I do not believe John Locke would be inclined toward the spiritual senses that Aquinas has described (see Part Four) whatsoever, but his discourse on Enthusiasm (Chapter XIX of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding) nonetheless contains some valuable checks that can be applied to our evaluation of Scripture and theology.  The following comments on the study of physical nature versus what we perceive to be divine revelation are worth applying to the literal or primary senses of Scriptures versus the secondary illuminations:

Reason is natural revelation, whereby the eternal Father of light and fountain of all knowledge, communicates to mankind that portion of truth which he has laid within the reach of their natural faculties: revelation is natural reason enlarged by a new set of discoveries communicated by God immediately; which reason vouches the truth of, by the testimony and proofs it gives that they come from God.  So that he that takes away reason to make way for revelation, puts out the light of both, and does muchwhat the same as if he would persuade a man to put out his eyes, the better to receive the remote light of an invisible star by a telescope.

…Whatever groundless opinion comes to settle itself strongly upon their fancies, is [to their minds] an illumination from the Spirit of God, and presently a divine authority….  This I take to be properly enthusiasm, which, though founded neither on reason nor divine revelation, but rising from the conceits of a warmed or overweening brain, works yet, where it once gets footing, more powerfully on the persuasions and actions of men than either of these two…

The strength of our persuasions is no evidence at all of their own rectitude: crooked things may be as stiff and inflexible as straight: and men may be as positive and peremptory in error as in truth.  (pp. 708-12, Steven M. Cahn, Classics of Western Philosophy 3^rd Edition)

Although Scripture declares that we—we together, balancing and checking one another and immersed in the foundations and breadths of the Word—have the mind of Christ (1 Corinthians 2:16), we are clearly open to deception.  Indeed, some might interpret 1 Corinthians 2:16 as pertinent only to the original apostles.

We are apt to make mistakes if we search the scriptures for the sake of finding something special.  We need God’s nudges as to where He has some encouragement for us.   A lot of scripture study and meditation is simple.  It may warm the heart and firm the mind without bells and whistles.  To be addicted to the bells and whistles and to strive after them is a sure way to head into errors.

Likewise, we have to be humbly aware of how our pre-conceptions regarding God’s ways (for instance, if we believe He wants us all to be wealthy) may distort what we find and compound our theological errors.  This happens in primary illuminations and can be multiplied as we move into secondary illuminations.  We need our secondary revelation to check against sound, primary reason.

In weeks 9-11, I’ll throw a sampling of secondary illuminations gone awry out there.  These will help us discuss guardrails that may keep us from becoming stiff and inflexible in “crooked things.”  But first I want to discuss matters of language and geography.

Those that may be accomplished or enjoyed in this life that believers desire:

1. They desire now communion with God.
2. The liberty of the enjoyment of his holy ordinances.

Those that may be only accomplished or enjoyed in eternity:

1. They desire that presence of their Lord which is personal.
2. They desire to be in that country where their Lord personally is.

What does it mean that God grants these things to his people? Bunyan gives us five explanations:

“FIRST. To grant is to yield to what is desired, to consent that it shall be even so as is requested: ‘The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble, the name of the God of Jacob defend thee; send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion, remember all thy – sacrifices: grant thee according to thine own heart and fulfil all thy counsel’ (Psa 20:1–4). SECOND. To grant is to accomplish what is promised; thus God granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life, namely, for that he had promised it by the prophets from the days of old (Acts 11:18; Rom 15:9–12). THIRD. To grant, therefore, is an act of grace and condescending favour; for if God is said to humble himself when he beholds things in heaven, what condescension is it for him to hearken to a sinful wretch on earth, and to tell him, Have the thing which thou desireth. A wretch, I call him, if compared to him that hears him, though he is a righteous man, when considered as the new creation of God. FOURTH. To grant, then, is not to part with the thing desired, as if a desire merited, purchased, earned, or deserved it, but of bounty and goodwill, to bestow the thing desired upon the humble. Hence God’s grants are said to be gracious ones (Psa 119:29). FIFTH. I will add, that to grant is sometimes taken for giving one authority or power to do, or possess, or enjoy such and such privileges; and so it may be taken here: for the righteous has a right to a power, to enjoy the things bestowed on them by their God. So, then, to grant is to give, to accomplish, even of free grace, the desire of the righteous.”

