Recliner Ramblings

Gettin' Levitical

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:51:00 +0000

As part of an Old Testament course at Bethel Seminary, I will be embarking on a 30 day journey of living out Leviticus. There is a lot of flexibility in how it is done, and as a Christian, I will be keeping Torah in light of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection (so no animal sacrifices or stoning cheating wives).

The idea comes from Daniel Harrell's article in Christianity Today, "The Levitical Challenge."

Anyone out there every attempted something similar? What lessons did you learn along the way? How did God shape you?

And of course, if there is a knowledgeable Jew out there who would like to help a fairly ignorant Christian, now would be a great time for you to leave some comments on this blog. How does Torah function now a days for the Jewish community? Any tips on observing the Law?

Review of "God's Economy"

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:16:00 +0000

If you are a theology geek like me and you have yet to subscribe to Englewood Review of Books, you have no idea what you are missing!

Chris Smith, editor of ERB as well as Doulos Christou Press out of Indianapolis, recently reviewed Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove's God's Economy: Redefining the Health and Wealth Gospel. Though this particular review has a number of typos not common to Mr. Smith's writing, and makes a few statements that merit further exploration (is "abundant life" really a better translation of the Greek usually rendered "eternal life?"), Wilson-Hartgrove's book sounds supremely thought provoking.

Featured: God’s Economy by Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove [Vol. 2, #40]

Posted using ShareThis

Introduction to Missional Thinking

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:53:00 +0000

The word "missional" is in style. It's right up there with "emerging," "community," and "transformation." No doubt you could add your own list to these buzz words of Christian culture.

My own denomination (Wesleyan) has begun to use the term a lot more in the last few years, primarily due to the renewed focus of the Department of Evangelism and Church Growth on church planting (or "church multiplication"). Most of the conversation happening is about resourcing and networking a movement that will either start new churches or renew old churches to effectively minister to non-Christians. It's about being outward focused; a worthy goal no matter how you spell it.

But I have my concerns. Is the signifier "missional" losing its theological content in this kind of conversation? I had a very brief conversation with Dr. Bob Whitesel at last summer's district conference. He has no clue who I am, and probably doesn't even remember talking to me (like I said, it was brief), but after inquiring whether the Department of E & CG was directing their "missional" conversation in a theologically robust way, I got the impression that it was not. Most of what is happening is on the pragmatic side -- which is needed -- but I think is missing the theological depth that a church hoping to be "missional" in a post-Christian context needs to grasp.

Seniors at Bethel Seminary are required to spell out their beliefs before they graduate in what is called the "Senior Statement of Faith." The assignment calls for an integrative motif, a conceptual category that the student's theology will be spiraled in and out of. For my motif, I have chosen the missio Dei, the "mission of God." It is from the theology of Karl Barth, Lesslie Newbigin, Jurgen Moltmann, David Bosch, and Darrell Guder (among others) that the renewed focus on being "missional" has come. So I thought I would post my initial definition of the missio Dei to perhaps clear up some theological misconceptions with the way the word is being used. It would be particularly interesting to discuss whether or not using "missional" in the same context as "church growth" is helpful or not. I will leave it up to you to decide.
_________________________

The motif of missio Dei anchors Christian theology not in the context of Christology or Soteriology (as is often the case), but in the doctrine of the Trinity. The missio Dei is carried out by the God addressed as Father, Son, and Spirit, the One who is engaged in the ongoing work of redeeming and reconciling the world. Inspired by the selfless love that characterizes the Triune community, the Father sends the Son into creation, putting a tangible “face” to the mission. The mission is further carried out when the Father and the Son send the Spirit, who among other things, unifies and empowers the Church to further carry out the missio Dei.

What exactly is the missio Dei? It is to reorient creation towards its Creator. It is to reconcile humanity with its Lord. It is to liberate the world and establish a people in its midst that will witness to God’s character and purposes, even “to the ends of the earth.” These are the people who are the Church, the sent people of God. In other words, the Church finds its identity as the communion-in-mission. The missio Dei is not to be confused with the missio ecclesia; the former precedes the latter, and the latter draws its authority and posture from the former. It is God who is Savior, the One “who desires all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:3-4).

Sin: Our Reactions, God's Solutions

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:39:00 +0000

The local church I currently serve was gracious to listen to me preach last week on the topic of
sin and how we typically react in the moment we come to the realization that we are in the wrong. This week, they get part 2 -- how we react when we come to the realization that we have been wronged.

Here is the intro...

Over the last week, I’ve been drawn in to the tremendously sad story of Jaycee Lee Dugard. Maybe some of you have been following the story as well. Jaycee is the woman who was recently found after being kidnapped at age 11 and held captive and sexually abused for the last 18 years – all by a man who is apparently unremorseful. She was forced to live in a makeshift tent in the backyard and even gave birth to two children with her rapist.

I don’t know Jaycee. In fact, if it wasn’t for the news coverage, I wouldn’t know her at all. But as I’ve watched the reports come out in the past week, my emotions have been fully engaged in her story. Standing in line at the bank on Monday, I found my fists clinched as I listened to CNN give the details on the long road to recovery that Jaycee and her kids are facing. She is now actually feeling guilty for not being with the man who kidnapped her, a condition that psychologists call “Stockholm Syndrome.” Her children are now hearing for the first time that their dad kidnapped their mom and forced her into pregnancy.

