Archive - September, 2010

Sage Journals: Free Access

September 5, 2010 in Academia, Book Reviews with 0 Comments

A few folks have drawn attention to Sage Journals’ offer of free online access to their collection for about the next six weeks. You can register here.

But why o why would you want to do such a thing?

For the best reasons of all, of course…

After registering, you can then have what you’ve always most wanted: nice words from Peter Oakes about my book, Unlocking Romans: Resurrection and the Justification of God.

There’s also a nice summary / short critique of the book by Matthew Bates at Notre Dame. His review was interesting in that he seemed to want to say a good deal more (BTB reviews are notoriously short) and it makes me want to respond to some of his questions. Maybe that’s the best kind?

And last, but definitely not least, my essay, “Why Does the Deliverer Come ΕΚ ΣΙΩΝ (Rom 11.26)?” is in the September issue of JSNT and should therefore be available soon.

Craigslist Sex Ads Pulled

September 4, 2010 in Culture with 3 Comments

An article from the Associated Press indicates that Craigslist has recently taken down its “Adult Services” Ads.

This is a very big deal.

Unfortunately, it’s not a big deal for the reasons being given about why it had to be done and why they did, in fact, do it.

The reason it’s really a big deal is that sex trafficking is a huge problem in the U.S. (and in San Francisco, the home of Craig and his List in particular), and Craigslist has become a major source of buying and selling of women and children.

Craigslist keeps talking like it’s the victim of unfair enforcement. They appeal to other sites that run ads that can easily be seen as prostitution. And really, that’s the lingering cloud over the whole thing. The point is that Craigslist has facilitated one of the most egregious, on-going human rights violations being perpetrated in the U.S. Even if there’s technically nothing illegal or less legal than the next guy, Craig should shut down what has become a major artery in the human trafficking pipeline.

Good for them for taking it down. Shame on them for fighting to keep it up.

[House] Church Challenges

September 4, 2010 in Church, Culture with 4 Comments

John Armstrong invites what he calls “the home church movement” to reflect on a few of its potential pitfalls.

The first question is whether or not the home church movement can thrive if there is not more emphasis on preaching and teaching the word. Instruction is important, but here are a few thoughts in response.

First, contrary to what most preachers think, the preaching of most preachers does not deeply impact the thinking and/or acting of the people in their congregations. Where the preacher tends to see the sermon as the heart of the service, most people in most churches are eager for the sermon to get over so that they can get on with life, having already done their singing.

There are, of course, marked exceptions to this, and many gifted preachers are not only gifted speakers but also able to create a culture in which actively wrestling with sermons is an important part of the community’s life. But in general, I think that we who fill those teaching roles overestimate their impact.

Another thing I think is important to recognize is that home churches are growing up within the larger Christian culture of the 21st century. This means that there is a thriving Christian publishing industry and ready access to online sermons, to conference video and audio, and the rest. What this means is that even a group without a particularly gifted teacher has access to excellent Christian teaching.

But his point is an important one to wrestle with, and trickles through several of his challenges: Does the home church want to grow in obedience to the word of God, and if so, what mechanisms are they actively pursuing in order to make that happen?

Another question has to do with participating in the larger Christian community locally and also abroad. On participation with other Christians locally, I think that home churches have a leg up on denominations and more established groups.

In a recent conversation with a good friend, we got on this issue of ecumenicity. He has a theological commitment to the necessity of denominations for the true ecumenical work of the church to thrive. He is concerned that there be a body to recognize the other body as a functionary in the larger body of Christ.

But as someone who attends a home church, I regularly go to a local “faith leaders collective,” at which I meet people who are doing work in all sorts of churches, non-churches, denominations, and non-denominations. We each affirm each other’s work. I would recommend many of their ministries to folks living near them. It’s precisely the fact that I don’t have a denomination that allows me to recognize all their ministries without having to subject it to my list of specific denominational qualifications.

Yes, working with others is important. I had coffee with Robert Banks this summer, and one of the words of wisdom that sunk most deeply into my mind was that house churches that thrive have a larger connection, either with an institutional church or a group of house churches.

So yes, John is right to raise the question about connection, and its import for a healthy church. But, I think we need to be careful in assuming that denominational or institutional churches are better poised to, or better actors upon, that mandate.

I think that this is my response to a number of John’s concerns: yes, they are concerns for the house church movement. But, many house churches are doing these things well; and, many institutional churches are doing them poorly. He mentions sacraments. Once upon a time I was Presbyterian, and most of the people in my denomination were essentially baby-wetting Southern Baptists. Having a robust sacramentology (such as one finds in the Westminster Standards) is no guarantee that sacraments will be well taught. Similarly, having a group with without a commitment to such standards is no guarantee that the sacraments will be ill conceived.