I believe there are many other desires that may find place in the hearts of God’s people, but I love how Bunyan employs the use of the word “desire” in an emotional sense. There are many desires that Christians have concerning the kingdom of God and its king, Jesus. Some have been granted with the inauguration of Christ’s kingdom at the first coming and others will be experienced at the consummation at the end of the age.

Amen.

For some of us, that’s a lot more difficult than we’d like, right? But it’s certainly helpful if we want to write things that people will actually read.

One of the reasons why I love reading OT poetry (e.g., Psalms) is because Hebrew parallelism is beautiful. The way that the psalmists communicate the same ideas without sounding repetitive really blesses me. I mean, how many ways can you say “I’m frustrated,” right? In Psalm 69, David finds quite a few ways to express that feeling (e.g., David writes that the waters have come up to his neck, he’s sinking in deep mire with no foothold, and that the flood waters are sweeping over him).

As you’re probably aware, the OT authors are not the only biblical writers that communicate ideas in creative ways. The NT is full of examples where Paul, Peter, or John use a variety of words to communicate essentially the same concept. But not everyone reads Scripture aware of this truth, which leads them to embrace what Osborne calls the word fallacy. He writes,

“None of us ever uses the exact same words to describe our thoughts. Rather, we use synonyms and other phrases to depict our ideas. Therefore, a truly complete picture must cluster semantically related terms and phrases… We would do an injustice to the topic by ignoring passages dealing with the same theme but using other related terms. Here a semantic field approach is needed to determine all the terms and phrases which express a concept.” (The Hermeneutical Spiral, 92-93)

Osborne points us to Anthony Thiselton’s examples: “wind” (such as anemos, lailaps), “spirit” (s?ma, sarx, psych?), “seat of emotion or insight” (kardia, etarachth?), “the whole person” (to emon, me). Each of these concepts are communicated in the Greek New Testament by way of a variety of Greek words. Thus, if we only look for concepts to be communicated in one word, we commit the word fallacy that Osborne mentions.

A simple way to avoid this fallacy is to remember that the biblical authors were good writers. I mean, they were inspired by the Holy Spirit after all! Right? But beyond the issue of inspiration, they demonstrate through their writings that key concepts and theological ideas find expression in a variety of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words/phrases. If you remember this, you’ll avoid falling into the word fallacy.

Do you have any examples of biblical concepts that are expressed in a variety of ways?

I guess I just feel very tired, and perhaps a little “burnt out,” though I’d probably say it’s more like I’m running on fumes at times. I can handle a fair bit more than most people, but lately I’ve been wanting to crawl into bed and never come out.

JUST KIDDING! It hasn’t been that bad, but I have been in need of more “down time” than usual.

I’m well aware of the dangers of being stressed out and how that can be a dangerous place to be if certain precautions aren’t taken or certain things done to combat it. And I’m equally aware of the fact that it is in times like this that our reliance upon God often becomes more formative. A lot more could be written about those two subjects.

But I have come to realize that perhaps the best solution to this feeling is spending time with my wife and my children. Just today I was reflecting on how energizing they are in my life. I’m thankful for them, and thankful for the friends that also function in that way. I’m thankful for them, in every way.

How do you combat burn out?

Those who listen to my preaching on a regular basis will attest that I constantly find myself reminding our congregation of the Scriptures, God’s promises, and how his grace has been demonstrated in our lives.

Reminding people of things is an important part of pastoral care, as well as an important part of discipleship. From time to time, we all need to be reminded of things. In fact, gospel-driven relationships are probably notoriously committed to reminding each other of the “God-factor” at work. What has God done? Where is God taking us? Why has he acted? How did he accomplish salvation? These questions are answered in ways that serve to remind us of God’s great grace.

Pastors: remind God’s people of God’s Word, grace, and great love!

