The Blog

See, Here is Water

Sat, 22 Mar 2008 10:23:09 -0400

Well, it’s been a long hiatus for me. I’m sure by this point this blog has lost even the occasional lurker, and I’m speaking to an empty room, as it were. So why haven’t I been blogging? Well, I guess having a baby, moving, starting a new job, and helping a new church plant might have something to do with it. I haven’t had time to really think anything through enough to write in so long, that once I finally did, I wasn’t sure how to go about blogging anymore. But here it goes.

In the early talks about the church plant, we thought it would be a good idea to spend the first few months going over some core teachings to bring all of us together on what we felt was crucial to any church - make sure we as a body had a strong grasp of the central ideas and practices of the gospel. Naturally, one of those was baptism, and it was my lot to teach on baptism earlier this year.

As I considered this ritual, I was reminded of how flat a portrayal I had been typically given in my conservative Christian upbringing. The very first teaching I received on baptism (and beyond which I did not progress until very recently) was encompassed by this statement - Baptism is the first step of obedience for a Christian. That’s it. So, I guess that could work. Baptism is certainly commanded in Scripture, and the Apostles set a good example by baptizing everyone who converted in the book of Acts. I just don’t think it says enough.

My issue is that it seems to brush over some of the statements in the Bible about baptism like, whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, or, repent and be baptized... for the forgiveness of your sins, or, baptism, which now saves you. We’re so in love with our understanding of the gospel, that if a passage comes up that appears to say something outside of that understanding, we panic so to speak. Instead of humbly dealing with the text, we force it to submit to our system. We assume the meaning of a passage (or what it couldn’t possibly mean) before we actually study it. Correlate first; ask questions later... if at all.

I would suggest asking some question of the text and allowing it to answer for itself. We shouldn’t be afraid of its answers. I remember first coming into contact with biblical teaching on election. Whatever side of the issue you’re on, you have thought or perhaps still think, “The Bible couldn’t possibly teach that!” Tell me that thought’s never crossed your mind. It’s a good reminder to all of us not to try to dominate Scriptures by bringing it all under our system, but to allow Scripture to constantly reform our understanding.

One thing about baptism is clear to me, and it is this - I cannot cover all I want to say in one post! So this is just a teaser. I hope to spend a few posts talking about baptism, the lost art of the church. Please forgive the lack of material here for the past months and converse with me on this topic as we try to understand and savor this core practice of the church.

The Death of Death

Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:23:00 -0400

I’ll try not to give away any big spoilers here, but you should be aware that I’m going to be talking a little bit about the latest Harry Potter novel in this post. I’ve enjoyed reading the books, and I’m sorry to see the end, though it definitely was a good end. I’ve also recently read the His Dark Materials trilogy by Philip Pullman, which some of you may be familiar with through the trailer for the upcoming movie The Golden Compass, which is based on the first book. Any fan of Tolkien, Lewis, or Rowling will enjoy Pullman, though he gets a little weird near the end of the trilogy. If you’ve completed either series, you may be aware that victory over death is a major theme in both, though both the meaning of “victory” for either author might be up for debate. In this post, I’d like to point out some of the features of this theme, and end up showing how neither of these authors, despite their skills as storytellers, can hold a candle to the biblical authors’ idea of victory over death.

It’s obvious, as World Magazine’s article points out, that the Harry Potter books are about death. Harry’s entire role in this struggle is brought about through the murder of his parents, and his resultant survival of “the killing curse”. His ensuing adventures are marked by the deaths of one after another friend or ally. The villain Voldemort’s assumed name means “I flee death” in French. However, not only does Voldemort murder others without remorse, but he uses some of those death’s deliberately to protect himself from death. But his unnatural means of trying to escape death turn him into a true monster, and are ultimately ineffective. Harry on the other hand, embraces sacrifice for others in his efforts to protect the innocent and the despised from death. As a result, he is able to, in a sense, overcome death for himself and for others. There is actually a headstone in The Deathly Hallows which quotes 1 Corinthians 15:26 - “The last enemy to be destroyed is death.” In the end however, Harry’s victory is incomplete. He and those he loves will still eventually have to face the real foe of death. And the view we get of those who have died in Harry’s world is not an exciting one. On one hand their are the ghosts, who, because they are unprepared to leave this world, leave their imprint to haunt it, striving to maintain their connection with the living. (Incidentally, anybody familiar with the Dave Matthews’ song “Gravedigger”? The chorus goes Gravedigger, when you dig my grave, could you make it shallow, so that I can feel the rain?) On the other hand, there are those who have fully moved on from this world, but their existence is one of nebulous incorporeal semi-reality. There is no indication of where they are, or what they are doing.

