its overarching perspective, Neocalvinism, according to Goheen and Bartholomew, can be further summarised further as follows:
1. Neocalvinism begins with Christ and this focus opens up into a full Trinitarian faith. 2. Christ is rendered to us truly in Scripture, which is fully trustworthy as God’s Word. 3. Christ stands at the centre of the biblical story and the good news he proclaimed is about the kingdom as the goal of history—God restoring his rule over the whole of human life and creation. 4. Since Christ has revealed and accomplished the end of history the Scriptures have a storied shape, and as such tell the true story of the whole world. 5. A central theme in the biblical story is God’s election of a people to embody the kingdom, to be a preview of the goal of history, and thus to bear witness to Christ’s rule over all of life – this constitutes mission. 6. The comprehensive gospel of the kingdom has been narrowed and consigned to a very minor place within the dominant Western humanist worldview, and this calls for a conscious articulation of a biblical worldview in relation to the cultural worldview to enable the church to recover the all-embracing scope of the good news. 7. The good news reveals the restoration of the creation from sin, and thus a neocalvinist worldview insists on a comprehensive and integrated understanding of creation, fall and restoration. 8. The fundamental backdrop of God’s drama of restoration is creation and thus neocalvinism articulates a rich doctrine of creation including its good and dynamic creation order and humanity’s place within it. 9. History is part of God’s order for creation and thus neocalvinism affirms the historical development or differentiation of creation. 10. The implication of the fall is that the power of sin and evil now radically twists every part of creation, and while the structures of creation remain good the distorting power of sin means they have been radically misdirected. 11. The Bible tells the story of restoration centred in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ which is the recovery of God’s originally good purposes for the whole of his creation and all of human life. 12. Since God’s restorative power is at work in the creation by the Spirit, and the forces of evil remains at work in the creation, neocalvinism recognizes an ultimate religious conflict in the whole of human life. 13. God is at work leading his creation to its destiny of a new heavens and a new earth, and only then will the kingdom finally come. Until then the church is called to participate in God’s redemptive mission—the missio Dei—as witnesses to his victory, but since we await the final victory there is no room for triumphalism in neocalvinism.
While there is much more that can be said about this, Goheen and Bartholomew have here given a very helpful summary of the Neocalvinist tradition. There are many other resources available for exploring Neocalvinism further. To begin with, Bob Robinson has written a few blog posts highlighting the differences between Neocalvinism and the New Calvinism (see also here). Steve Bishop has also worked tirelessly to compile a wealth of resources from different leaders and thinkers within the Neocalvinist tradition at his site, All of Life Redeemed.
I know this is only a very short introduction to Neocalvinism, but hopefully it piques your interest to explore the tradition further. And now the next time someone tells you that Piper is a Neocalvinist, you can lovingly correct the person, give them a copy of Creation Regained, and let them see for themselves what Neocalvinism is really about.
Last week I suggested that our theological formation should be something more than simply adopting the thinking of celebrity figures (or anyone, for that matter) in the church, and stated that instead we should understand theological formation as something that happens locally. I finally found some time yesterday to jot down a few thoughts in this vein.
The first thing to note is that doing theology is a communal task. This simply flows from the reality that the church is a community of believers united in Jesus Christ who together determine, by studying and indwelling the revelation of God in his Word, what they must believe and how they are to live. Throughout history, theology has always been done in the context of community. The early church councils were groups of leading churchmen gathered together to address certain points of theology (and other matters). The creeds and confessions of the Reformation were produced by a gathering of church leaders. Even when men like Calvin produced their theological works, the intention was that they serve the community they were a part of.
What's more, theology is always done in a specific context. Both place and time factor into the theology that emerges. This is not to say that theology is only relevant for a certain time and place, but merely that theology is not produced in a vacuum and is always to be understood within the context it emerged from. For instance, during the second and third centuries, the church was developing its theology regarding the person of Christ and how to understand the Trinity. The purpose was not just to construct these doctrines at random, but to answer the myriad of heresies that were emerging with orthodox formulations. The church needed to be able to say, 'Here are where the boundaries are; you cannot go beyond this.' Their Christological and Trinitarian formulations are no less valid today because they were produced centuries ago, of course, but without the historical framework we cannot understand why we speak certain ways about the person of Christ and the Trinity.
