“If we could match current church practices with what the earliest church understood and emphasized about following Christ, then it would be the purest form of what Jesus talked about his disciples creating after his ascension.”  That’s an assumption that many believers readily accept and spend tons of energy attempting to achieve.  In fact, numerous denominations have been founded on claims that they accomplished that task – of course they all came up with different ideas and practices and claim theirs is the most original.

Certainly, that was the assumption that I bought into.  Have you ever heard the warning to “beware of assumptions”?  It’s a lesson that has to be frequently relearned and I just had one of those opportunities. It feels like another time for repenting from what I previously assumed. If you have ever awakened to the fact that assumptions you believed and based your actions on were false, then you realize how foolish it feels.  It is both amazingly devastating and, at the same time, eye-opening and energizing about the possibilities of what now seems so obvious.

Thomas F Torrance’s book, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers
is a careful review of the way some of the earliest church fathers interpreted “grace” in the first century. What he finds is that my unquestioned assumption is very wrong and makes this observation  : “there can be no doubt therefore that in the early Church, as in the mission field today, the converts of the first few generations had difficulty in apprehending the distinctive aspects of the gospel, as for example the doctrine of grace.  It was so astoundingly new to the natural man.  In our times, it often takes generations of careful doctrinal teaching before the implications of Christianity are fully realized, and even then, there’s always the temptation for old pagan ideas, such as the urge towards self-justification, to infiltrate the faith.…  in the second century we find everywhere a serious relapse into natural Hellenic thought.”

Oh my! He just shifted my paradigm.  No wonder my reading of some of the early church fathers seemed to justify the emphasis on moralism and legalism within the spiritual communities of my youth.  And, how incongruent they seem with my current understanding of the New Testament view of grace. I recall reading them at an earlier time and thinking that the church was becoming “institutionalized” very early but  not to the depth that I now grasp. Over and over Torrance demonstrates that the early Apostolic Fathers did not grasp fully the completed work of Christ but made salvation into something quite uncertain and a precarious struggle to achieve. So salvation was framed as a future event to be earned through piety, attempted purity, and obedience to the emerging institution-a pharisaical corruption of the gospel.Torrance does a thorough review and comparison of the New Testament understanding of grace with some of the earliest writings of church fathers.  Time after time he points out that the radical nature of grace in the New Testament was converted into an emphasis on God’s call to a new life of obedience to revealed truth: “and so religion was thought of primarily in terms of man’s acts toward God, in the striving toward justification, much less in terms of God’s acts for man which put him in the right with God once and for all.…  The gospel became erected into a New Law.”  (Page 133, 134)

Part of this was adopting a Judaic way of thinking to frame the Christian life as one of opposition to the heathen and evil influence in their culture.  “Certainly the asperities of the old legalism were not always apparent, but in principle there was no change, even when the substance of the ethical teaching was taken from the teaching of Jesus Himself.  The law can never be fulfilled.  No more can the ethical ideal which always receives out of grasp, for the dualism between the is and the ought can never be bridged the side of men.  By transforming the Gospel into a New Law the Apostolic Fathers returned to the impossible situation from which Christ came deliberately to redeem.…  Repentance was treated as an eternal principle of self-amendment before God, and reckoned as an adequate means for securing pardon and mercy.”  (Page 134, 135)

Another major factor was the difficulty of importing Hebraic thinking from the Old Testament into Greek thinking without distortion.  “The converted Greek faced a greater break with older modes of thought.  There can be no doubt therefore that in the early Church, as in the mission field today, the converts of the first few generations had difficulty in apprehending the distinctive aspects of the Gospel, as for example the doctrine of grace.  It was so astoundingly new to the natural man.…  What facilitated the syncretism of Judaism and Hellenism was the idea, common in principle to both, of self-justification, but it was Christianity which provided the sphere in which the two could come together, for as opposed to Hellenism it brought the principle of revelation, as opposed to Judaism it did away with the ceremonial law.  As opposed to both, the Gospel of Christianity was so astounding just because it taught a doctrine of justification by grace alone.  This was unpalatable to both sides.…  Their (the Apostolic Fathers) theology represents a corrosion of the faith both the side of Judaism and the side of Hellenism, because the basic significance of grace was not grasped.”   (Page 136, 137)