Everything within me says “This is not right. This is not how it is supposed to be.”

Then the thoughts start in my head. Thoughts like “They didn’t do anything to deserve this! How could his wife go along with this for so long? It’s her fault! How did this man ever get out of prison in the first place? It’s the justice system’s fault! Maybe we shouldn’t take the death penalty off the table for monsters like this! Better yet, let’s castrate the people who do these sorts of things. That will bring down the crime rate.”

Last week, we focused on how some of us react when we are the guilty party, when we are the ones who are in the wrong and have sinned either against God or another person. Some of us react by hiding and some of us try to find a fix on our own...but God offers us the gift of confession.

But this week, we move to the other side of the table, and examine those times when we are the ones that have been sinned against, when we are the ones who have been hurt and mistreated.

Jaycee has been sinned against. She has been wronged. She didn’t do anything to deserve this.

But where does Jaycee go next? How will she react to what has happened? What does God expect? Does God have a solution for the pain she has endured and the scars she will carry?

We’ve all been mistreated. Maybe not – I pray not –to the level that Jaycee Dugard has, but we’ve all been sinned against at one time or another. How do we react? Does God have a better plan?

Come to Waite Park Wesleyan Church at 1510 33rd Ave NE, Minneapolis at 10:40am to find out.

Englewood Review

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:43:00 +0000

When a great book has come out that I just don't have the time to read (or the resources to purchase), I can always count on Englewood Review to give me a good synopsis. They feature reviews on anything from autobiographical poetry to fictional prose, and are especially keen on all things Anabaptist, eco-theology, and aesthetics. Quite a mix, I know. They have featured a review I wrote a year or so ago. And if I never thanked them on this blog, I do so now. :)

Plus, I just entered The Englewood Review’s (@ERBks) Back-to-school contest to win free books. You can enter too: http://bit.ly/MvJJS .

Who doesn't love free books? Get on it!

Jacque Ellul and Prayer

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:37:00 +0000

It's been a little over a year since I reviewed the first installment of The Ancient Practices Series being published by Thomas Nelson, Brian McLaren's Finding Our Way Again. The same day I received McLaren's book in the mail--from the folks at theOoze who actually believed as much as I did that I would have time to do ocassional reviews on top of school reading and church work-- I also received the second book in the series, Robert Benson's In Constant Prayer.

A year later, I've finally read it.

While vacationing in Ohio, I soaked up Benson's words on fixed-hour prayer (sometimes refered to as the "divine office") almost as eagerly as I soaked up the mid-80 degree weather and blister-inducing sunshine. I was so fixated on the book one afternoon that I forgot to put on sunscreen. Not good.

I hope to write a fuller review of In Constant Prayer and the growing effect it has had on my own spiritual life in the days to come. But until then, meditate on these words on prayer from the often quoted but rarely imitated Jacques Ellul:

“The person who claims to be full of hope but fails to lead a life of prayer is a liar. Prayer is the sole ‘reason’ for hope, at the same time that it is its means and expression. Prayer is the referral to God’s decision, on which we are counting. Without that referral there can be no hope, because we would have nothing to hope for. Prayer is the assurance of the possibility of God’s intervention, without which there is no hope. Prayers is the means given by God for the dialogue with him, that is to day, it is the very junction of the future with eternity, where we have seen that our hope is located. In its dialogue it embraces the past presented for pardon, the future defined by cooperation between the praying person and God, and eternity, which prayer lays hold of through the sighs uttered by the Holy Spirit.

“Without such prayer we can piece together a few false hopes to give the appearance of hope, but all that, even when arranged theologically, can only be illusory. That is why it is quite right to recall that hope is based on God’s promise constantly fulfilled and renewed. But how can we forget that, throughout the Bible, this promise is linked with the ceaseless outcry of prayer? It is man’s prayer which demands the fulfillment, and it is again his prayer which demands its renewal and its ongoing. Without prayer, the promise and its fulfillment are forces just as indifferent and blind as Moira (fate) and Ananke (necessity).”

From Hope in a Time of Abandonment, 272-3.

(thanks to Halden of Inhabitatio Dei for filling my thoughts with Ellul this morning)

Homosexuality and the Church

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:08:00 +0000

Gone are the days when one could hear the crickets chirping outside the church windows if anyone dared to mention the word "sex" on a Sunday morning.

Likewise, it appears that more and more members of the worldwide Church are finally realizing that, in the words of a 2006 witty campaign, "Homophobia is Gay."

We can have a rational, Christ-centered discussion on homosexuality (both orientation and acts) without fear of riding down some mysterious-but-always-present "slippery slope" and losing our salvation. In fact, we must enter into these discussions, because whether we are comfortable or not, homosexuality isn't going to go away. Issues wrapped up in the search for human identity rarely go quietly into the night. And the questions revolving around homosexuality will likely be at the top of the list of issues your church will face in the next decade (if they aren't already).