In His Dark Materials the story isn’t specifically about death, but more about the connection between the body and the soul. Naturally however, the question of what happens when the connection between the body and soul is severed plays a huge part in the story. In Pullman’s books, there are some other really cool themes, like the existence and activity of spirit beings in the world, and the nature of death itself. In one fascinating section, a person’s death is portrayed like an old friend who is always nearby, getting closer as the day approaches, but sometimes unexpectedly taking a person with them. Each person has their own death, and one day your death is going to tap you on the shoulder and say, “Come along wi’ me.” Death is not an enemy, but a constant friend. However, existence after death when first seen is horrible, dark, and tortuous - a shadow-land. The heroine, Lyra, by facing her own death, is also able to accomplish a victory of sorts over death. However, Though Lyra’s victory seems to have more cosmological effects than Harry’s, it only makes her victory more hollow. Granted, the dead no longer have to face the tortuous land of shadows. Instead there is only evaporation into the air to become an indistinguishable part of the wider universe. This is new age pantheism at its best - stale and unsatisfying, if you ask me.

What do we do when we encounter these sub-Christian (as in Harry’s case) or anti-Christian (in Lyra’s case) views of death and the soul? Should we throw the books out or burn them? It’s obvious I don’t follow that view of culture. I think instead we can enjoy the story, but we need to realize that there are people out there that have these and other world-views. We should be countering these deficient ideas with the superior truth of the Scriptures. The Bible’s answer to these poor thoughts can, I think, be summed up in one word. RESURRECTION! The offer of God is not an impotent temporary delay of death until after a full and happy life. (For many it has been or will be a violent death at the hands of those who hate God.) Nor is it a nebulous incorporeal existence in some vague, undisclosed location. Nor is it a relaxing diffusion of your elements into the particles of the universe to become another wave in the ocean with no thought or will. Jesus displayed his victory over death by appearing to his disciples after his resurrection. His was a resurrected body that had continuity with his first, as seen by the scars and marks of crucifixion. However, it was not a broken body, or a dim copy of the reality we know in life, but a renewal of the old, as if this present body is only a temporary makeshift shelter while we wait for a real dwelling (2 Cor. 5:1-5).

The other significant superiority in the biblical idea of victory over death, is that Christ’s victory is cosmologically universal. We are not waiting for a train out of this dump. On the contrary, Christ’s work has provided for the ultimate renewal of this fallen creation, and he is coming to set things aright, i.e. burn it and recreate it(2 Peter 3:10; Rev. 21-22). In the resurrection, we are not looking forward to some ethereal city in the clouds, but a city that comes here to earth from the clouds, the New Jerusalem. So, what most of us grew up thinking of as “heaven” is actually the heavenly city here on earth. Based on this, maybe our leading evangelistic question should not whether or not a person believes they will go to heaven when they die, but rather, do they have confidence that they will witness the earth’s recreation and not suffer in its destruction.

Here are the last written words of Christ to close:

“Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.

“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.” (Rev 22:12-16)

Is That Clear?

Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:07:56 -0400

Here is an example of how ambiguous words are. Two posts ago, I talked about post-modernity and ended saying I would continue the conversation “soon.” Here it is almost four weeks later, and your thinking, “G obviously doesn’t know the meaning of ‘soon’.” Actually, you’re mistaken. It’s quite possible I know what I mean by soon, and you know what you mean by soon; but they are two different things, and perhaps neither of us is aware of what the other intends by “soon.” For you, it might mean a week; for me, a month. Alas, we have become the victims of the inherent ambiguity of language.

This silly illustration points to one of the issues we struggle with in a postmodern setting. If the meaning of a text is ambiguous, how can we know if we have interpreted it properly, especially if the author was from a different culture, spoke a different language, and has been dead for thousands of years? To add to that problem, we must face the fact that there is no such thing as an objective reader. That is, I always come to the text as myself, and that includes many cultural factors which inevitably affect how I read the text. I read everything from the standpoint of a conservative, Christian, twenty-something, married, American, middle-class, male of Anglo-Saxon descent who came from a good family and has never really suffered any of the worlds worst ills - but not necessarily in that order. I’m sure there are other things I could add to that list, but I think these are the major ones. Some of them, like “twenty-something” will change, and very soon. Others, like “Anglo-Saxon descent” will be with me for my whole life, though the context surrounding even that category may change significantly in my lifetime.

So you want to know, “G, do you think we can understand what God wants to say to us in the Bible or not?” I will answer, yes, God’s intended message to us is clear in the Bible. He supervised its writing by the Holy Spirit’s work in the writers, and it is described in terms which give it a divine character. Not only that, but the Holy Spirit is presently at work through the Scriptures whenever one of God’s children reads it. He guides us into the truth.

However, an awareness of the ambiguity of human language and of impossibility of an objective stance should create a humility before the text. This is the area I mentioned last time where I find myself being influenced by post-modernism. Now, nothing I’ve said about the nature of Scripture or the fallibility of the interpreter would be contested by any orthodox student of Scripture for the past 2,000 years. However, in the milieu in which I was raised, the clarity of Scripture was emphasized to the point that the humanness of the interpreter seemed to vanish. It may not have been explicitly taught, but the posture towards the text was that of the scientist, who examines an object, dissects it, runs tests on it, and formulates a conclusion based on the research. In seminary we call this exegesis. It is a good tool, but the ambiguity of the text cannot finally be overcome in all areas, as is evidenced by the myriad of theological debates going on throughout the world, even in conservative evangelical circles.

