The Flannelboard

Review: The Tree of Life (Christian perspective)

2012-02-05T15:28:00.000-08:00

There are head-on attempts at bringing Christian doctrine to bear on the life of our society [however] … something less direct and more reflective is called for. - Albert Borgman

A few weeks after Tree of Life was released, movie critic, Roger Ebert tweeted a picture of a small sign posted outside a cinema in Stamford, Connecticut. The sign encouraged "all patrons to read up on the [Tree of Life] before going to see it ... and [to] please go in with an open mind". When Michelle and I saw the film on a Sunday in October, right after church, it was hard to ignore that about a quarter of those watching had left within the first forty minutes. However, this movie is, in my humble opinion, one of the best and also the most misunderstood film of 2011. It may not conform to traditional story-telling, but if you have an open and attentive mind you will come out of this movie changed or at least with something meaningful to discuss. My hope is that after reading this review you will take time to watch this movie - even for a second time (or attempt).

Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Job 38:4, 7

The Tree of Life was written and directed by Terrence Malick (Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line), and focuses on the O'Brien family in the 1950's. The family comprises of a father (Brad Pitt), mother (Jessica Chastain, Take Shelter) and 3 boys. At the centre of the story is the relationship between the father and his eldest son, Jack. Comparisons, even to Malick’s previous work, are difficult with a film such as this, and even films that come to mind are only similar in a superficial way. Of all Malick’s films it is best compared to The Thin Red Line which not only has reflective portions but also deals extensively with human frailty and suffering.

The acting in Tree of Life is remarkable. Each part is pitch perfect and completely at home in its setting - especially the three children, whose acting is the best child acting I've seen since Catinca Untaru in Tarsem Singh's, The Fall. Brad Pitt is very convincing as a hard man and disciplinary father and Jessica Chastain is phenomenal as the gracious, understanding and protective mother.

The movie starts off with the above quote from Job 38 and the mother explaining that everyone lives by either grace or nature, the former wanting the best for others and the latter wanting the best for his or her own sake. Jack's mom personifies grace while his dad exudes nature. Then the O'Brien's discover that their nineteen year old son has died and the variety of reactions that come with the news: We hear the mother cry out, a friend attempting to give comforting words and a priest's assurance that the boy is "with God now", to which the mother whispers in reply "Wasn't God always with him?" These scenes form a patchwork with no continuous plot or story, they serve to convey the grief of the parents over their lost son. Intersecting these are scenes with Jack - the eldest son - as a middle-aged man (Sean Penn), dealing with the anniversary of his middle brother's untimely death, many years later.

"Lord, why? Where were you?""What are we to You?"

It is out of this untimely death that these questions arise, and it is the basis for the rest of movie. The cinematography and visuals are striking, haunting, beautiful and otherworldly throughout. Malick expects his audience to do the thinking and interpreting while watching. He's not interested in giving easy answers and hints to what things could mean. And such is life, making the movie all the more painful and effective - but there is no trace of nihilism here, the images are as meaningful as they are beautiful. The only answer to these questions we get out of Malick is the answer quoted from Job at the beginning of the movie (above), it is the same answer Job got in his suffering and it is the only answer the film is intent on exploring. In this Malick is daring - almost reckless - allowing the audience the time and space to reflect on these questions during numerous sections of the movie that can be best described as introspective. The creation sequence that follows the grieving parents scene is utterly awe inspiring and done almost entirely without the use of CGI effects (believe it or not).

It is not until about halfway through the movie that Malick comes to focus on the 1950’s family, the opposites of grace and nature (personified by the mother and father) and Jack, as a boy coming to terms with the loss of innocence and his disciplinary father. The tree imagery through out the film brings the viewer back to the first family, the first case of lost innocence, passing the point of no return.

Hopefully this purposefully vague and inadequate description gives the impression that there is a lot more going on here than a simple father/son story, as the movie deals with larger themes of loss, pain, anger, rejection and grace; and never in hollywood format. The film demands engagement from the viewer, to relive some of the painful feelings of inadequacy and hurt that everyone has experienced from their own loss or from their parents, and the anger that can result from it: especially sons towards their fathers.

“Wasn't God always with him?”

Most importantly, it deals with these issues the same way Scripture does, not by trying to solve the mystery of suffering or provide universal principles or guidelines for life (which many "Christian" movies attempt, and are disingenuous as a result), but by revealing the deep humanity of the characters and their utter frailty, brokenness, flaws and sin. In this way the movie is imminently relatable, and although it does not point to Christ it leaves the door open for a response, that something beyond this visible world and just out of sight is perhaps still within reach; just as God was there throughout the creation of the cosmos, He is also here with us, and with you – always.

If I sound like I'm gushing, it's because I am. I have really only discussed the first hour of the film because this is a movie that must be experienced and not explained and is better felt than understood, especially as the story-telling runs into sections that are more 'poem' than 'prose'. It is the high point of what poetry, story, art, and emotion can produce when masterfully caught on film - the climax of which, if you will allow it, is worship.

If you are interested in other great movies that deal with familial issues, I would suggest two films. First, the 1953 Japanese film Tokyo Story (dir. Yasujirô Ozu) about an elderly couple who go to visit their children in Tokyo only to discover they are too busy to care. And second, the 1948 Italian movie Bicycle Thieves (dir. Vittorio De Sica) which is a touching movie about a father and son trying to earn enough money for their family in the poverty stricken, post-WWII Rome (it is available on Netflix).

Armour of God 3: The Soldier's Armour

2011-12-14T23:29:00.000-08:00

Okay. So. How does this all affect our reading of Ephesians 6? Particularly in regards to the items found in Isaiah 11:5 and 59:17 (belt of truth, breastplate of righteousness and helmet of salvation).

A lot of commentators analyze the actual armour, like the belt, shield or sword Paul is referring to, this, in my opinion, is a colossal waste of space and misses the entire purpose. What I want to do is talk about what Paul means by truth, righteousness and salvation. And these ideas do not come out of the Reformation (i.e. imputed righteousness) or the Greek/modern definition of truth, these ideas are found in Isaiah, and that is where we should look.

I will deal with "Truth" in detail and then only briefly highlight righteousness and salvation.

This is the tricky part because the Greek word which translated the Hebrew word looses a lot of it's meaning by the time it reaches the English translation. We don't think about it often but, in English, someone or something can be true in more than one sense. For instance: an accusation can be true, or I can be true to my wife. They both mean very different things, but use the same word. This ambiguity can also be present in the Greek word, however it usually means something like the former. How do we find out what Paul meant?