Again, the reality that we are part of a larger Christian world, with its popular impressions, internet presence, and publications, is what drives the content of the life of the home church. Like any church, it will be better or worse as it learns from, participates in, and reacts to the broader currents in the church of its day.

Finally, John asks if a house church can be truly inter-generational. In fact, it seems to me that many, if not most, institutional churches program themselves so as to specifically not have to be inter-generational, and that the house church is the best opportunity for this to happen. One of my kids’ favorite people at our house church has about 10 years on my parents. That would not happen at any of the institutional churches we were looking at here in SF, and would have been highly unlikely at the churches I’ve been a member of in the past.

So I agree with John’s concerns about the church almost down the line. But, they are a mirror to hold up to the church in the U.S. in general, and carry little in the way of critique of the house church movement that does not apply to the more traditional church as well.

Which Reality Will You Believe?

September 3, 2010 in Bible Thoughts with 2 Comments

Ched Myers, Binding the Strong Man, comments on the withered fig tree incident like this:

The curse/exorcism of the fig tree/temple is more than a political protest; Mark means for it to be a “proleptic” sign within his own narrative. When Jesus later speaks of the end of the temple state in his second sermon, Mark will point us back to this action, through the use of the expression “Look!” (ide):

11:21: Rabbi, Look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!”
13:3: “Teacher, Look! What wonderful stones and buildings!”

The direct narrative connection between the disciples’ encounter with the tree and the temple is a kind of inverse discourse… The reader must choose which reality to believe in: the temple-as-withered-to-the-root (sign of a system that is coming to an end) or the temple-as-bigger-than-life (sign of a system that will never end…)…. This is the reason why in 11:21 Peter “remembers”… the symbolic action; Mark hopes his readers will also “remember” it in their historical discernment. (304)

The contrast between the two realities in which you might choose to believe is what strikes me. So much of the biblical narrative is an invitation to see the world differently, to recognize that the world as we can see it with our eyes is often not reflecting the story (especially the eschatology) that God has in store.

Our calling is to be transformed by the renewing of our minds; or, as Richard B. Hays says, to undergo a conversion of the imagination so that we can see that the glory of God is not always reflected in the glorious works of people. This is especially true, as Myers highlights, when that worldly glory is built on systems of injustice and oppression.

House Church, Take 2

September 3, 2010 in Church, Culture with 6 Comments

I want to clear up a few things about my own participation in a house church.

First, I’m not doing it because I love that small group experience. Honestly, the “small group experience” has posed the greatest difficulty for me in this setting. I tend to prefer to sing songs with a hundred or two hundred people than with eight or ten. Unless you have a group of confident singers who know all the songs, the singing doesn’t have quite the same power to draw you inward and upward in a small group. We have had that kind of experience on several occasions, but it’s not the norm. I miss big group singing.

Also, inasmuch as I do leading and/or teaching, I am much more comfortable teaching 18+ plus people in a less discussion-oriented manner. Even when doing small things like administering communion, I feel more myself in my teaching when I am leading more people.

It may sound ironic, but I think that both of these things are because I am an introvert. The large group setting disallows some of the intimate contact, and I find that ability to be more myself because enmeshed in a room with more people enhanced.

There is also a myth that house church is some sort of regression to the early church, a truer embodiment of the house-based communities that defined early Christianity. I don’t think that this is an accurate assessment of the early church. Or, perhaps it’s better to say, there were probably some communities that look something like a house church and probably some that looked like networks of house churches that came together for larger worship experiences, and some things that looked more like a larger group that would meet in some “third place” for worship.

The idea that house church (or any church) is repristinating the ancient model depends on the myth of “the” ancient model. I don’t buy it.

This series began as a response to John Armstrong’s thoughts about “the home church movement.” I want to pick up on a couple other positives that he mentions. These were some of the positive pulls toward a house church when we moved to San Francisco.

First was children. As Armstrong puts it, “Children are not a problem to be solved but welcomed little people.”

Photo Credit: www.thedesignblog.org

One thing that our church in Philly had done very well was integration of children as members of the worshiping community. They were welcome as part of the worship service, and participated in everything until the scripture reading and sermon. So they were there for all of the liturgical and memorized elements as well as a good bit of singing.

Outside the worship service, during the scripture and sermon, there was an excellent children’s program that was not babysitting but age-appropriate worship.

After the sermon, the children were brought back up to participate in the family meal (communion), again in a somewhat liturgical context where they would soon memorize all the responses. For the final song, there were often instruments up front for the kids to play while everyone sang before the final blessing.