Everyone else is talking, so you might as well get in on it. The number of blogs recently posting on homosexuality is far too large to list here, but I will single out a few that have recently caught my eye:

From Emergent provocateur Tony Jones -- Is Gay the New Orthodox? and An Honest Question about Gays in the Church (the comments include a great dialogue between Jones and Scot Mcknight)

And from the Jesus Manifesto, which is now welcoming posts on the topic for the month of August -- Homosexuality and Scripture

Laying Out the Living Room

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:19:00 +0000

Almost one month ago, I announced on this blog (that sounds way to important) my desire to launch a new ministry in the Twin Cities, the Living Room. Well, this Sunday evening, the launch will take place. I've had enough conversations with strangers around Rosedale Mall and swapped enough emails with a few of you who frequent Recliner Ramblings to begin to believe that God is going to do something significant with the Living Room. I'm not sure what that significance will shape up to be, but I'm willing to take a few steps in God's direction to find out. So if anyone reading this wouldn't mind throwing up a prayer or two for the hodgepodge of people gathered together in Saint Paul this coming Sunday night, this blogger would be indebted to your hospitality.

For those of you interested in joining the conversation, you are always welcome. Email me at michaelr.cline@gmail.com for more information and/or directions.

Here is the outline of our first evening together:

the Living Room

"... I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full." John 10:10

SELF– answer in solitude (7-8 minutes)

On a scale of 1-10 (with 1 being the furthest away, and 10 being the closest), how close am I to possessing a life that is lived "to the full"?

If less than 10, how strong is my desire to move closer to this life? Very strong? Weak? Apathetic? Why might I be feeling this way at this point in my life?

NEIGHBOR– answer with one other person (12-15 minutes)

Talk about someone (living or deceased) who you believe has the life that John 10:10 is talking about. It can be a family member, a popular celebrity, a historical figure – anyone that you think has life "to the full." What is it about this person that leads you to believe they have this life? Does anything unique distinguish their life from others? Does their quality of life seem obtainable, or is it too far-fetched for most people?

COMMUNITY– answer with the entire gathering (25-30 minutes)

What percentage of the people we come in contact with on a daily basis would self-report to have obtained "the full life?" A high percentage? A low percentage? A majority of our friends, family, and co-workers? Or a minority?

Do you think that the people you are connected with desire such a life? Is living a full life an important goal of those you know, or are these questions largely ignored?

How does our culture(s) define what is and what is not a "full life?" What is present in the life of someone who has this life? What is not present?

Who is offering life "to the full" in John 10:10? How would this person define the full life, what is present and what is not? Would this person's definition be at odds with what we decided about our culture(s) definition above?

How do we obtain what the person in John 10:10 is offering?

The Non-Dogmatic Pastor

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:57:00 +0000

Since around the start of my senior year at Indiana Wesleyan University, several fears concerning my current vocational path began to creep into my thoughts. While some of these fears have since been exposed as irrational and unnecessary, several still remain. And a few have become even more pronounced since entering seminary. Chief among these fears is that I will not be a "successful" pastor because I am not certain enough. I leave a little too much room for questioning, not affirming ideas that others hold to be air-tight. I have faith. In fact, I have hope and love too, but none of them have settled as neatly as some would prefer. Is there room for a non-dogmatic pastor in the Church? This fear of being too unsettled came back to me during a recent Facebook conversation:

Me: It's been fun, but I've got to go.

Brittany: You're just going to leave me here? I need your thoughts for this debate! [She was locked in a "Jesus is more in line with Republican/Democrat ideals" war with other Facebookers]

Me: I've got a sermon to finish. Besides, like I said before, I think there are some valuable points on both sides.

Brittany: Ok, fine. Go then. You are too gray for this anyway.

And she's right.

The more I read, the more I study, the more I enter into dialogue with those with differing opinions -- the more "gray" my world becomes. Though I'm not sure I would agree with the other "points"of The Center for Progressive Christianity, point #6 pretty much sums up where I've been for the last few years: "...we are Christians who find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty, in the questions than in the answers."

I've always been a hard sell, and that didn't change when I declared my major or answered God's calling. There are some things I'm not willing to budge on (Jesus' dual nature, the Incarnation, and the Resurrection event, as examples), but this list actually grows smaller, not larger, the longer I walk with Christ. I just pray that that's ok....that there are churches who want a more non-dogmatic pastor... that there are congregations that would rather have a leader who is still trying to figure some things out, even as they are striving to do the same.

Some will no doubt call this "wishy washy." They'll find this type of faith too "generous" to be useful (and perhaps, too generous to be respected).

Here's hoping I land in a gray church.

The Living Room

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:34:00 +0000

After a year or so of contemplation and questioning, I've decided to launch a new ministry in the Twin Cities under the name the Living Room. It's a project...a conversation of sorts...being sponsored by Waite Park Wesleyan Church, If the small group takes off and becomes a large group, we'll splinter off and hopefully have several Living Rooms meeting at once. But for the time being, the conversation will start in the living room my wife and I rent in St. Paul.

Authenticity—Community—Depth—Dialogue—Love
The conversation begins at 1288 Hazelwood St. #107, St. Paul, MN
August 9^th, 7pm.