If the Old Testament is ignored the most common meaning would naturally be adopted, and since that meaning is the same in Greek and English "truth" comes to mean something like "believing the truth". In fact, this idea is so prevalent that one of the major Greek lexicons for the New Testament and early writings (known as BDAG) defines truth in this passage as the "truth of the Christian gospel". This is wrong.

If you remember Isaiah 11:5 (I quoted it in the first blog), you will realize that the English translation doesn't translate the word "truth" as such but as "faithfulness". This is because the Hebrew is "true" in the relational sense, and never means "truth" in the Greek/modern sense. Paul uses a Greek translation here and the meaning gets lost, but looking back to where Paul is citing from it's clear he meant "faithfulness" not "truth". Therefore it is faithfulness to God and Christ that serves as a belt.

Righteousness is easier to handle and a direct reading of the English texts should make the meaning obvious. Traditionally "righteousness" has either been thought of as the imputed righteousness of Christ or righteousness as a virtue (i.e. private holiness). But in understanding the context of Isaiah 59 one realizes that both are mistaken. In Isaiah, God is interested in helping bring justice to Israel because no one else is doing it. The Christian, in Ephesians, is charged with helping God bring justice and righteousness to those around them.

Salvation is a tough one. To be honest, there are probably 2 equally valid readings (although they are not exclusive) based on Isaiah. The first is that Christians bring salvation to those who will accept it, the second is that Christians can be assured of their salvation. Both, I think, can be read as from the Isaiah passage.

The last blog will quickly put all this into context of Ephesians 6, however, I think where this leads is quite evident already.

Armour of God 2: Resurrecting God as a Soldier

2011-12-13T23:28:00.000-08:00

The the previous blog post I said that Isaiah is using Divine warrior language that comes from deep within Israel's history. In this blog I intend to give a very (very!) brief survey of the use of this language within the scope of the Old Testament, which will bring up points that will be important in later posts. But, in order to take a step forward we must first take a step or two back. Staying only in Isaiah will obviously not be helpful for our case because Isaiah is only a small part of a much larger tradition. We need to step back to take a look at the wider view, lest something is missed.

As I mentioned in the last blog post, Isaiah is using a way of talking about God that stretches a far way back in Israel's history. All the way to the Exodus! The theme of Divine warrior progresses and acquires new elements as it's used over the span of the Biblical writings. It starts off very simply, such as in Exodus 15:3

The LORD is a warrior;

The LORD is His name.

Pharaoh’s chariots and his army He has cast into the sea;

And the choicest of his officers are drowned in the Red Sea.

This theme gradually develops throughout Israel's history into something more widespread and nuanced: The Divine warrior restores order to chaos, He uses the Davidic kingship as a figurehead (see Isaiah 11:5), He will only fight if Israel is obedient and throws her idols away (1 Kings 17) and (most importantly!), He eventually even becomes willing to war against His own chosen people, Israel, because of their idol worship and injustice (see Amos or Isaiah 59).

In the same way, the Bible depicts God as "wearing" things such as righteousness and justice (See Deut 32:41, Job 29:14, Isaiah 11:4-5). Isaiah (specifically chapter 59) picks up on these images and applies them to weapons and armour, rather than just clothing, further expanding on the Divine warrior theme found throughout the Bible. Most of these developments (such as kingship and a concern for justice) can be found in the surrounding contexts of Ephesians 6, and they do affect our reading of it!!

How do they do that? Next post!

Armour of God 1: Death of a Roman Soldier

2011-12-12T23:27:00.000-08:00

Did you know that in Ephesians 6 Paul is citing portions of Isaiah when he talks about the "armour of God"? It's true. Now think about that for a second, what does that say about how that verse is to be interpreted? If Paul is using Old Testament passages he is doing it for a purpose and we should take that seriously. For Paul, Isaiah had something very important to say about living the Christian life, and we should listen too.

Some of the portions that Paul quotes from Isaiah are found in 11:5 and 59:17:

Isaiah 11:5 Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness (truth - in Ephesian) the sash around his waist.

Isaiah 59:17 He [God] put on righteousness as his breastplate, and the helmet of salvation on his head; he put on the garments of vengeance and wrapped himself in zeal as in a cloak.

The context of Isaiah 59 starts in chapter 56 where YHWH warns Israel that justice and righteousness need to be persevered because salvation is on its way, but greedy and unjust people are still prevailing and serving idols. These people exploit the poor and the needy but when trouble comes they will have to rely on their own idols for help. YHWH is strong enough to save, but the people have corrupted themselves and righteousness, justice, truth and salvation have been driven out - by them. There is not a single person in Israel who will stand up for justice and intervene. YHWH prepares to go to war and prove that his "hand is not so short that it cannot save" (v.1), he will bring not only justice, righteousness and salvation but also judgement. This is where Isaiah 59:17 comes in (Isaiah 11 has a very similar context), YHWH puts on the armour in order to bring about righteousness and salvation.

In Ephesians, Paul is stressing to the believers that Christ is seated on the right hand of God, high above all powers and principalities. It's because of this position he holds that he can give believers God's armour.

This raises some interesting questions like, where did the idea of Paul using the image of a Roman soldier come from? I don't know, but it's obviously not what Paul has in mind.

Paul has no interest in the Roman soldier's armour: Ephesians 6 is inspired from Isaiah, a book written well before the Roman soldier and using imagery that comes from deep within Israel's history. These verses have nothing to do with soldiers and everything to do with God as a warrior (I'd go as far as saying that the Roman soldier theme not only contributes nothing useful to the Biblical text, but actually damages other's understanding of the text - since it doesn't acknowledge the texts source - and should never be used as an illustrative guide). When the Isaiah context is considered the traditional conceptions of what the armour is no longer makes any sense. Therefore, in ignoring the Old Testament context, the point is missed entirely.

So how does considering Isaiah change our understanding of the armour passage in Ephesians 6? You'll have to check back to find out.

Theological Reflection on Breaking Bad

2011-10-31T21:58:00.000-07:00

In late September I was asked to do something of a theological "review" of a tv show for my home church's new 'magazine'. I happily obliged since I love good tv and because Breaking Bad was in full swing and there was an element of the show that really struck me as profound and I was eager to write about it.

And, since I'm such a giving person, I thought I would share.