That beautiful both/and of integrating children into the service and having space for them to be children and worship and learn accordingly was something we did not find in SF. The options were either a great children’s program at a place where children were  welcomed into the adult worship or children welcome to be part of adult worship or, alternatively, to go to babysitting. After having it all, we weren’t willing to go back.

The other major pull was the way in which house church is a more natural extension of our real life. One question we asked of the churches we visited was, “Could we bring a non-Christian coworker here? Why or why not?” Especially given the amount that we entertain, having a house church was a simple way to say, “Yes, we’d invite anyone here.” (Our church, “The Table”, has brunch every week, so the extension of our “real life” is quite natural.)

Finally, there is the blessing and curse of being in close community. Our group, almost two years old, has had its share of conflict. Some of it has been handled well, some of it badly. But even when I looked at everything and said, “We’re dealing with this terribly,” the next thought in my head was, “and that makes us healthier than 98% of the churches in the world, because we’re actually dealing with it.”

There is no running and hiding, no avoiding of people you don’t like in favor of those you do. There’s community for better or worse. And even when it’s going badly, that is good community. But more often, it goes well. This group has been our family, and we’ve been other people’s. We’ve kept kids while others have had emergency surgery, we have friends who help get ours to school when Fuller thinks I should be somewhere besides in my home office at 9:00 in the morning, we have older mentors to challenge and encourage us, we have younger friends to help draw toward maturity.

So, while not being totally within the assessment John gives of why people go to house churches, much of what he said there rings true to our own desires for family-based Christian community.

Tomorrow I’ll tackle some of his concerns.

Parable of the Bloggers’ Feast

September 2, 2010 in Academia, blogging, Humor with 8 Comments

Once upon a time, there was a king who gave a feast. Though the invitations were sent, the honored invitees declined. They preferred their brides, their fields, their sundry other obligations. And so the servants were sent out into all the highways and biways to compel all whom they could to enter.

At the feast, however, there were two problems. First, an unexpected and honored guest arrived. This compelled all who were seated unduly to shift their seats down. Their glory reach had exceeded its grasp.

Then, indeed, there was the problem of one-too-many guests. And so the master called forth the lowliest and said to him, “You are not properly adorned for the feast. Go out, where there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

And when the teacher gathered with his disciples, they asked what might be the meaning of the parable. And he answered, saying, The meaning of the parable is this:

There were once those who were invited to the Top 50 Biblioblogs for August. And yet, there was a grave oversight of the Storied blog that should have appeared at position 29.

When the honored guest arrived, there was a needful shuffling of those beneath him. And #50 was thrown out into the cold, reinforcing said lowly blogger’s sentiment that there is never one objective meaning in the text, least of all a top 50 blog list.

Reflecting on House Church

September 2, 2010 in Church, Culture with 19 Comments

My friend (and not just on Facebook!) John Armstrong has posted a couple of thoughts about “the home church movement”, the first listing some of its draw and the second outlining some of his concerns.

Since I attend a house church, I thought I’d weigh in on his thoughts with some of my own thrown in for good measure.

His first post outlined a number of the “draws” of home churches, as he put it. I might even say that some of these are strengths.

A number of his points have to do with the way that the structure and/or feel of such a group is transformed by the absence of a professional minister and formal leadership. Not only is there a more relational feel, but there is more sharing in the ministry and worship and business-like or political power structures are less of a driving dynamic.

Here, John nails one of the “negative” components of my own move away from denominational church settings into the house church world. Traditional churches tend toward the acquisition of power, the exercise of control, and the focusing of the ministry on a few.

In denominational churches, this is often associated with power in the bureaucracy. Power and control are exercised through regional bodies that oversee how you can and cannot deal with pastors, pastoral calls, ordinations, teachings that cut against the grain of church teaching, etc. I am convinced that the pastoral transition process in the one mainline denomination I have been part of was created for the sole purpose of making sure that before another permanent pastor can resume leadership of a congregation that said congregation will be as dead and demoralized as possible. That way, if the new pastor succeeds it will only be because the God who gives life to the dead is at work in her or him.

I do fear that these bureaucratic developments are inherently antithetical to the economy of the Kingdom of God. I worry about their tendency to embody the disciples’ plea to be allowed to call down fire from heaven on anyone who happens to reject our message. I worry about their tendency to embody the disciples’ requests to sit at Jesus’ right hand and his left.

In house church, there can be no illusions about “greatness on earth” being God’s will for his pastor, despite the way that such greatness undermines the story of the cross. I don’t think that everyone needs to be in a house church, and I don’t think that denominational or more formal churches are inherently bad. But, I do think that there needs to be a constant witness of each to the potential pitfalls of the other. In the case of the deceptive allures of power, and the easy tendency for strong leaders to turn the worship of God into megalomaniacal self-promotion, I think the home church has the power to testify to the kingdom whose economy declares that the first shall be last and that the least is greatest.