Several different strands of thought and experience have fed the idea: First, my wife and I are fellow vagabonds, searching for authentic community in the midst of fleeting relationships. Second, there are so many questions that are left unanswered every Sunday morning and need space to be heard and wrestled with.

Perhaps the biggest push cam from Miroslav Volf. When trying to come up with the "angle" of the gathering, I heard Volf speak at Bethel University. I had been reflecting on Jesus' words in John 10, that he had come to show...or demonstrate... or make available the "abundant life." What is this life? What does it look like? I had priviately come to believe that this question had universal appeal and then Volf gave my thought some credibility -- "The question the Church must ask if it is to be relevant and meaningful in the 21st century is 'What does it mean for human life to flourish?'"

The abundant life...what is it? Who do we look at and say "there it is...they have it!"? To be honest, I'm not sure I have a clue. But I do know that whatever this "abundance" is, it's most likely to be discovered in the midst of a community of people who are asking similar questions and vulnerably living out the answers they are finding.

Come be a part of the conversation.
Email me at michaelr.cline@gmail.com

Heidi and Spencer: "Reality" Meets Christianity

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:18:00 +0000

"Reality" TV "stars" Heidi and Spencer Pratt are Hollywood's new faces of "Christianity" (sorry for all the quotes, but trust me, they are necessary). Heidi has supposedly been a Christian for some time now, and her new husband Spencer was recently baptized by Stephen Baldwin. Sorry if I'm not too excited.

Heidi and Spencer have primarily gained their fame by being obnoxious on MTV's pseudo-reality show The Hills. But they have really turned it up a notch on NBC's I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here, combining their obvious self-promotion with Christian lingo. Before praying in the jungle, Spencer announces that he would have voted for Patti Blagojevich's husband for president (yes, it's who you think it is). After all, Patti and Rod are the "Heidi and Spencer of politics." Way to make the rest of us Christians look like morons, Spence.

In other news, right after Heidi yelled "hallelujah" at Spencer's baptism, she signed her name on a deal to pose in Playboy. But don't worry Church, People Magazine reports that the photo shoot is "tasteful."

Only in America.

(in the spirit of Spencer and Heidi, this blog post is a shameless attempt to get more site traffic)

The Church and Booze

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:55:00 +0000

Almost a year and a half ago, I made the decision to become a member of The Wesleyan Church
and pursue ordination in that denomination. When applying for my student ministerial license (the first step in the process), I was asked the following question:

What is your attitude toward the above practices (tobacco use, alcohol, etc.) or other personal habits which are injurious physically or hurtful to one's influence?

At the time, I answered the question this way:

The key is that last little statement, “hurtful to one’s influence.” If something you are doing is causing other people to reject God’s vision for their life, you have to be willing to lay it down and walk away from it. With that said, I actually don’t believe the drinking of alcohol necessarily falls in that category (although, at times it certainly may). However, I believe submission to rules and authorities that I may not fully agree with is a healthy discipline for any Christian, and I humbly submit to the Wesleyan Church Discipline in this matter.

I did not receive one bit of flack for my stance from the District Ministerial Development Board. In fact, it never came up. I have a hunch that many of the board members would answer the question with a similar spirit and tone. More and more, my Wesleyan brothers and sisters are abandoning the view that "drinking is wrong" in favor of a more nuanced opinion. The decision to drink moderately, despite being a member of a denomination that favors abstinence, is already a non-issue for many younger Wesleyans (and surprisingly, more older members as well!). So not surprisingly, the ideas for changing the Discipline on this issue have started to surface. I'm not sure on how official a level the concern has been addressed, but I hear the rumblings on a weekly basis on the local level. Though I'm currently serving at a rather small church and hear the moderationist position articulated by quite a few, I have been told that it's even more widespread in some of the larger Wesleyan churches who appeal more to "outsiders" who already drink moderately.

So what's a Wesleyan to do? Well...surprising to those of you who know my past...I favor abstinence at this point in time. I haven't "landed" on the issue completely, but I think a very good argument can be made for abstinence that is theologically robust and Scripturally sound. Perhaps one of the main problems with the current Discipline as written is that it opens itself up to the critique of those wanting to use specific Scriptural verses to favor moderationism. I can't tell you how many times I've heard: "How can we have membership requirements that Jesus himself wouldn't commit to?" So if we are going to convince anyone to not pick up that longneck of Bud Light or take a sip of Jose Cuervo, we're going to have to do it another way than simply placing references to Scripture in parantheses next to our argument.

I have just began to articulate what I believe is a more robust argument, one that connects the issue of consuming alcoholc with Scripture's call to embody an ethic of hospitality to our neighbors. It also briefly draws on Walter Wink's understanding of the "Powers" language used by Paul and looks into the social realities involved in the decision to drink. Below is an excerpt from a recent paper I wrote entitled The Church and Alcohol: Abstention as Social Hospitality:

In the modern landscape of ethical debate, the issue of alcohol consumption has largely been consigned to the realm of individual choice. Because alcohol in itself is thought to be morally neutral, the morality of the decision of whether to drink or not drink comes down to an individual’s susceptibility to drunkenness, which has uniformly been considered a vice in historic Christianity. As long as one can avoid drunkenness and the perils of alcoholism, the consumption of alcohol is morally legit. This position, known as “moderationism,” is typically supported by Christians with a propositional appeal to Scripture and a glimpse into the actions of Jesus. Scripture nowhere explicitly forbids the drinking of alcohol; in fact, it celebrates wine and its effects in many places. Furthermore, Jesus’ first miracle at Cana was to turn water into wine (possibly even strong wine) with the result that the wedding festivities could continue. So how can anyone support any other view of alcohol than that of moderationism?