Theology is never a completed task. We have never said all there is to say. To be sure, we must take the formulations from history and from our traditions that are biblical and adopt them as our own. Sometimes this may require some reconfiguration so that a particular doctrine makes sense in our current context, and sometimes it means holding fast to the understanding that has prevailed for generations. But we have never said all their is to say about everything; God, for example, is an infinite being who can only be partially comprehended by those who he has created. The Bible is a treasure mine so vast that even if every person spent every day studying it, we could never uncover all it says to us. And so we must recognise that the act of doing theology is never complete.
Because of this ongoing task, we need to always be thinking and continuing our theological formation. In the previous post, I may have implied that every Christian must be an original thinker. One of the more regular commenters on the blog noted that perhaps not every Christian needs to be original, but they do need to be independent thinkers. He is right, and that is more or less what I was wanting to say, even if it didn't come across as clearly (see, this is why I am grateful for those of you who comment). The point I wanted to make was simply that Christians have a responsibility, as they grow in Christ, to cultivate some sort of theological framework that enables them to understand their faith and gives them a tool for looking at the world and learning how to live faithfully in it.
I do think, though, that among the leadership of our churches there must be minds that are theologically astute and able to think with a degree of originality. This does not mean that every leader in the crhurch should have a doctorate in theology, but that there should be people in the local church – pastors, academics, and so on – who are capable theologically, who can clearly articulate the doctrines of the Christian faith, and who can help the believers in their midst make sense of reality and of their calling in the world. It should be clear that theology, then, is not limited to how we talk about Christ or the church or salvation, but encompasses a great deal more.
Theologians are important to the local church because, first, the church needs guides. The people of God need others who will say to them, 'This is what you need to believe about X, and this is why.' It should be said that this is not some sort of heavy-handed imposition of a particular belief, but instead is instruction and guidance that is borne out of love. There must be those who will open up Scripture for the people of God to help them see what it says about Jesus or about the Spirit, and so on. And not only that, but believers must also be helped to see the whole unified story of the Bible, each act of creation, fall, and redemption, how God has been active in history and how they can understand their place in this great narrative.
Reading Scripture requires theological lenses in order to provide a framework for interpreting them. Though many claims to the contrary have been made throughout history, an individual cannot approach the Bible and read it without any sort of theological paradigm coming to bear on his interpretation. As strange as it may sound, there is a sense in which we can say to an individual, 'The Bible is not for you.' By this I certainly do not intend to abrogate an individual of the responsibility of reading and studying Scripture, but want to recognise that the Bible was given to the church. When a person approaches Scripture they are unwise to do so without first looking to the church as their guide. What was noted above about thinking independently is important here, because using the church as a guide always requires the believer to take this teaching and weigh it against Scripture.
Second, in order for the people of God to live faithfully in the world, they need to learn how to do so. We can best understand this by talking about worldview. Al Wolters, in his masterful book, Creation Regained: Biblical Basics for a Reformational Worldview, says, 'Our worldview functions as a guide to our life. A worldview, even when it is half unconscious and unarticulated, functions like a compass or a road map. It orients us in the world at large, gives us a sense of what is up and what is down, what is right and what is wrong in the confusion of events and phenomena that confronts us' (4). This sort of roadmap requires us to think theologically about all kinds of things (indeed, perhaps everything), from business, to politics, to justice, to vocation, to art, to education, and so on. As we think about these things, all kinds of big questions will be raised that we need to deal with. And so we study the Scriptures together in our local communities, working together to answer our questions and formulate a worldview that is thoroughly biblical and that acknowledges the Lordship of Christ over all of life.