An interesting development in TV within the last 10 years has been the portrayal of blatantly immoral (sometimes, evil) characters as good and justified people. Somehow we accept this portrayal. Betty leaves Don in Mad Men and we all think she is overreacting – even though it is Don who’s cheating on his wife. Worse still, Dexter is a show about a serial murderer, yet it seems to convince us that he should not be caught. Breaking Bad does something similar, the audience knows that Walt is making something evil, that brings destruction in its wake; they show the consequences graphically: overdose, violence, death. We even get a sense of how he justifies his own actions: In one scene he dismisses a catastrophe by comparing it to even greater, but similar catastrophes, all because he feels responsible. In light of all of the evidence, he thinks, what he did is not that bad.

Breaking Bad is a serialized crime drama which centres around the chemist Walter White (played by Brian Cranston - Hal in Malcolm in the Middle). So far the show has aired four seasons with an additional 16 episodes already ‘green lit’ by the cable network, and acknowledged as the final season (possibly split into two - eight episodes each). Unlike typical network TV shows, Breaking Bad has a single, unifying story arch, meaning that those who come late to the series are better off starting at the beginning. The creator, Vince Gilligan (X-Files), has known since first pitching the series where this was leading, likening it to his own version of Scarface – a series finale prospect that gives me goosebumps. And while there is a shortage of chainsaws, and a missing 1963 Cadillac Series 62, it in many ways surpasses its mentor and cousin.

Comparisons are difficult, this isn’t The Shield, The Wire or The Sopranos; all of which succeeded by merit of being original. Breaking Bad succeeds by the same merit, offering a look at how one man can make the descent from decent and respected father and husband to being capable of heinous crimes. The one thing that it does share with all the other shows previously mentioned (except The Wire), including Mad Men and most likely Dexter (the jury isn’t out on that show yet) is that it deals with the downfall and destruction of its protagonist. Breaking Bad is certainly a dark and brooding show which exists as an exercise in tension and (rapid) release, giving it some of the most intense and frantic scenes in TV history. It is not a show that is appropriate for everyone, and parents should probably watch the first 4 episodes before deciding whether their teens should see it. Although the episodes vary dramatically in tone and content, Breaking Bad does depict drug manufacturing, drug use, overdose, violence, gore and offensive language – you’ve been warned.

Through Breaking Bad the writers have concocted a narrative that leads us to believe the protagonist is justified. We're not much different, studying and criticizing others is always easier (mentally and emotionally) than studying oneself, we are more likely to make compromises with ourselves than we are with the others around us. Just as we are stuck with Walt’s narrative - and therefore excuse (and sympathize with) him of most his wrong, we are also stuck with our own narrative, that tells us that we also are right and justified. What we need is a new narrative, one that makes life more than about the self.

Walter White is a loser, even if a likable one. Once a renowned chemist, he is now a rather timid high school science teacher trying to engage and teach uninterested students, and must resort to washing cars (sometimes his own student’s), just to pay the mortgage. His 16 year old son has mild cerebral palsy (RJ Mitte) and his wife, Skyler (Anna Gunn), is unexpectedly pregnant. Also unexpected: He has just been diagnosed with inoperable lung cancer, an expensive ordeal. He is a man who feels so obliged to provide for his family, and would do anything to make it happen.

Walter’s brother-in-law, Hank (Dean Norris), is a DEA agent determined to take drugs off of the streets. When Walt realized how much money is available in the production of drugs, thanks to Hank sharing a news clip with the family, he starts “cooking” methamphetamine (“crystal meth”) so his medical bills, mortgage and kids’ future education can be paid long after he is dead. In order to help with distribution he enlists the help of his former high school student, Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul).

It would be a mistake to think that Walter is just trying to get money, Walter sees his impending death (and the required bills that go with it) as a loss of control and this is ultimately the reason he feels he needs to start “breaking bad”. In this thinking there either is no God, or He has no interest in human affairs. There is no hope, only frantic worry about what the future will hold. It’s no surprise that God is all but absent from the show and given almost no consideration, not even in the form of the existential question, “why me?” The only reference to God (that I’m aware of) occurs while Walt is in a hospital waiting room with another cancer patient:

Cancer Patient: It’s like they say, “Man plans and God laughs”

Walter White: That is... such bullshit

CP: Excuse me...?

WW: Never give up control, live life on your own terms.

CP: Yeah...No... I get what you’re saying. But eh... cancer is cancer

WW: The hell with your cancer! I've been living with cancer for the better part of a year. Right from the start it’s a death sentence. That's what they keep telling me. Well guess what?! Every life comes with a death sentence. So every few months I come in here for my regular scan knowing full well that one of these times, hell! maybe even today, I'm gonna hear some bad news, but until then... Who's in charge? Me! That's how I live my life.

Walt’s speech is something of a paradox; he angrily insists that he is in charge. But we know he has never been in charge. He can no more control his cancer cells than I can control my own heart beat. There is a uselessness to attempting control which both the Bible and Breaking Bad pick up on and play with. For instance, Walter’s drug-making pseudonym is Heisenberg, after Werner Heisenberg, a man known for theorizing the “uncertainty principle” (simply put: the more accurately one property is being measured the less accurately another [related but different] property can be controlled). As well, chemistry turns into a metaphor for the control Walter desires; as long as the chemistry is “respected” (to use Walter’s term) the outcome is always the same. The discontinuity between his pseudonym and his chemistry is telling. When he attempts similar control over his wife Skyler and partner Jesse, the results are always less than “controlled”.

The Bible also gives us a glimpse at what humans striving for control will bring. Abraham seeks to bring about God’s promise himself; Moses attempts to stick to the formula of what worked in the past and ignores God’s instruction, costing him entrance into the Promised Land; David attempts to cover up his own moral failings and must live with the consequences of his family’s strife.

Proverbs 16:2-3, 9

People may think all their ways are pure,
but motives are weighed by the LORD.
Commit to the LORD whatever you do,
and he will establish your plans.
In their hearts human beings plan their course,
but the LORD establishes their steps.

Nudging people in the “right” direction does not always work, and is often harmful to your relationships. There is destruction that follows it. While Walter temporarily gains control of his “professional” life, he loses control of his family. Instead of loving and being with his family, he abandons them and becomes distant, all for the sake of controlling what is beyond his reach - their well-being after he’s gone. Henri Nouwen writes:

Maybe it is that power offers an easy substitute for the hard task of love. It seems easier to be God than to love God, easier to control people than to love people, easier to own life than to love life. Jesus asks, “Do you love me?” We ask, “Can we sit at your right hand and your left hand in your Kingdom?” Ever since the snake said, “The day you eat of this tree your eyes will be open and you will be like gods, knowing good from evil” (Genesis 3:5), we have been tempted to replace love with power. Jesus lived that temptation in the most agonizing way from the desert to the cross. The long painful history of the church is the history of people ever and again tempted to choose power over love, control over the cross, being a leader over being led (In the Name of Jesus, p.77).