Or, to put it more simply: you can’t control the work of God or confine it to your system. And, God will work things in surprising places that seem incapable of doing the great things open to those with more resources and prestige.

One thing John doesn’t say in his post that was a crucial factor for me, and related to the issue of power, is that of money. If power was one negative force, repelling me from denominationally associated churches, money was the other. Yes, there’s the business of upkeep of buildings and pastoral paychecks that make the church itself part of the money suck. And, yes, I’ve been through fund raising efforts for buildings that turned my stomach a little.

But the point at which I was pushed over the edge was when I was having a conversation with someone who wanted to appeal a Presbytery’s decision about something. The cost? Getting a team of churches together who would agree to cover the legal bills that were anticipated to be well in excess of $100,000.

That conversation was where I said, “I cannot be part of [this] denomination. Jesus cannot be happy that we are spending his money this way.” The issue wasn’t whether or not her particular appeal was warranted or important. The issue was the way that the denominational and bureaucratic structure sucked money away from the mission of God. And no, I will not agree that fighting a court case within your denomination’s judicatory is an expression of the mission of God.

Add to that the idea of funding professional, full-time ordained “pastors” to administer the local, regional, and national denominational bureaucracy, and I was at the end of it.

So now, rather than support a church building and staff and denominational politics and judiciaries, we have picked up a couple extra missionaries to support on a monthly basis, we give money to the local food pantry, and otherwise invest our ministry dollars in people and institutions that have made a more compelling case that they are working with God for the sort of Kingdom on earth that we pray for in reciting the Lord’s prayer.

This went on a bit longer than expected! Come back tomorrow and I’ll engage some other issues. Here I’ve laid out some of my the repulsions that pushed me away from big church, but there are also some positive draws that pull me toward the house church we’re part of. I’ll cover those in a subsequent post or two, and also engage some of John’s critiques/words of warning/growth areas for house churches.

Opportunity for pre-PhD Minorities

September 1, 2010 in Uncategorized with 1 Comment

Announcement from AAR & FTE:

In partnership with the American Academy of Religion (AAR), The Fund for Theological Education is pleased to host this two-part workshop for students of color who are considering the pursuit of a Ph.D. or Th.D. degree in religion, theology or biblical studies.

Students must apply to participate. Twenty students will be selected for this workshop.

Student Application Deadline: September 20, 2010

Please pass this information along to students who may be interested in this opportunity.

Note: This workshop is only for students from historically underrepresented
racial and ethnic backgrounds who have not yet been admitted to doctoral programs.

American Academy of Religion
October 28-29, 2010

CLICK HERE FOR INFORMATION AND APPLICATION MATERIALS

A two-part workshop prior to the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Religion (AAR)

Atlanta, GA

Students must to apply to participate in this workshop.

Limited travel reimbursement stipends will be available to selected participants

Send an e-mail to doctoralinfo@fteleaders.org for more information

Join a growing network of FTE leaders at the new www.fteleaders.org.

Entitlement & Giving

September 1, 2010 in Uncategorized with 4 Comments

Recently I received the annual (biannual? quarterly?) e-mail from the dreaded “SBL Development” arm. That is, this was the regular request from the Society of Biblical Literature that I support the society that makes my profession great.

This always fills me with wonder. I imagine the several thousand low-wage-earning academics to whom the letter has come, sometimes of my annual dues and conference fees, and reverently escort it to the recycling bin.

At times, while at SBL, I think I’ve seen a purple “Donor” ribbon adorning some people’s name tags. The impression this has left in my mind is a higher sense of awe that someone has invested in the society not only for the propagation of their own career but of the society itself.

And it’s that latter realization that makes me think that this could be a generational (or age) problem. Is mine simply not a generation of givers? A full generation removed from that “great” baby boomer generation, two generations removed from those who gave up everything to fight in World War 2, is our generation mired in a slough of entitlement?

At my first full time academic job, the development officer paid me a visit. He explained that one of his goals was 100% buy in from the faculty. He didn’t ask for much, but did ask that I participate annually with some sort of contribution to the school’s annual fund.

Though his request struck me as odd at first (my stance seems to be, by default, you’re my employer, go find money so you can pay me) I gave it a shot. I didn’t have much. I didn’t give much. But it was amazing how much the sense of entitlement dissipated when I was part of the support base. My frame of reference shifted ever so slightly from an employee of an institution to a member of it, working with it for its good. There was a shift from an “I” “you” relation to a “we” relation.

Giving, it seems, has the power to start unraveling my sense of entitlement.

Maybe I need to go fish that SBL Development letter out of the recycling bin.

Page 6 of 6« First...«23456