This essay does not seek to support a view of alcohol as inherently evil. Nor does it pursue policies of national prohibition. The main aim of this essay is to expose the argument of “personal conscience” as overly simplistic as it pertains to the choice of whether or not to consume alcohol. As a daily decision with massive social consequences, the decision to drink alcohol by the Christian should be considered in light of social, not just personal, harm. The social realities in play in the manufacturing, selling, and consuming of alcohol – combined with Scripture’s consistent concern with hospitality to the “neighbor” – provide sufficient grounds for Christian abstinence from the purchasing and consuming of alcoholic beverages. Abstaining from alcohol in solidarity with those who suffer from its oppression is a compelling way for the Church to mirror Jesus’ concern for the afflicted and name one of today’s significant “Powers.”

Interested in reading the entire paper? Send me an email at michaelr.cline@gmail.com and let's dialogue.

Iranian Upheaval

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:10:00 +0000

I've been following the election in Iran and the subsequent protests. I'll openly admit I'm not an expert on the political process of America, so I won't even begin to pretend that I know something about whether or not this election was "legit."

But the pictures coming in are disturbing.

Not safe for young and/or sensitive eyes.

The American Patriot's Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:06:00 +0000

Just in time for Memorial Day, an American Bible.

I can't wait to read the rest of what Greg Boyd has to say about this.

I'm just grateful he's taking the time to sift through it because I'm not sure I would be able to make it past the cover.

Emerging Ministerial Training

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:19:00 +0000

Keith Drury & Charlie Alcock come together to share their thoughts on the tremendous need to better equip twenty-something ministers in today's church setting. Most churches and D.S.'s think colleges and seminiaries need to do a better job with "training," as opposed to "educating," which is what most colleges and seminiaries feel they are responsible for. The Wesleyan Church is launching a new MDiv program (it's first!) to try and address this gap between practical training and academic knowledge. But the problem runs deeper than the old "The Church vs. The Academy" debate that constantly gets recycled. A shift has taken place in the people entering ministry and most denominational seminaries and local churches have yet to develop the curriculum to match.

Posted using ShareThis

Does Facebook Lead to Lower GPA/Morals?

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:12:00 +0000

Does Facebook Lead to Lower GPA, Morals

If the number of Bethel Seminary students "Facebooking" (is that a viable verb in today's world?) during a lecture in Social Ethics is any indication, I would say there is a fair chance the OSU study is on to something. Of course, the fact that their is correlation between lower GPA's and Facebook use does not mean that one causes the other. Causation is much hard to prove.

Posted using ShareThis

Trademarking Discernment

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:52:00 +0000

I was fortunate enough to have the Minnesota Christian Chronicle publish something of mine last month. Unfortunately, the MCC doesn't publish their op-eds online. A few have asked me "how the article I was working on" turned out, so I've republished it here. It will be next month before I get feedback from the readers of the MCC (that is, if anyone writes in to comment), so feel free to leave some comments and let me know what you think.

______________________________________________

Established in Nashville, Tennessee, LifeWay Christian Resources is one of the world’s largest providers of Christian products and services. Operating over 140 stores across the nation, LifeWay sells everything from homeschool curriculum to sanctuary furniture. The publishing division of this Southern Baptist owned company has even produced “one of the most accurate and readable Bible translations ever” - the Holman Christian Standard Bible. With their firm commitment to providing “biblical solutions for life,” the avenues seem endless for LifeWay to expand the ways in which they help “spiritually transform individuals and cultures.”

A recent avenue being explored is in making sure the local Christian book buyer doesn’t end up with content that could steer the reader down perilous paths. Titles that may espouse ideas or concepts that are “inconsistent with historical evangelical theology” have been stamped with a Read With Discernment™ label. And yes, it’s trademarked. The works deemed as needing such a warning include William P. Young’s The Shack, as well as anything by Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, and Donald Miller. This doesn’t mean their books are pulled from the shelves – $21.99 will still get you The Secret Message of Jesus – but it does suggest you read these authors with “extra discernment,” a level of inspection evidently not needed when reading Wayne Grudem’s opinions of gender inclusiveness or Beth Moore’s bible studies. Browsing the online store, one comes to the conclusion that The Prayer of Jabez is apparently more historically evangelical than Miller’s Blue Like Jazz, even though LifeWay describes his book as the story of “an earnest evangelical who nearly lost his faith.” The spiritual fiction of The Shack receives the unflattering label while the provocative fiction of The Left Behind series seemingly gets a pass. One question to be asked here is just who is calling the shots for what is and what is not “evangelical?”