The narrative that Breaking Bad tells us is a narrative devoid of God, one in which demands that the protagonist continues using power plays in order to secure his destiny, but is slowly, yet ultimately sealing his fate. In this narrative Control is god and a tyrant who demands the impossible, leading Walt into unspeakable evil. While at first killing is an unthinkable necessity, as Walter progresses killing becomes the norm for anyone who gets in his way; if taking a life means gaining the control he has lost, he will not hesitate. It is within this narrative that Walt needs control.

It’s unlikely that many people are going to turn to a life of crime because of their need for control, but regardless, it will adversely affect your relationship with others and God. Control and Jesus’ command to “not worry about what tomorrow will bring” (Matthew 6:34) cannot go hand in hand. Our Christian faith demands a different narrative, one that is not ruled by the tyranny of Control but by the Kingdom of God, a narrative that stretches back to God’s promises to Abraham, Moses, David and us through Jesus Christ. It’s only through a deep Kingdom narrative that we arrive at the proper thinking about our needs and who looks out for them. Our Christian faith frees us from the need for control since it is always God who controls the outcomes. Yes, bad things happen and we should not sit back and do nothing, but God has the longer view and directs the effects of our efforts. No matter what happens in and around our lives we know this: Christ broke our need to control our lives, not with a greater “power” but with a greater love – a love that sent him to the cross.

CT Article: The Leavers

2010-11-27T12:12:00.000-08:00

There's an article on the Christianity Today's website that pinpoints an awful trend that I've been seeing in the church over the last five years. Here's a snippet:

So 20- and 30-somethings are leaving—but why? When I ask church people, I receive some variation of this answer: moral compromise. A teenage girl goes off to college and starts to party. A young man moves in with his girlfriend. Soon the conflict between belief and behavior becomes unbearable. Tired of dealing with a guilty conscience and unwilling to abandon their sinful lifestyles, they drop their Christian commitment. They may cite intellectual skepticism or disappointments with the church, but these are smokescreens designed to hide the reason. "They change their creed to match their deeds," as my parents would say.

I think there's some truth to this—more than most young leavers would care to admit. The Christian life is hard to sustain in the face of so many temptations. Over the past year, I've conducted in-depth interviews with scores of ex-Christians. Only two were honest enough to cite moral compromise as the primary reason for their departures. Many experienced intellectual crises that seemed to conveniently coincide with the adoption of a lifestyle that fell outside the bounds of Christian morality.

However, in many cases, moral compromise wasn't the whole story...

My Movie Quadrant

2010-11-25T21:13:00.000-08:00

I have found that few Christians share my stance on the subject of entertainment. I think most Christians view entertainment from the wrong perspective, and therefore have been unable to converse meaningfully about it. Christians think that it is always what they take in that affects them, but I think it is how they take it in that really affects them.

The problem may be that we have been brought up to think that entertainment has nothing to say, which is patently false. Entertainment has plenty to say, whether we acknowledge it or not doesn't matter, there is always a battle going on for our minds. I'll take two equally horrendous movies as examples, Whatever Works and Facing the Giants. One movie is a comedy by Woody Allen, the other is a "inspirational 'Christian'" movie. Both have a worldview which they (quite blatantly) want you to adopt by the end of the movie. In Whatever Works the worldview is that individuals should do whatever possible to make themselves happy, which is couched in humorous dialogue and situations. Facing the Giants attempts to make you believe that all problems are temporary; should you have enough faith, in the end everything will work out in your favour, you'll even be given a new truck! This is communicated through god talk and (unbelievable) situations.

If one understands what these movies are trying to do (i.e., instill an Epicurean/Word faith mindset) and why these views are wrong or damaging, then most of the power that the films have has been crushed. But the unfortunate thing is that most people will sit and watch these movies judging whether they are suitable based on the amount of swearing, violence and sexuality is in them. They have a total disregard for the worldview that a movie is trying to convey to its audience. It is this disregard that allows for worldview and ethics to be challenged and subverted.

Therefore, when watching these two movies, someone may be appalled at the Woody Allen flick because of its use of swearing and sexuality, and yet find Facing the Giants a wonderfully uplifting movie, unaware that their concept of God has been subverted to a thing more closely resembling a vending machine than the Christian God.

With that said, let me propose a new method of rating movies:

My movie rating system, rather than being a straight line (good -> bad) would be closer to a quadrant.

With the x-axis representing the scale to which a movie depicted an accurate Christian worldview and the y-axis depicting the entertainment value.

So, both of our sample movies would (in my opinion) end up in the same quadrant, #3, because they both had a poor worldview and were both not very entertaining.

Whereas The Little Mermaid (for little girls) would end up in quadrant #2 because, although the movie has been proven to be entertaining, the story of a rebellious teenage girl whose willing to forsake family and Father to get what she wants can't really be considered a moral story.

If you can place a movie you watch into a quadrant you'll be more aware of the views and values that each movie is trying to push and thus be able to think about those thing more intelligently.

My Rant: Offensive Christianity

2010-11-24T16:34:00.000-08:00

I was cruising the blogosphere (on a semi-related note, my computer recognizes 'blogosphere' as a real word, weird) reading articles about how youth need to strive for personal holiness and how being a Christian is 'uncool' because Christianity is about the cross and the cross is offensive. Until now I didn't really think twice about it because I read it all the time from Paul (1 Cor 1:23). But can the saying (the cross is offensive) just be copy and pasted from the Bible into our present context with no thought at all?

Can we really take the comments made by Paul nearly 2000 years ago and transport them into our culture as if nothing has changed? Through out all ages, both that have passed and are to come, has the gospel and will the gospel always be an offense?

I think that 'the gospel is an offense' statement has been made some kind of timeless truth that the gospel would be offensive for all generations to come with often no clear reason other than, "Paul said it". My issue here is that Paul has a context and reason why he wrote those verses that doesn't apply to us today. I don't think Paul's message here is that Christianity will always be offensive, so just get used to it, but that God can work beyond the understanding of man - which in this case, is offensive.

It's not necessarily wrong to say that the cross is offensive - but the reasons for that today are not the reasons when Paul first wrote about it - so providing insight on why 1 Corinthians 1:23 could apply today would probably be a good idea ... instead of just assuming.