And this is where it really becomes important to do theology locally. All these big questions certainly have answers that have universal application, but there are also a lot of context-specific applications that need to be figured out. How do we do that? One thing I am sure of is that we do not simply take the answers from celebrity leaders or from those in different contexts without careful consideration of their conclusions. This is far too often the case and the very reason I raise the subject in the first place (as I noted last time). What we can do with the conclusions of others is to take their insights, weigh them against Scripture, evaluate them for our specific context, and determine what is good for us. To some degree, that may sound like some sort of relativism, but I am certainly not advocating that. At this point, I am just not sure how to state it differently. I hope you understand what I mean.
Further, here is where the idea originality comes into play. In some cases, some of the questions we are asking may not have any good answers so far. Perhaps others have reached unbiblical conclusions, or no one has even addressed the question yet. In this case, let's not wait for our celebrity leaders to give us the answers, but let us together think through these things and produce a theological response that will benefit not just our community, but maybe even the church as a whole.
Theology has so often been construed, especially in evangelical circles, as something that takes place far away in the halls of academia. But theology can and should be done in our local churches and communities. When we are confronted with big questions, we shouldn't ignore them or push them aside hoping that someone else will answer them for us, but we should embrace the opportunity to think together and read the Bible together as we seek to find an answer that will help us in our ongoing quest to bring our beliefs in line with Scripture and to live faithfully in this world. This is part of our life together as a local community of believers.
These conversations happen all over the place – in church fellowship halls, in classrooms, in coffee shops and pubs, on street corners, in living rooms and around dinner tables, in cars on long drives. There is no one place because these are conversations that we can be having all the time. Theology does not need to be a formal affair. If we believe that theology is not only about believing the right things but also about our ongoing formation as disciples of Christ, what better place to do it than in our local communities where we are together working out what it means to follow Jesus?
In a culture that is increasingly hostile to Christianity, it is not uncommon to hear of Christians being accused of indoctrinating their children when they raise them to believe that the Christian faith is true.
Some time ago, I was made aware of a video in which an 11-year-old boy makes something of a presentation to his church showing how Jesus is depicted in every book of the Bible. While the video itself was quite interesting, I found the comments to be a bit perplexing. Accusations of indoctrination filled the page, and some remarked that his parents were forcing him to live in a bubble and lamented the poor child's inability to choose his beliefs for himself.
I find this a bit odd because the comments are all devoid of any real logic or reason, and end up being nothing more than a protest against Christianity. First of all, an 11-year-old like the boy in the video would certainly have the mental capacity to make a decision about religious convictions. He may not be able to think about all the ins and outs of various religions and beliefs, but at this point he would be able to make a decision regarding his belief in the biblical God that his parents believe in.
In the second place, the idea that raising a child to believe the same thing you do amounts to indoctrination is rather peculiar, simply because every parent does this. The difference is that some do it consciously, while others do not. Society generally construes religion and religious beliefs as something private, relegated to one sphere of life, but the reality is that people cannot help but live according to these convictions. Human beings are fundamentally religious, and this gives shape to their entire lives. Resultingly, everyone lives out of a story they believe makes the most sense of reality, whether or not they are aware of this story. Even if you think that beliefs are separate, the way you live is not disconnected from those beliefs.
Children, being as perceptive as they are, recognise this. If their parents teach them the beliefs of Christianity, but fail to live according to them, the children will see a disconnect and not find the claims to be credible. The same goes for the parents who want their children to be religiously tolerant; if they raise their children to think that any form of religion is a valid option, but then live in a way that does not reflect this supposed conviction, the children will not accept that narrative as true. Accusations of indoctrination fall flat because Christian parents are not forcing their children to believe – ultimately, they cannot – but are simply raising their children within the framework of a story that they believe makes the most sense of reality. In the end, whether or not the child accepts this story as true is not the decision of the parents. This is not unique to Christian parents raising children; it is true of every parent raising a child. You will raise them to believe something, and at some point they will make a decision regarding the validity of those beliefs.
If you believe that there is a story that makes sense of the nature of reality, why would you not raise your children to believe the same thing? You are giving them guidance and direction as they navigate a messy and complex world. That's hardly an injustice or indoctrination. That is love.