But I’m afraid that many of the Complementarians that I’ve heard talk about Webb have failed to really represent him well. On more than one occasion, I’ve had opponents of Webb’s position represent him as a “liberal” with a disdain for biblical authority. He’s painted as a scholar who wants to erode biblical authority in the life of the church and allow culture to shape our praxis.

Would you please, kindly, stop the bus. I’m not drinking that water.

While I can’t say that I’ve come to fully embrace Webb’s proposal regarding the redemptive movement model, I find it fascinating and requiring further study. But let’s be clear: Webb’s analysis and reflection can and should be applied by Complementarians. How so? I’ll let him speak for himself:

“Given the ambiguity of material in terms of its ongoing applicability, we would do well to exercise charity toward those who read that data differently (i.e., toward both those who wish to retain some modified application of patriarchy in an ultra-soft form and those who wish to embrace an egalitarian framework). Similar to eschatological issues where the biblical issues where the biblical evidence is not entirely clear, the Christian community needs to maintain a healthy respect for divergence of perspective. To do otherwise embraces a kind of interpretive arrogance not becoming of Christ’s kingdom. Nonetheless, what should be clear is that a redemptive-movement hermeneutical beckons for change. Those Christians who wish to retain some form of patriarchy should strive to make the patriarchy of tomorrow more just and equitable than the patriarchy of today and certainly much improved from the patriarchy of the biblical text. In this respect I encourage my reader toward either a “complementary egalitarian” approach of an “ultra-soft patriarchy” approach… While my own preference is be the former, I recognize that the latter as a significant possibility (sic). Both positions embrace a redemptive-movement hermeneutic while living with interpretive humility between now and eschaton.” (Slaves, Women, & Homosexuals, 250, emphasis his)

Webb’s hermeneutic allows for what he calls a “complementary egalitarian” or “ultra-soft patriarchy” view. You’ll have to consult his work to determine what those terms mean, but I’m still trying to determine the difference between my “soft-Complementarianism” and the “ultra-soft patriarchy.” I’m sure there are some, but I’m not entirely sure what they are… yet (which is why I’m rereading).

I’m curious whether Webb sees the exercise of charity given to those who differ between “complementary egalitarianism” or “ultra-soft patriarchy” would also be shown to those who are “ultra-hard patriarchists.” I don’t mean that in a sarcastic way, because I’m venturing to guess that the answer is “Yes… but.” And that’s understandable. He has often been on the receiving end of some silly statements by Complementarians (e.g., preaching a false gospel because he is an Egalitarian).

At any rate, I think I’m going to take the time to evaluate and interact with Webb’s “ultra-soft patriarchy” and how churches can integrate both the ”complementary egalitarianism” or “ultra-soft patriarchy” perspectives (pp. 242-44).

What do you think about Webb’s statement here?

The Middle-Aged White Guy’s Guide to Christian Rap. Not sure what to think about this. I’m a middle-aged white guy who has been and is connected to hip hop culture. The current trend of folks jumping into the culture sometimes seems weird and… silly? Not sure. I think I’ll probably blog on this soon. But this is funny.

Outside the Church there is No Salvation…Sort of. Interesting.

What are the top 10 biblical priorities for every pastor? Hmmm. He has two… what do you think are the top 10 biblical priorities?

A Meal with Jesus: Discovering Grace, Community & Mission around the Table is essentially a biblical theology of meals based on the Gospel of Luke. Tim Chester, the author, takes 143 pages and demonstrates both how Jesus viewed meals and how Jesus used meals… all connected to grace, community, and mission.

Chester’s book is extraordinary, for a variety of reasons.

First, the introduction alone makes the book worth it. Chester lays out a Jesus’ relationship with food by asking a question. He writes,

“How would you complete the sentence: “The Son of Man came…”? The Son of Man came… preaching the Word… to establish the kingdom of God… to die on the cross.” (p. 12)

This question requires serious reflection, because Jesus certainly came for a purpose. Chester has a good answer:

“There are three ways the New Testament completes the sentence, “The Son of Man came…” “The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45); “The Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost” (Luke 19:10); “The Son of Man has come eating and drinking…” (Luke 7:34).” (Ibid.)