Trading One Hoax For Another

2010-11-24T08:11:00.000-08:00

I find this quote from The Authenticity Hoax to be an accurate description of the current cultural trends:

This is everyone’s problem. Eventually, each of us has to look in the mirror and ask, “What is worth doing?” or “What is meaningful?” or “What is sacred?” These are all versions of the same question, and what they amount to is, “Who am I?” Islam, like all religions or ideologies, gives a ready-made answer to that question. But modernity sweeps away all previous answers, undermines any notion of the sacred. And so the liberal answer to these questions is, “Nothing” — or, slightly better, “It’s up to you.” This can be terrifying, and while we can — indeed must — condemn those who turn their backs on modernity and seek refuge in nostalgia and violence, we must also recognize that our own solution, the confused and self-defeating search for something called authenticity, is itself nothing more than a hoax.

The purpose of the book was to detail how people, because of a lost sense of meaning, have attempted to embrace authenticity as a source of meaning and something to live for but, Potter argues, authenticity is all smoke and mirrors, in the end there is nothing to hold on to.

However, Potter's answer (partly revealed in the quote) only exasperates the problem further, instead of looking out to the transcendent, he suggests we turn inwards to find meaning within ourselves - even if it means nothing more than becoming consumerists. He suggests that we should do what is already happening around us, create meaning within ourselves because it does not lie in the world not outside it.

It may on occasion happen that things we find personally meaningful are also socially beneficial, but there is no necessary connection between the two.

Potter describes (although he never uses such language) the bitter end of modernism, and the slide into post-modernity where individualism is king and meaning is something that can only be found within yourself. It may not be ideal, but to Potter it's all we have left. He has substituted one 'hoax' for another, he has thrown out authenticity because of the allurement of another hoax, one far more dangerous, narcissism.

Marriage Redefined, Again?

2010-11-22T18:10:00.000-08:00

B.C.'s legal system is somewhere between a rock and a hard place. The trial concerning whether the constitution allows for polygamy (particularly that of a fundamentalist Mormon group) has begun. The problem is (as I see it, anyways) that the definition of 'marriage' by Canada has already been redefined recently to allow for gay marriage. I think the slippery slope argument is almost always a bad one, but one of the questions circling gay marriage was, "where do you stop the re-definition once the process has began?" It's all just becomes opinion. After redefining the genders related to marriage why not redefine the numbers?

Outside of Christianity and into the world of 'political correctness' the only answer has to be one of 'acceptance' and 'tolerance', where marriage will continually be redefined until it is only a shadow of what it used to be ... or maybe it'll just die off.

Any thoughts?

News link

A Narrative Reading of John

2010-11-22T12:21:00.000-08:00

One of the things that gets in the way of my understanding of the Bible is how I read it. I get caught up in thinking that I'm reading in search for proposition truths. Most of the Bible is not proposition truths however, but stories, and the Bible uses narrative and literary devices to point show us how God works. For an example of this I would like to use two sections from the Gospel of John that, in my opinion, are related to each other: John 18:15-26 and John 21:7-19.

I've heard a lot of pastor's use John 21:7-19 to criticize Peter because he will not answer Jesus' question about whether he agapaw (loves) him, but instead only says that he philew (loves) him. They define agapaw as being a 'better' kind of love than the love of philew. Although this is a plausible scenario I do not believe that it is either an accurate view of the two words or (more importantly for this blog) accurate in the light of John 18.

First, the word differences in the Greek are probably closer to being synonymous than not. This is likely the case for 2 reasons: First, John has a habit of using similar words throughout his gospel that act synonymous to each other. Second, the word agape in John (it seems like the other gospels too) is only used in two ways vis-a-vis Jesus: i) in the mouth of Jesus or ii) the narrator talking about Jesus (and once about God the Father). Therefore it would be odd if John broke what seems to be something of a staple through out all the gospels. For more information you can check out BDAG's article on apapaw and philew.

John 18 is the backdrop to 21:7-19. Jesus is brought to the High Priest in order to be questioned, but the narrator shifts his attention for a moment from Jesus to Peter and another unnamed disciple (John?). Here is the well-known passage of Peter denying Jesus three times:

The other disciple, who was known to the high priest, came back, spoke to the servant girl on duty there and brought Peter in. “You aren’t one of this man’s disciples too, are you?” she asked Peter. He replied, “I am not.” It was cold, and the servants and officials stood around a fire they had made to keep warm. Peter also was standing with them, warming himself ... Meanwhile, Simon Peter was still standing there warming himself. So they asked him, “You aren’t one of his disciples too, are you?” He denied it, saying, “I am not.” One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, “Didn’t I see you with him in the garden?” Again Peter denied it, and at that moment a rooster began to crow.

The verses are self explanatory: Peter, another disciple and other servants and onlookers are around a fire, then people start recognizing Peter and begin to question him, "Aren't you with him?" Peter denies he has anything to do with Jesus.

In chapter 21 it is no coincidence that the narrator shapes the story so that Peter finds himself in a very similar setting: Around a fire with Jesus and others as witnesses (possibly even the disciple who was with him in chapter 18) and Jesus questioning him three times, "Do you love me?" (or "Are you with me?"). Jesus is not asking Peter the same question because Peter is answering the question incorrectly (i.e. philew), he is asking Peter three times because around another fire, with others present he denied Him three times. This is Jesus reinstating Peter into relationship with Him, He is letting Peter know that He has not rejected him.

I think the leadership implications of these two sections are rather important - and seldom adopted by the Church - but that is for another blog.

edit: Changed a sentence for clarity and to avoid heresy - oops.

Bias, Gender Roles and what 1 Tim 5:8 really says.

2010-11-21T16:03:00.000-08:00

Mark Driscoll is known for saying controversial things. In a question and answer period he was asked whether it is right for the wife to support the family and the man to stay at home. The answer to the question (given by his wife) was that if a man does not provide for his family he is worse than an unbeliever and a reference to this scripture verse is given as 'proof':

"Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever."

If you noticed a complete lack of 'husband' or 'man' then you're on your way to discovering why this verse cannot mean what Mark (or his wife) wants it to mean. But beyond the verse is where the real problems lie.

Allow me to provide some context:

Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God. The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. Give the people these instructions, so that no one may be open to blame. Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. 1 Tim 5:3-8

In order to get the real context one has to go on before these verses. Paul is instructing Timothy and reminding him how to retain his integrity while pastoring the church. In chapter 3 Paul goes over what the character of an overseers, deacons and women should be like. In chapter 4 Paul reminds Timothy what he should be teaching and promoting in the church warning him to "persevere in them".