Torrance’s summary observation about the theology of the earliest Apostolic Fathers is bitingly clear: “it was not seen that the whole of salvation is centered in the person and the death of Christ, for they are God has Himself, into the world and wrought a final act of redemption which undercuts all our endeavors at self-justification, and places us in entirely new situation in which faith alone saves a man, and through which alone is a man free to do righteousness spontaneously under the constraining love of Christ.  That was not understood by the Apostolic Fathers, and it is the primary reason for the degeneration of their Christian faith into something so different from the New Testament.  Failure to apprehend the meaning of the Cross and to make it a saving article of faith is surely the clearest indication that a genuine doctrine of grace is absent.”  (Page 138)

Torrance’s book, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers, while not the easiest read, is a must read for any “theology-types” interested in re-thinking their assumption about going back to origins to find the “best” and purest theology. I highly recommend all of Torrance’s writings – check here for a few.

All sessions are available as audio download or to listen online. You can subscribe to HeartConnexion Seminars on iTunes and get future updates automatically.

The Shack Revisited Conference Pt. 1- Paul Young:
Paul Young, author of The Shack, opens the conference with his personal story behind the book’s storyline. He also shares some of how the book moved from a simple project for his children to selling more than 12 million copies internationally.

The Shack Revisited Conference Pt. 2- Dr. C. Baxter Kruger:
Dr. C. Baxter Kruger shares the theological understanding of the Early Church (Nicene) Fathers about the Trinity and Incarnation and it’s parallel to the portrayal Paul Young built into The Shack. It’s more amazing grace then we’ve appreciated.

The Shack Revisited Conference Pt. 3- Dr. Paul Fitzgerald:
Dr. Paul shares the how internalized-shame often continues to complicate life even after we’ve found forgiveness for guilt. He shares a Compass of Shame Defenses that complicate healthy relationships and spirituality and suggests core elements for healing heart-wounds to live loved and love life.

The Shack Revisited Conference Pt. 4- Q & R:
Paul Young, Baxter Kruger and Paul Fitzgerald give responses (not answers to Conference participants questions.

The pastor wanted more details. “Who leads the study?” “What materials are used?” “What do people share?”

Frustrated, the house church leader repeated, “We gather, share food, share conversation, and pray for each other. People share what they’ve learned about walking with Father that week.”

The pastor’s pragmatic side came out, “What if they were so busy they don’t have anything to share that they’ve discovered?”

The house church leader replied, “Then we would suggest they consider using that time to spend time with Father. That’s more important than any single meeting together. If they come, they can take something from everyone’s bowl of learning about Father. You Westerners have a model of church where it’s one person’s job to fill up a big bowl of information and learning about Father and then gather with people whose bowls are empty. They go away with something in their bowl to consume and then bring their empty bowl back next week. Our model is that everyone brings a small bowl with something in it to share and everyone goes home with something. It does not all depend on one person having to prepare enough for everyone else to consume.”

Just saying … the size that gathers is not the issue but the dynamic of real, honest sharing does.

When I heard that story, it reminded me about an old image of heaven and hell. A person was shown hell where people were sitting before large bowls of rice with chopsticks that were more than an yard long. The food was there but they could not get it to their mouth. Then the image of heaven had the same picture of people sitting before rice bowls with long chopsticks, but in heaven they were feeding each other.

Interesting … I’ll take heaven, thank you very much.

“What, then, is the difference which He has made to the whole human mass? It is just this; that the business of becoming a son of God, of being turned from a created thing into a begotten thing, of passing over from the temporary biological life into timeless ‘spiritual’ life, has been done for us. Humanity is already ‘saved’ in principle. We individuals have to appropriate that salvation. But the really tough work–the bit we could not have done for ourselves–has been done for us. We have not got to try to climb up into spiritual life by our own efforts; it has already come down into the human race. If we will only lay ourselves open to the one Man in whom it was fully present, and who, in spite of being God, is also a real man, He will do it in us and for us. Remember what I said about ‘good infection’ One of our own race has this new life: if we get close to Him we shall catch it from Him.” – Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis, pp. 156-157

Behind the persona that the typical person-in-the-pew sees about church there are often stirrings and rumblings, turf wars and power struggles that may seem at best silly to the typical church attender or at worst appear to be the opposite of Jesus fundamental teaching about loving your enemy.

Roger Olsen is a truth-speaking theologian who does not mind raising the curtain to expose the dark side that is happening in the world called Evangelical. He keeps breaking the rules that keep families and organizations dysfunction and there is a price to pay for it.