How do these three answers reveal to us Jesus’ missional strategy?

“The first two are statements of purpose. Why did Jesus come? He came to serve, to give his life as a ransom, to seek and save the lost. The third is a statement of method. How did Jesus come? He came eating and drinking.”(Ibid.)

Thus, Chester spends the rest of the book exploring how throughout the Gospel of Luke, Jesus “is either going to a meal, at a meal, or coming from a meal” (Robert J. Karris, Eating Your Way Through Luke’s Gospel, 14).

For Chester, Jesus’ “”excess” of good and “excess” of grace are linked” (p. 14). In other words, Jesus’ meals are more than just symbols, they are applications of the kingdom.

For the next six chapters, Chester explores how meals function as enacted grace, community, hope, mission, salvation, and promise. The substance of each chapter is extremely powerful and calls for Christians to go on mission around their dinner tables!

A Meal with Jesus should be one of those “missional required reading” type of works. It’s the practical outworking of what Craig L. Blomberg argues in Contagious Holiness: Jesus’ Meals with Sinners. But make no mistake, Chester’s exegetical insights are solid.

For example, in chapter five, “Meals as Enacted Salvation,” Chester looks at Luke 22 and the Lord’s Supper. He summarizes how food controls us by noting that in the Fall, rebellion was embodied in a meal (p. 103). His way of fleshing this out in this chapter is as follows:

• We use food for control instead of looking to God’s greatness
• We use food as image instead of looking to God’s glory
• We use food for refuge instead of looking to God’s goodness
• We use food for identity instead of looking to God’s grace

Food, as a neutral, can be the focus of a lot of negativity. It controls so many people. Yet Jesus demonstrates how food, as a neutral, can serve in massively positive ways! Chester shows us the following:

• Redemption embodied in a meal
• Hope embodied in a meal

Chester’s reference, of course, is to the message found in the Lord’s Supper, the sacrament that flows out of the Passover meal that Jesus celebrated with his disciples.

One thing I appreciated throughout Chester’s work is his constant awareness of inaugurated and enacted eschatology. It permeates every page. This is one of the strengths of his book, I think.

So would I recommend this book? As I’ve already clearly stated: YES! It’s excellent. It’s simple. It’s profound. It’s… well, it works.

For the past few years, our family celebrates a “Family Valentine’s Day.” Rather than dumping the kids off and going out to dinner and a movie, we go out as a family and spend time together. The love that found it’s way into the hearts of Dawn and I led to us having four awesome kids. We love celebrating our love and friendships together.

So happy Valentine’s day!

#5 – The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God, by George Eldon Ladd. Yes, Ladd is a prominent figure in my list, as you’ll see. This is a fairly short book (143 pages) and was the first book I ever read by Ladd. It blew my mind. Ladd makes the case that Jesus’ central message was… the kingdom. Through The Gospel of the Kingdom, Ladd demonstrates through the teachings of Jesus that Jesus inaugurated the kingdom through his life and ministry (as well as death & resurrection!). This is a great place to begin.

#4 – A Theology of the New Testament, by George Eldon Ladd. How does an “already and not yet” framework shape NT theology? What does each book of the NT have to say concerning this topic? How does it all fit together? Ladd’s NT theology is rich with kingdom substance. This is Biblical Theology being shaped by inaugurated eschatology from start to finish. Fantastic stuff. If you don’t own a NT theology, this is the first one to get! My only complaint is that it’s not as comprehensive as one would hope for (the treatment of some NT sections, e.g., Hebrews, is not as robust as I’d like). But over-all, it’s really good.

#3 - Breakthrough: Discovering the Kingdom, by Derek J. Morphew. This is the best Vineyard perspective on the KOG. It’s easy to read and essentially unpacks the “heavier” scholarly work (e.g., Ladd). Morphew does a great job of tracing the OT and NT perspectives of the kingdom and then providing a clear cut section on the implications of inaugurated and enacted kingdom theology. Thus, we have a specific way of living in the kingdom with specific commitments to the active rule and reign of Christ, demonstrated through the work of the Spirit through the church. All Continuationists need to read this book.