Then in chapter 5, Paul tells Timothy how to treat those in the church. In a lot of ways the focus has shifted to Timothy, especially 4:11 - 5:3, and it's only as an aside in verse 7 that Paul says, "by the way, tell the church what I just told you".

So it seems that it's the pastors who are to recognize those widows who need help. Who are they? Not the widows with children or grandchildren because family should look after their parents when in need. The widow in need is the one who lives a godly life and has no one other than God, she is the one that needs the churches help. Timothy is to give these instructions to the church about caring for widows because the one who doesn't care for their relatives (i.e. widows) denies the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

After looking at the context the problem becomes obvious. First, the context is the role of the church in the helping of widows with no family and a family's responsibility to help their own. Second, husbands in this verse must be excluded by definition because a widow can not have a husband!! Third, gender is excluded in the verses. 'Widow' is the only word that has a definitive gender (female) all the other titles (e.g. relatives) can be either male or female, 'gender roles' has no part in these verses.

This is a prime example of what happens when someone reads their own beliefs into the text. Mark Driscoll believes that there are God-given gender roles that must be followed. So instead of seeing what is really in the text, that families need to take care of each other, his bias has hijacked the text and he therefore reads his views about gender roles into the text, distorting it beyond what it says.

Part 3 of 3: What Nominalism Did and Why You Should Care

2010-11-18T08:02:00.000-08:00

The concept that universals were just conceptualizations in our heads, and therefore at some level real was a seismic shift in thinking, but that way of thinking was soon to be replaced, and once again shifted the way people thought about the world, this was nominalism, and it's still the predominant worldview today.

The shift is a slight one, but has drastic consequences! The argument is that the conceptualizations and categories we make in our head are not real, but rather, they are just words that we use to group similar things together. Therefore there truly are no Universals and our conception of things like 'chairness', 'redness' and humanity (or 'humanness') are based purely on similarity - nothing transcendent connects any of them.

Nominalism is not necessarily the denial of the transcendental, but it is the denial that there is a direct connection between us and the transcendental, if you think that this seemingly small shifts is insignificant to everyday action and though, you're wrong. This has had far reaching consequences.

For instance, individualism becomes a key aspect of life because there is no overarching humanity, only individual people who are loosely connected only because of similarity. In fact, the very image of God gets washed away in this thinking, for how can humans bear the image of God in a world that has cut its ties to the divine?! This ultimately has lead to a loss of meaning. Nihilism (which gained traction in the late 19th century) is directly related to a denial of universals as there is nothing connecting life together, everything is seen as random encounters.

This also affects the church, if a nominalist view is going to be taken for granted then Christ's salvation to humanity has to be re-evaluated because Christ could no longer die for 'humanity', he could no longer take on common human nature (according to nominalism there can be no such thing) and could not reverse what Adam had set in motion - if Adam had set anything in motion to begin with (how is original sin going to be dealt with?).

Lastly, there can be no concept of the Universal Church, only individual churches connected by their similarity - Christ - which, remember, is only a word with no association with anything transcendental.

Part 2 of 3: Okham's Razor and Conceptualism

2010-11-17T09:26:00.000-08:00

The description of worldly relations to the divine has been the predominant Christian worldview for longer than it hasn't been. The reason for the small yet seismic shift is due to a Christian named William of Ockham. Ockham developed a well known theory which philosophically upset the world of the Universals, this theory is called Ockham's Razor. Ockham believed that a true theory did not need to contain unnecessary pieces and all unnecessary pieces within a theory could be thrown out because they are useless. One may say that the theory simplistically stated would be something like: The simplest explanation is most likely to be the correct explanation. Universals, according to Ockham were unnecessary and thus did not need to exist and therefore did not exist.

This theory had consequences however. Because Universals are no longer have objective existence with in the Mind of God the link between God and man was effectively cut. Where Realism would say that beauty is a universal quality that has a separate existence, Conceptualism is one step closer to the phrase, 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Ockham didn't do away with universals completely however, he considered that we as humans conceptualize universals, and those conceptualizations are true. Therefore, truth, beauty, goodness, and 'chairness' only exist in our minds.

Ockham referred to this (that Universals exist but only as concepts in our mind) as Conceptualism. It was a slippery slope because our concepts of universals (in our minds) can be argued to not be real. Conceptualism quickly gave in to Nominalism.

Next: What Nominalism Did and Why You Should Care

N.T. Wright in Langley (On Identity)

2010-11-16T23:14:00.000-08:00

This is going to be quick, but I want to get it out before it's gone.

N.T. Wright gave a wonderful lecture today and I'm quickly going to pick up on one of his points because I thought that it was a particularly interesting one in light of what I have blogged about today and what is coming up in the next two blogs.

His talk was about what it means to be human today. In the being human section he went through what it means to have the image of God, and what it means to be priests and kings.

It was in Wright's talk about modernism and post-modernism that something really stuck out. Post-modernism has typically been portrayed as having irredeemable qualities about it. However, he didn't feel that this assessment was fair. Post-modernity, he contended, serves as a reminder of the Fall and people's lose of recognition that they bear the image of God, as we now have people asking questions that have never been asked before such as, "who am I?" It's only through Christ that we can gain back a true sense of the Imago Dei - and thus serves as a starting point in answering such questions.

Post-modernity and this question of (personal) identity are tied inextricably close to what I've already started talking about in regards to Universals and nominalism. These questions are really searching for meaning in a world that has cut itself away from it's only source of it.

Part 1 of 3: You should care about Universals.

2010-11-16T06:37:00.000-08:00

I've been taking a History of Theology class this semester and it's an interesting course, I like seeing where Christianity has come from and the course it took to get where it is right now. One of the major ideas that is nearly completely lost today is the ideas of Universals, which was fundamental to Christianity up until the time of the Reformation.

Universals answer the question of how one can look at an object and identify it with out being told what it is? For instance, chairs come is all shapes, sizes, materials, and colors and yet when I see a chair, I know it's a chair. How is that possible when the variations can be staggering? According to Plato, I must already have a vague idea of what makes a chair a chair. This is Plato's theory of the Forms (Google: Allegory of the cave, to read about Plato's concept).

Forms are eternal, unchanging realities from which everything gets it's essential identity. They are the transcendental blueprint which, to Plato, are more real than the object that participates in it's likeness. Everyone has a "knowledge" of these Forms, but it's a knowledge like only knowing an object by it's shadow.

For instance, there is a Form of what it means to be human. All humans share in correspondence to that Form, no matter how different those people are, they are people based on that "blueprint".