If you don’t want to know or could care less about what’s happening behind the curtain called Evangelical then don’t read any more than the small portion of Roger’s post below. If you are ready to break some of those dysfunctional rules then read on.

From my perspective, SOME conservative evangelical theologians, denominational leaders, biblical scholars, etc., have DE FACTO already declared, by their behavior, the division between them and postconservative, progressive evangelicals who, generally speaking, believe in the same basic doctrines they believe in.  (To his dying day Stan Grenz affirmed biblical inerrancy, but some of his critics insisted he didn’t mean it because in Theology for the Community of God he placed the doctrine of Scripture within the doctrine of the Holy Spirit!)

There comes a point when one has to give up and say “Okay, have it your way.  We’re not part of the same movement anymore.”  I am saying that.  They may go their way and I and mine will go our way.  We both use the label “evangelical,” but it is too general to cover all of us without qualification.  To me, they are behaving like fundamentalists, so that’s what I’ll call them with “neo-” in front to distinguish them from Carl McIntire and the older, separatistic fundamentalist movement (that still exists but does not participate in evangelical endeavors).

Read Roger’s Post “Division in the evangelical house.”

Roger quotes a great response to this “dark side” bickering over the “truth” that calls Evangelicals to remember that discussing serious issues about Christ’s Truth must be done Christ’s Way if it is not to become destructive to Christ’s followers. Read here Great Comment re: evangelicals behaving badly

PS The cartoon is unashamedly lifted from David Hayward’s wonderful blog nakedpastor

Jenn:

I began practicing and teaching a simply-hard tool and a point-of-view shift that helps me keep perspective on the sort of things you mentioned. The tool is simply the intentional practice of gratitude about everything and everyone. It’s not as easy as it seems to some to be grateful for every situation and every person we encounter. Some people are easy but I find it most helpful to discover something for which I am grateful for the more “challenging” situations with people.

I’m making it a daily practice as I go to bed to review my day and find something to be grateful for in each and every encounter. If you want to keep your heart open, intentionally practicing gratitude is a key.

The point-of-view shift is about a conscious awareness of Trinitarian inclusion. Most of us think about God being “out there somewhere” and our task is to get from where we are to where He is. Frankly, most of us Evangelicals (and Christians generally) are not practicing Trinitarians and at best Tri-theists (we know there are three but have no idea the difference it makes in everyday living).

If our image of God is “out there” and our task is to “get closer” we will work at practices that we think are needed (repent, believe, have faith, tithe, worship, etc.). Of course our conscience often reminds us that we haven’t done any of these things consistently “enough.” or “these difficult things wouldn’t be happening.” So we go back square one and try to do them “more right” – and, of course, want others to do it right too!

That image is a total contradiction to what Paul declares as part of the mystery of our adoption [Eph 1] revealed in Christ’s Incarnation, Resurrection and Ascension – “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” [Col 1:16-17]. If “all things” means “all things” and we are part of “all things” then God is not “out there but we are “included on the inside the life of the Trinity.” The task is not to “get there” but to “wake up” to what Christ has done for all humanity.

We can be inside and as blind to it as the elder brother was to his inclusion. He had only to accept that he was already included and that his father’s choice to include his brother was not his to worry about. All either brother had to do was to “accept the acceptance” that was already available.

In the Incarnation, the Son came to bring us [here and now] into the presence of Father and Spirit with all of our crap. In the Ascension the Son continues in his resurrected flesh to intercede and explain our mumblings and groaning in our flesh to his Father as one who knows what it’s like to be us.

I’ve also been praying a short sentence that may make sense to you and that’s been helpful for me and my contentment:” Father, what don’t I understand about you, that if I did, I’d be less anxious.”