But an even deeper question to probe is why these books and not others? Pulling information from Wikipedia (so much for discernment), all of the authors mentioned above with the exception of Young are linked to the Emerging Church movement. That seems to be the central indictment that establishes the need for the trademarked discernment label. Whether or not this is fair procedure, and whether or not the Emerging Church movement is really worth the extra dose of scrutiny, will be left up to the bloggers to debate (and believe me, they are). More disturbing is the fact that the one book most deserving of the warning, the bestselling book of all time, and the title that LifeWay pulls its “solutions” from, is in fact void of the Read With Discernment™ label – the Holy Bible.

After all, it is hard to fathom another book more apt to challenge our historic lines and push our inherited paradigms. While being capable of such sweet revelation, Scripture simultaneously confronts our eyes and ears and has the capacity to pull us in directions we never set out to travel. On the road with Jesus in the gospels, we encounter evangelism strategies unheard of in historic evangelical seminaries and we witness the actions of a God who seems to know very little of our modern sensibilities and consumerist preferences. If there is any book that deserves a “reader beware” label, it’s one that claims itself to be alive and not one that readily admits its inventive nature. No text has such a power to transform while at the same time being so open to the impulses of the interpreter. As history has demonstrated, Scripture can be read in a numerous ways, leading to numerous consequences, both for good and evil. And yet in LifeWay’s system, the message of McLaren’s Generous Orthodoxy should be handled with more care than the King James Version. Rob Bell’s Jesus Wants to Save Christians merits more careful inspection than SBC’s own highly touted Holman translation.

The Bible doesn’t come with a trademarked discernment label, but perhaps God should take some cues from LifeWay’s marketing strategies. As past Christian boycotts of everything from Disney to Martin Scorsese movies have proven, a warning label only makes items that much more attractive. Let’s hope LifeWay customers have their shields up, because despite their companies concerns, The Shack is currently #15 on their bestseller list

Answers: Who Said It?

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:01:00 +0000

"A Church that despises or neglects doctrine comes perilously close to losing its reason for existence and may simply lapse into a comfortable conformity with the world -- or whatever part of the world it happens to feel most at home with...There are few more pathetic sights than a Church wandering aimlessly from one 'meaningful' issue to another in a desperate search for relevance in the eyes of the world."

-- Alister E. McGrath, "Doctrine and Ethics," JETS 34, 2 (June 1991): 145-156

Who Said It?

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:37:00 +0000

Hint: Published by an ordained Anglican in 1991

The Gospel of Mark and Authority

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:18:00 +0000

It's crunch time at Bethel Seminary, which means I'm going to be forced to step back from the Transforming Theology series. I have too many required books to be read and too many required papers to be written to be able to devote time to Cobb and his ideas. I want to do justice to Cobb's brilliance, and if I tried to interact with his thoughts now, I'd probably butcher it.

So instead, I'd like to post a rough draft of a paper I just wrote for a Spiritual Formation class. It deals with an identifiable them in the Gospel of Mark and relates that theme to how I imagine God. As always, feedback is welcomed!
___________________________

Introduction

When shuffling through the Gospel of Mark, several themes immediately begin to emerge for the reader: the role of faith in the life of discipleship, the identity of Jesus, conflict between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, etc… But theme that seized me from the get go, and the theme that led me throughout the book of Mark, is that of authority. To be even more specific, Mark’s depiction of Jesus’ authority and his exercise of that authority compared to that of the other characters (disciples, Jewish leaders, etc…) drove the story for me. Sometimes the theme of authority was explicit and easy to identity, as in the 10 times that Mark deliberately uses the Greek word for authority (exousia). But other times, the authority of Jesus is much more implicit, arising more from his actions than his words and hiding in the background of his evaluations of present-day Judaism and the religious establishment.

Explicit References to Authority

Mark uses the term exousia 10 times in his Gospel. Though the word has a range of meaning and is translated as “power” or “right” in other passages of Scripture, “authority” is most commonly used by scholars, especially in the Gospels. The word first appears in Mark 1:22, where the narrator says those listening in to Jesus’ teaching in the synagogue “were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority.”[1] This perceived authority is then contrasted with that of the teachers of the law, the religious leaders of the day. In what will become a common episode in Mark, Jesus’ authority is revealed to be above or beyond that of the Jewish leaders. Directly connected to this first occurrence is the second. In 1:27, the term exousia is placed on the lips of the same people watching in the synagogue. Jesus has just performed an exorcism and the crowd is amazed saying, “What is this? A new teaching – and with authority! He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him.” Here, Jesus authority is linked with his ability to cast out evil spirits. You can also hear echoes of the comparison made in 1:22 between Jesus’ teaching and that of the teachers of the law.

In chapter 2, a paralyzed man is brought to Jesus. Quite unexpectedly, Jesus forgives the man of his sins, inciting the teachers of the law to charge Jesus with blasphemy (more on the implicit references made here later). In response to the accusation, Jesus says “I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (2:10). Once again, everyone around (but the teachers of the law) is amazed and praises God.