I suppose that my answer for us is to remember the nature of faith. First, there is no doubt in faith. That is, if I have faith in Scripture as God’s Word, there is no question as to whether God has communicated, and there is such a thing as absolute truth. In a postmodern context, I think we have to maintain this reality. There is a meta-narrative, and we know what it is.

In contrast to our certainty, there is no pride in faith. The essence of faith is that it is focused on the unseen, that which we cannot objectify. At the end of the day, we simply can’t prove everything about the Christian faith. We believe in order to understand. This should create in us a humility before others who may disagree with us. This meta-narrative is not one at which we have arrived by the skills of our reasoning, but one that has been revealed to us by the Author himself. In addition, when interacting with believers who perhaps differ with us on various issues, we must maintain that humble stance. God’s Spirit has not chosen to speak only to me or my particular tradition, but he has been speaking to the church through Scripture throughout history.

So, for me, what this ends up looking like is that I must endeavor in all my conduct to be humble and firm. Humble, because I know I am flawed. I have been mistaken in a great many of my ideas about God, and in a few years I will see many more mistakes that I am probably making right now. But I must be firm, because God has spoken to his people, and while I maintain a humble posture, I must obey what I have heard. Philippians 1:9-11 sums up what our responsibility as Christians is today.

“And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.”

...And She Conceived

Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:13:35 -0400

That’s right folks. If you haven’t been on my other blog or my Facebook, you might not have heard the news. Amanda and I are expecting our first child come September 7. It’s very exciting, and very sobering. While I was at a Weekender at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in DC, I had the opportunity to observe and discuss the family life of a man of God. I was convicted and challenged with the responsibility I have to shepherd my family. Whatever happens, I will answer before God for this stewardship.
I would encourage you guys out their to think through what you are doing to shepherd you wife and children (or how you are preparing to do that if you’re still single). To the ladies, if you are single, don’t try to find someone who is funny or compatible with you or whatever. Find a guy who will take his responsibility as your husband and the father of your children seriously. If you are married, show your husband that you are looking to him to lead and care for you spiritually. I know there may be some reading who don’t feel like their spouse is the perfect fit for this paradigm. That’s not your responsibility. You are responsible for how you perform your role in the family. God will honor your faithfulness in his way, in his time.
So I’d appreciate your prayers for me and Amanda. We want a healthy pregnancy and a healthy baby, of course. But more than anything, pray that we will be parents who model Christ to our children. We want to show them that the gospel is true, and that Christ is a good Master. We want no other. Neither should they.

Posted

Mon, 5 Mar 2007 23:57:00 -0500

I don’t know what you’ve been thinking about recently, but there is one issue which I’ve been wrestling over for the past two months. I guess what sparked it is my senior theology project, which entails writing a theology paper every week on an assigned systematic category. I was excited about the task as well as intimidated, since many of the things I needed to write about had not occupied my serious attention since my first or second years of seminary. It was in studying for these papers that I’ve come to realize a significant change in my thought process has taken place. It is also in studying for these papers that I’ve come to learn what this is.
To some extent, I have to say that postmodernism has influenced how I view theology and truth. What is postmodernism, you may ask? Well, I am not the most qualified person to answer that question, but let me take a shot at defining some of the major terms. That’s probably all I’m going to do in this post, but I just wanted to introduce the terminology for starters.
Since this is postmodernism we’re discussing, I should probably back up and explain modernism. Basically, the modern period began near the end of the eighteenth century and has continued until just recently. Whether it’s actually over is up to debate. What is agreed is that there has been a shift in the past few decades into a new age called “postmodernism”. I know it’s weird to talk about being post- “modern”, since modern means up-to-date and “now”. But more than just providing cool technology and great medical care, the modern age has been a mindset - a world-view. For our purposes, I’ll just focus on a couple aspects.
One, modernism assumes the metanarrative, that is the big story behind all the other stories. An “over-arching explanation of life” to quote Scot McKnight. Darwin, Freud, Marx - they all had their big explanation for everything going on in the world. Postmodernists reject this because they really don’t think it’s possible for humans to perceive a metanarrative.
Two, modernism is based on foundationalism. Foundationalism is the acceptance of certain facts to be universal and without need of explanation. These “basic truths” are self-evident, so they need no support or proof. Postmodernists feel that every assertion requires explanation and support. You must justify your belief.
Three, modernism holds to objective rational reality or truth. By this is meant that there is a body of absolute truth in the universe, and it can be known objectively, either by experience or observation. This acquired truth is true for all people everywhere. The postmodern will remind the modernist that any formulation of truth is greatly influenced by one’s culture, background, and language. Thus he will say that there is no objective reality, only a number of perceptions. Absolute truth is beyond us; we have only various cultural expressions. These are true for those cultures but perhaps not for others.
By now you’re asking, “Garrett, what could you possibly have in common with this relativistic, amoral denial of all that is good and right?” I know, it seems like I’m denying Christianity, right? Trust me, I’m not. I’ll have to leave further explanation for later, but in the meantime, check out McKnight’s article in CT. He’s much better at this than I am. Check back soon for part deux!