Blessings
Dr. Paul

J. B. Torrence describes well the problem of coming from an experiential-theological point of view in contrast to a Trinitarian theological view. It’s like that arrow in the FedEx logo – once I could not see it and now I can’t see anything else:

“Although it stresses the God-humanward movement in Christ, the human-Godward movement is still ours! It emphasizes our faith, our decision, our response in an event theology which short-circuit’s the vicarious humanity of Christ and belittles union with Christ.… it fails to see the place of the high priesthood of Jesus Christ…” who is present here and now through the Spirit and) ‘leads our worship, bears our sorrows on his heart and intercedes for us, presenting us to the Father in himself as God’s dear children, and uniting us with himself in his life in the Spirit.… It ignores the fact that God has already provided for us that response which is alone acceptable to him––the offering made for the whole human race in the life, obedience and passion of Jesus Christ.… Whatever else our faith is, it is a response to a response already made for us and continually being made for us in Christ, the pioneer of our faith.… At the center of the New Testament stands not a religious experience, not our faith or repentance or decision, however important these are, but a unique relationship between Jesus and the Father.”Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace
Page 29–30.

Who knows, maybe it will lead you to repent too.

Blessings in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Fortunately Athanasius, an early church father, stood firm for the audacious thought that the Divine Creator had actually become part of the created.

“But let them listen to this: if the Word had been a creature, He would not have assumed a created a body, in order that He might give it life. For what help can come to the creature from a creature, which itself is in need of salvation? But since the Word, being Creator, Himself became the Maker of the creatures… clothed Himself with what was created, in order that He again, as Creator, might renew it, and be able to repair it.”- Athanasius

It’s still an audacious, mind-blowing thing that God has done to really be quote “with us.”

Just thought I’d post my comments back to Andre for those interested in the larger “conversations” that are happening outside the BT Community.

Thank you Andre. Happy to share whatever I may offer to the conversation. At about the same time you were pondering a “new paradigm” I was exploring a shift from seeing theology through a legal-guilt paradigm to a shame-grace point of view. I discovered that shame is more of a dominant theme in Scripture than guilt.

In fact, I came to understand that guilt is really a learned response of shame about violating some standard. That is, the capacity to experience shame is an innate affect and does not have to be learned but guilt has to have a learned standard to violate. We can have real guilt with shame and are more likely to want to do some remediation. We can have real guilt without shame and there’s little motivation to seek remedy.

My experience is that many “believers” continue to have significant unhealed “shame-wounds” long after they have experienced forgiveness for their guilt. Like Lazarus, they are as alive as they will ever be but are still wrapped in grave clothes that limit them from living loved and loving life.

They are led to misidentify their shame-barrier that inhibits them “accepting their acceptance” as “guilt” and are encouraged to “repent more” or look for something for which they have not “fully repented.” Seeking more forgiveness does not work we are set up to use performance-religion to work on getting “closer to God.” Since whatever pattern performance-religion offers, and there are many variations, does not work to heal shame, it increases shame and sets up guilt about “not doing enough” or not doing the practices “right enough.”

So many believers deal with “false guilt” that is really unhealed internalized-shame that condemns us through our shame-based conscience. Many of us assume is that our “conscience” is somehow neutral and unaffected by how we were raised and our heart-wounding life experiences. As children, the Disney character Jiminy Cricket, taught many of us to trust our conscience. However, our conscience is significantly shaped by the way shame was used by parents, teachers, and churches to influence our moral outlook on life. Our shame-based conscience may sound like the voice of God and condemn us when there is no condemnation. Which of us raised in very conservative families know that many the prohibitions they  taught are not wrong at all, yet we still feel a “pang of conscience” when we do them? Which of us who were raised in a very permissive family have not been frustrated when spiritual communities imply that belonging requires developing “convictions” about things that we’re quite sure don’t matter?

Well, I diverge from sharing a simple thank you.

…. for most of us the word “inerrancy” has become too problematic uncritically to embrace and use.  To the untrained and untutored ear “inerrant” always and necessarily implies absolute flawless perfection even with regard to numbers and chronologies and quotations from sources, etc.  But even the strictest scholarly adherents of inerrancy kill that definition with the death of a thousand qualifications.  Some who insist that you must be evangelical to be faithful to Scripture’s authority say inerrancy is consistent with biblical authors’ use of errant sources.  In other words, they say, the Bible is nevertheless inerrant if it contains an error so long as the author used an errant source inerrantly.

How many people in the pews know about these qualifications held by many, if not all, scholarly conservative evangelicals?  When I teach these qualifications to my students (as I have done over almost 30 years) the reaction is almost uniformly the same: “That’s not what ‘inerrancy’ means!”  I have them read the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and most of them laugh at the twists and turns it makes in order to qualify inerrancy to make it fit with the undeniable phenomena of Scripture.

The biggest qualification is that only the original autographs were inerrant.  Think about this. … (more)