The next two references can be grouped together. In Mark 3:15 and 6:7, Jesus commissions the twelve disciples to go and do the work of God. Though Mark supplies the reader with unique details in each case, the common theme is the transference of authority from Jesus to the disciples. In 3:15, he sends them out “to preach and to have authority to drive out demons.” In 6:7, he sends them out “two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits.” Their derived authority is here tied to their ability to mimic Jesus’ exorcism abilities. And in 6:13, the reader is given the update that the transference of authority was apparently successful, as the disciples were able to drive out “many demons” and heal “many sick people.”

Mark 11:27-33 is perhaps the most explicit when it outlining the issues of Jesus’ authority, and the term exousia is used four separate times. In 11:28, a larger group of Jewish leaders (here, the teachers of the law, the chief priests, and the elders) ask Jesus a direct question about his recent judgments made on the temple: “By what authority are you doing these things?” And furthermore, “Who gave you the authority to do this?” In 11:29, Jesus promises to answer the question (“I will tell you by what authority I am doing these things”), but only if they can answer a question for him. When they cannot effectively answer his question, Jesus refuses to answer theirs saying, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things” (11:33).

The last occurrence of the term exousia is perhaps a bit more obscure. It comes in 13:34, in the middle of one of Jesus’ apocalyptic-like parables. In the way I see the passage, the man “going away” only to return at an unknown time is Jesus. Before leaving, Jesus once again transfers his authority and puts his servants (the disciples?) in charge. “Charge” here is the word exousia. Both Jesus’ ability to give the task and the very content of the task highlights Jesus’ authority.

Implicit References to Authority

Someone could point to any pericope in the Gospel of Mark and throw out of the suggestion that the author is trying to emphasize the authority of Jesus, and with a high degree of probability, they would be correct. The implicit ways the author does so is all over the book. The examples of Jesus’ actions that perform this function include: his healings, his exorcisms, his restoration of the dead, his various clashes with Jewish Law and his subsequent reinterpretation, his ability to forgive his power over Creation (wind, waves, material goods, etc…), and his connection with the Father (see 9:7, especially). In 8:33, Jesus unreservedly claims to “know the things of God,” unlike Peter, a definite claim to authority. The two that appear to stick out the most for Mark is Jesus’ capacity to forgive sins and Jesus’ right to judge the religious system of the day (including the popular interpretation of the Mosaic Law). Though these two events are not the most common of all the examples – like the healings and exorcisms – they are the two instances where the authority of the religious leaders directly clashes with the authority of Jesus, and where the authority of Jesus is most questioned.[2]

Significance of Authority in Mark’s Theology

The theme of Jesus’ authority and how it is displayed by the author is directly tied to Mark’s Christology. Jesus’ authority to heal, exorcize, and perform other miracles is shown to be related to his unique relationship and standing with the Father. His authority is conferred by the Father, which sets up Jesus as divine prophet on the one hand, and the divine Son of God on the other (more implicit than explicit, but especially seen in Jesus’ ability to forgive sins). The reader is exposed to and authority that is over every sphere of life– spiritual, cosmological, created, relational/social, etc… This makes Jesus a person to put trust in, a dispeller of fear, and a rabbi to follow.

Jesus’ authority goes beyond all others. The clash over authority highlights the difference between the “good news” of Jesus and the perceived wisdom of the teachers of the Law and the religious leaders of the day. Jesus is set up as the true teacher, the one who is wiser than the conventional spiritual directors. Lastly, just as Jesus’ authority is conferred on him by the Father, so is the authority conferred on all those who follow Him. The transfer of power not only perpetuates God’s mission, but it also disables fear and hesitation. In Mark’s theology, the Holy Spirit, though present, plays a lesser role in the empowering of Jesus and his followers to do the will of God. Jesus himself is the arbitrator and giver of divine power and authority.

Jesus’ Authority and Spiritual Formation

Mark’s highlighting of Jesus’ authority performs two main functions in my understanding of who God is and how I imagine God to be: (1) It creates a picture of a God who is completely able, a God who is large and in control, and (2) It creates a picture of a God who, though powerful, exercises authority “from below.”

To imagine God as a Being with unlimited authority performs a comforting role in my life and in the lives of others (as mentioned above, in Mark, Jesus’ authority is over every order – spiritual, cosmological, created, relational/social, etc…). Like the ideal reader of Mark, I am drawn to the God displayed in Jesus, a person I can put my trust in, a dispeller of fear, and a teacher I must follow. God is in control of the cosmos, maybe directly, perhaps indirectly. But either way, the image of God’s I gather from reading Mark soothes my anxiety like that of the disciples in the midst of the storm (4:35-41 and 6:51).

But this same all-powerful, all-authoritative Being would also be a source of anxiety if that power and authority were used in ways typically demonstrated by those who possess such qualities. This is where picture #2 comes in. Mark reveals a God who values service to the neighbor and a God of compassion to the “least” of the world. It is this mode of compassion and service that Jesus’ authority is displayed. This is the right use of authority. Authority is not bestowed to enable us to “lord over others” but to serve (10:42-44). Not only does Jesus expect this from his followers, but he models it with his life. “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve…” So although God is all-powerful and all-authoritative, God exercises such in a way that models service, not domination. This inspires even more trust in my walk of discipleship.