Neo-Platonism arrived around the time of Christ and they postulated about the One: an oblivious, eternal entity who is Mind, from which everything in necessarily created. This Mind is what conceives of the Universals (which used to be Forms).

The Church Fathers, seeing the obvious similarities between Neo-Platonism and Christianity picked up on this idea of God as Mind and thoroughly adapted it to a Christian worldview. The One is replaced with the Christian God: an eternal and relational being who creates out of his own will rather than by necessity. The Mind of God holds the Universals and they have real existence.

Next up: Why Nominalism Matters to You!

Is Price Everything?

2010-11-14T09:47:00.000-08:00

I got a letter from Vanguard College informing me that there were incentives to being an alumni, such as 7% off from the Christian bookstore site, Blessings.com.

It's no secret that Christian bookstores have been feeling the pressure from sites like Amazon offering every book under the sun and the price difference isn't unsubstantial either. Upon receiving the news I took a quick look at my Amazon 'wish list' and compared prices with Blessings. Most of the time Blessings' prices were more than double that of Amazon!!

Here are the examples from what Blessings had (there were even a number they don't carry):

The First Letter to the Corinthians by Gordon Fee - Blessings: 82.99 / Amazon: 36:54
Suprised by Hope by N.T. Wright - Blessings: 32.99 / Amazon: 14.88
Dictionary of the Old Testament - Historical Books - Blessings: 74.99 / Amazon: 37.80

Totals: Blessings: 190.97 / Amazon: 89.22

Obviously, Amazon is still far cheaper, even with the 7% off.

And just when the argument seems settled: this comes out. Certain people have been using Amazon Kindle's self-publishing service in order to release books that promote pedophilia and Amazon has done little about it. So far, only books that have been explicitly mentioned by CNN have been taken off.

Should the 'ethics' (or morality?) of a 'secular' establishment determine whether I buy there? As a Christian should price be the deciding factor? Should I deal with bookstores that only sell Christian materials because they only sell Christian materials? And if so, to what extent?

I should note that we should not be as naive to believe that Christian Bookstores are necessarily owned by Christians. While in Edmonton I had the opportunity to see inside Christian radio there, and the 2 stations (while I lived there) were not owned by Christians.

Mark 12: An Alternative Exegesis

2010-11-13T10:23:00.000-08:00

The other day I heard a striking exegesis of a well known passage in Mark 12. I have heard numerous sermons preached on these verses, yet, I've never heard this interpretation of it. So, I'm going to give the brief overview of the exegesis, but first here is Mark 12:38-44.

As he taught, Jesus said, “Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely.”

Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.

Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”

The passage is familiar. The question posed is, what is Jesus saying about the widow? After hearing the exegesis the other day I would conclude that the passage has little to do with the widow! Rather, it's about the corruption of the Temple and the "teachers of the law".

First, Jesus warns the disciples about the teachers of the law: those who wear wealthy attire, and sit in prominent positions in synagogues and banquets. Why? Because they "devour widows' houses". In other words, they care nothing for the poor and in fact, contribute to the poor's demise. It's these people, who are associated with the temple, that will be punished severely!

Then Jesus goes "across the street" from the offerings and sits down watching as the rich put their wealth into the offering for the temple. A poor widow comes along soon and puts in her 2 pennies, all that she has. Jesus gathers his disciples and - contrary to popular Bible teaching - does not commend the widow on her faith, but points to the issue within the temple system. This widow gave everything, and now she has nothing to live on and the teachers of the law, from the temple, will do nothing to help her.

The immediately following verses are Mark 13, which is Jesus prophecy regarding the destruction of the temple. While the disciples marvel, Jesus is left unmoved, "Not one stone will be left on another."

Comments?

Red, White and Blue

2010-11-12T21:22:00.000-08:00

Michelle saw the background to my blog and remarked, "Why does your blog look so ... American?"

Then she remembered that Cambodia, Chile, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Faroe Islands, France, Iceland, North Korea, Laos, Luxembourg, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Samoa, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Thailand and United Kingdom all have red, white and blue flags.

Martin Luther's Biblical Justification to Name Calling

2010-11-11T17:30:00.000-08:00

Lately I've been on this juvenile agenda about old theologians (Pre-16th century) getting in heated arguments and calling their opponents names. Unfortunately, it seems that this is a lost art in modern Biblical theology and I'd love to see the art form make a re-appearance!

To help it along, I've been (childishly) taking note of the name calling I come along when reading these older theologians. Here is Luther's Biblical justification:

I have snapped at my opponents, not because of their bad morals, but because of their ungodliness. Rather than repent this in the least, I have determined to persist in that fervent zeal and to despise the judgment of men, following the example of Christ who in his zeal called his opponents "a brood of vipers," "blind fools," "hypocrites," "children of the devil." Paul branded Magus as the "son of the Devil ... full of all deceit and villainy and he calls others "dogs," "deceivers," and "adulterers." If you will allow people with sensitive feelings to judge, they would consider no person more more stinging and unrestrained in his denunciations than Paul.

The Shack: A Case for Story

2010-11-11T00:18:00.000-08:00

Truth be told, I've never read The Shack.

I know two things about the book though:

It's a narrative (story)
It's about God

And really that's all I need to know to write this. So don't get all upset, this applies to any work that satisfy those two criteria - and even works that don't, in my opinion.

I mention the Shack because it's been the talk of the town, both about how good the book is and about how much heresy is in it. I've only read reviews and comments about the book, not the actual book, so I won't make a judgement call, but there is one thing that strikes me as peculiar in the way people defend it:

A lot of people who defend the book use an argument I find questionable, "It's just a story."

(Before I begin, I have to say that my first impression of this argument is that there is something wrong, but the reader just doesn't care.)

I can only assume that by this line of argument the defender is saying something like, "Stories are incapable of talking about God" or maybe something more general and insidious, "Stories are 'harmless'." Neither are true, and I have qualms about the fact that Christians would regard narrative in this light. If the Shack is as bad as some have stated the Christian response against it should be, "It is a story!!"

It's caused me to wonder over the last while how we view our Bible. We wouldn't say of our Bible that "It's just a story", yet nearly the entire document is made up of stories! From the Old Testament right down to the parables Jesus told to communicate the Kingdom of God. If stories are 'just stories' and incapable of communicating anything about the character of God or if stories are 'harmless' (if you believe the latter you must believe the former!) then why read the Bible at all?

But if they can talk meaningfully about God and are 'dangerous', then how we read stories has to change.