Is this just a lesson for humanity? Is “power under” only to be exemplified by those who worship God, but God is free to use power and authority in any way God so chooses? The big question for spiritual formation is whether or not God plays by the same rules he expects us to, and I think he does. We are called to this “power under” life, not just out of moral obligation, but to mimic and reveal God’s very character to the world we inhabit. Exercising bestowed power “from below” is something God values, something that goes to the very heart of God. If God doesn’t exercise lordship out of service, the majority of Jesus’ ministry makes no sense. Jesus would not be a very accurate “image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15). And therefore, our journey into discipleship, into being “Christ-like,” would not necessarily reflect who God is on any certain level. All of these are major reasons why we should see Jesus’ exercise of authority as revealing the character of God.

[1] All Scripture references are taken from Today’s New International Version (TNIV).

[2] Another possible implicit expression of Jesus’ authority is found in the reaction of various minor characters to the presence of Jesus. I’m particularly drawn to the demoniac (5:6), the synagogue leader Jairus (5:22), and the bleeding woman (5:33), all who are describes by Mark as “falling at Jesus’ feet” in some fashion. Does this posture convey a measure of authority?

First Take of Cobb's Reclaiming the Church

MichaelR.Cline@gmail.com (Michael Cline) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:41:00 +0000

Though the organizing committee of the Transforming Theology conversation "are not optimistic that the conservative Evangelical groups will be highly responsive," I've quite enjoyed the first half of John Cobb's Reclaiming the Church. I could not agree more with Cobb's call for the church to be more personally engaged in theological construction and reflection rather than letting the "professionals" carry all the weight (although, one has to see the irony in Cobb, who himself is not only a "professional", but one whose writings on pluralism and process theology are some of the toughest reads out there, unlike this book).

Cobb's calling out of the Mainliner's loss of shared conviction will certainly ruffle some feathers, but not mine. One, I'm not a member of the tradition. And two, I think he's more right than wrong. The thing I can't help but ask though is the role more pluralistic theologies like Cobb's have played in this loss of joint conviction. It's hard to imagine a lot of Christians becoming passionately engaged in the task of theology and the shared life of the Church when the question of "what we can believe" and still be "in" is so up in the air. From what I've read (which is not a lot), I know Cobb's thoughts to be highly Christocentric, while at the same time leaning towards an open pluralism, and you can hear echoes of this even in his opening words about "shared conviction." But what convictions are we sharing? Cobb says that convictions must be "Christian," but just what this means seems to be so open to debate, one wonders if any cohesion could ever take place.

For instance, Cobb himself doesn't believe prosperity theology to be "biblically or traditionally Christian," but if another community does believe it to be so and holds onto it, vitality can occur. The question then becomes how we define "vitality," and for Cobb, it seems that "passionate" sums it up. The problem is that we can be passsionately wrong and even passionately evil. I'm just having a hard time seeing how having such loose standards [not just cognitive, but moral and practical as well] of what is and what is not "Christian" conviction can lead to significant vitality. I hope I'm wrong about this, though. Later, Cobb mentions that "Christian feminists" are "Christians first, and feminists second." But if I take his intro to heart, this statement means very little, because "Christian" isn't defined in any meaningful way.

Second, it's not surprising that Cobb's a big fan of the 19th and early 20th century "social gospel." I can respect that. Addressing social concerns such as poverty, labor issues, sex trafficking, racism, and violence has a place in Christianity -- a large place I would say. I'm a fan of a lot of what Rauschenbusch and others were trying to accomplish in their day and age. Even my denomination was formed around social concerns, particularly women's rights and the abolitionist movement.

But Cobb gives the social gospel a free pass on its bad theology [post-millenialism, underestimation of the presence of sin and its effects, etc...] and goes after Neo-Orthodoxy. It is true that Neo-Orthodoxy was a particularly rigorous and required a grasp of theological language that many found daunting. But to describe the theology of Barth, Brunner, and the Niebuhr's (not to mention Bonhoeffer) as "faith against culture" is unfair. . The bottom line is that Cobb wants to chuck N.O. out the window because it called out the theology of liberal Protestantism as lacking. Rather than being "against culture," men like Barth attempted to pick up the optimistic pieces of the social gospel after World War I. To think that these theologians were establishing a theology not to speak to their current culture but against it is ridiculous. They were trying to "transform" the church in their day and age in the same way that Cobb urges Mainliners to do at the end of this chapter.

Lastly, Cobb's two models approach is helpful. I appreciate Cobb's insistence on holding the two models in tension, realizing that "the excesses of each call for the other" (p. 51). But the correlation model, which is essentially what the "transformation" model is (thinking theologically by going back and forth between new understandings and Scripture) raises one big question: How do we define "what we cannot learn from the Bible?" In some cases, the Bible makes very few claims on us, such as the specifics of creation. and so we can feel free to adapt our theology to new scientific discoveries of evolution or carbon dating (not saying we must, but that its much easier to do). But on other topics (such as sexuality, a topic Cobb seems to be itching to dive into) the Bible is not as silent and leaves less room for negotiation. So does our new knowledge "trump" the old? What does it mean to "take the new insights seriously?" (p. 44) That's the question we have to ask in a correlation model like the one being proposed, and I'm anxious to see if Cobb touches it. My guess is that he assumes the answer and never goes there.