Today's Project: Origen - Introduction

2010-11-05T11:16:00.000-07:00

One of the most consistent accusations made against Origen is that he espoused a subordinate view of Jesus. No one denies that Origen taught the subordination of Jesus to the Father, and it’s obvious within his works. However, most fail to state explicitly how Christ is subordinate to the Father. There are a few exceptions, however: Bloesch, implies that Origen believed that Christ is ontologically subordinate to the Father by stating that the outcome of his theology is either Arianism or polytheism (indeed, the Arian controversy may be partly blamed on Origen, or at least his followers). Trigg, dubiously uses a quote from Plotinus (a pagan contemporary of Origen) and references Origen in order to conclude that Origen believed that Jesus was ontologically subordinate. Barnard on the other hand recognizes that Origen’s followers diverged from his teachings. He does not deny that Origen taught subordination, but understands that there are different kinds of subordination and thus discusses the specific nature of Jesus subordination: “Although he teaches a subordination of the Son it is not of essence but only of person and office, which is quite another thing.” Barnard’s distinction is the key to understanding Origen’s view on Christ as it can be shown that Origen steps into neither Arianism nor polytheism. To Origen, Christ’s subordination is not of essence.

edit: updated

Why there is (a lot of) bad Christian Fiction

2010-02-26T21:04:00.001-08:00

Ever since there have been such things as novels, the world has been flooded with bad fiction for which the religious impulse has been responsible. The sorry religious novel comes about when the writer supposes that because of his belief, he is somehow dispensed from the obligation to penetrate concrete reality. He will think that the eyes of the Church or of the Bible or of his particular theology have already done the seeing for him, and that his business is to rearrange this essential vision into satisfying patterns, getting himself as little dirty in the process as possible. His feeling about this may have been made more definite by one of those Manichean-type theologies which sees the natural world as unworthy of penetration. But the real novelist, the one with an instinct for what he is about, knows that he cannot approach the infinite directly, that he must penetrate the natural human world as it is.

- Flannery O’Connor - Mystery and Manners

Cool Whip Church: Conclusion

2010-02-20T18:16:00.000-08:00

People and churches wouldn't be advocating internet church if they didn't think it could somehow be reconciled. David Pullinger argues (in Information Technology and Cyberspace: Extra-connected Living?) that online communities can be as meaningful as non-online communities. However, his only example is a forum for a rock band, whose members regularly meet - outside the internet - in order to attend concerts. For that reason the example holds no water, now if the band held it's concerts over the internet that would be different.

He then shows that workplaces that use the internet for communication often find it more productive then face to face meetings. There are major exceptions however, such as: judging or resolving conflicts of opinion, reaching a consensus or even when objects need to be discussed! The internet is shown to be unproductive in all these areas as many of the visual and audio cues that are needed for most people to be able to make a decision are simply absent, therefore these discussions are best done face to face.

Of course, as mentioned in the earlier blog, a big part of being the church is overcoming conflict, giving opinions and reaching a consensus. These things are essential not only to the church but also basic to community! There is no community, and no church, without these elements coming into play.

It isn't just technology that drives the idea of internet church, consumerism and individualism do as well! These aspects can be seen throughout some of the mega-church movements. In Willowcreek’s Reveal, they advocate that the church doesn't drive long term spiritual growth, but a person’s private religious habits do, such as: prayer, fasting, solitude, and journaling. These habits, supposedly, “are the building-blocks for Christ-centered life.” With such (small) thinking about the role of the church in people’s lives it is no wonder why internet church is seen as a viable alternative, as the interpersonal relationships and community that is advocated within the New Testament is completely missed by these churches.

Internet church also supports a very gnostic type of worldview. The mind, spirit or soul and not the physical presence becomes the most important thing. A disembodied community where anyone can be anything is starting to be seen as just as viable and important a community as an embodied one. The incarnation should speak clearly to this as Jesus did not come as spirit or mind in pre-and-post resurrection, but as skin, bones and blood. One of the important things to the disciples was not just what they saw and heard, but also what they touched concerning the Word of Life!

Internet church then is flawed on a fundamental level. Not only is the church infinitely more than worship songs and a message, the sacraments of the church are impossible to perform over the internet and proper community without bodily presence is pseudo-community that cannot even preform the basic functions of a healthy community, it is not only unsustainable but also dangerously gnostic and individualistic.

What this amounts to is that even the idea that internet church as a plausible substitute for the church denies the vital importance of real community where real people share in life, ministry, dialogue, sacrament, and reconciliation.

Cool Whip Church: Part 4

2010-02-19T17:05:00.000-08:00

It'll be obvious that community itself can not be church. 1 Thessalonians 1:1, points this out for us, the church "in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." Separating it from normal gatherings, from religious gathering and from Jewish gatherings. This is Christian. This is not just a gathering of people, but a gathering of people with a purpose.

I am borrowing from two sources to get a minimalist idea of church, Calvin and Yoder. Calvin’s Institutes sets out 2 marks of the church:

Ministry of the word
Administration of the sacraments

This is a remarkably sparse list of requirement but Calvin has a few choice words for those failing to perform either! Of course, the sacraments, to Calvin, would include baptism and the Lord’s Supper!

Yoder takes a more thorough approach to what constitutes church and therefore Christian community. In Body Politics: Five practices of the Christian Community Before the Watching World, he focuses on 5 areas:

Binding and loosing (discipline and reconciliation)
Breaking bread together
Baptism
The fullness of Christ (ministry)
Congregational dialogue/decision making

He calls these sacraments because he feels that these events are where human and divine action coincide. These are not acts done by clergy, like in Catholicism, but are a social process enacted by the congregation as a whole.

Yoder sees these acts within the context of the church as making social statements outside the Christian world. In the Gospels (and continuing into Acts), for example, the disciples left friends, family and job in order to participate in the new community, this included sharing a common meal as a way of providing for those who had little.

Dialogue is of great importance to Yoder’s idea of church, "conflict is socially useful because by dealing with it, we grow in our relationships to each other." The reputation of the church is not the concern, but the quality of the koinonia (Fellowship).

Paul, Calvin and Yoder need to be seriously considered. Of Yoder’s five practices of Christian community, none of them can be done (effectively) over the internet! Neither could the sacraments that lay at the heart of Calvin’s definition. And Paul’s imagery of the Body and the local church is done a great injustice by the concept of internet church.

Any definition of church that is chosen makes internet church at the very least inappropriate and at worst it is, according to Calvin, a desertion "of the truth and of the household of God" and a violation "of the mystical marriage."