#2 - The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective, by Russell D. Moore. For evangelicals interested in how the “already and not yet” kingdom framework should be integrated into our movement, this is the place to begin. To be honest, I think this book is overlooked by a lot of theologians and pastors, which is too bad. It’s full of insightful theological thinking and the best treatment of how inaugurated eschatology impacts ecclesiology. Indispensable, as far as I’m concerned.

#1 – The Presence of the Future: The Eschatology of Biblical Realism, by George Eldon Ladd. I’ll be honest here. This book will always be my number one, even if there are other books that I actually enjoy more (e.g., Morphew and Moore). Why? Because it was the first real scholarly book on the kingdom of God that I read, and it provided more substance and support for what I had already read in Ladd’s The Gospel of the Kingdom. Ladd traces the kingdom through a redemptive-historical perspective and demonstrates, conclusively, that the kingdom began through Jesus and will be consummated after Christ returns. There’s a fair big of “already and not yet” eschatological discussion, which shows why the subject is not just concerned with Israel, Jesus’ ministry, and the future. It also matters for the church now. This is the scholarly backbone for how the Vineyard Movement understands Continuationist theology.

Honorable mentions: N.T. Wright’s Surprised by Hope and Anthony A. Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future. Both contribute to the theology of the kingdom in insightful ways.

“I submit that the use of the term ‘incarnational’ is not very helpful to describe the task of authentic Christian missionary work. The event of the coming of Jesus into the world is unique, unrepeatable and incomparable, making it preferable to use other terminology to express the attitudes and behavior that Paul describes in 1 Cor 9:19-23. The Johannine missionary commission in Jn 20:21 does not demand an ‘incarnation’ of Jesus’ disciples but rather their obedience, unconditional commitment and robust activity in the service of God and in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is precisely John who describes the mission of Jesus as unique: Jesus is the ‘only’ Son (Jn 1:14, 18; 3:14, 18), he is preexistent (Jn 1:1, 14), his relationship to the Father is unparalleled (Jn 1:14, 18). For John, it is not the manner of Jesus’ coming into the world, the Word becoming flesh, the incarnation, that is a ‘model’ for believers; rather, it is the nature of Jesus’ relationship to the Father who sent him into the world, which is one of obedience to and dependence upon the Father … The terms ‘contextualization’ or ‘inculturation’ certainly are more helpful.” (Early Christian Mission Pt 2: Paul and the Early Church, 1574-75)

Similarly, Andreas Köstenberger reasons that,

“The term that I think captures the nature of our mission according to John’s gospel is “representational.” That is, we are to re-present the message of redemption and eternal life in Jesus on the basis of the finished cross-work and resurrection of Christ. Clearly, John’s Gospel presents Jesus’ incarnation as utterly unique (read the introduction, 1:1–18!), so it is hard to conceive of John teaching an “incarnational model” in which the disciples share in Jesus’ incarnation in some way … The major implication from this kind of “representational” model, then, is that we are to focus on the gospel message, not the messengers, and pass that message on faithfully and accurately in our mission to the world.” ( source here).

So rather than “incarnational,” these two scholars suggest we think along the lines of “representational,” “contextual,” and “inculturational.” That’s a lot of “al’s” if you ask me! But I think their concerns are legitimate.

What do you think?

With the Reformation, changes in hermeneutical predilections were abreast: “Martin Luther (1483-1546) repudiated the fourfold sense of scripture and viewed the allegorizers as ‘clerical jugglers performing monkey tricks.’”  However, Luther was inconsistent in his personal application of this complaint “in that he tended to allegorize the parables and find in them examples of the doctrine of justification by faith,” propagating that which he had protested (p. 48, Robert H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings).  Like Luther, Calvin (1509-64) would comment, “We ought to have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning,” and would refer to the allegorizing of the early church as “idle fooleries” (48-49, ibid.).

Luther and Calvin’s teachings did not occur in a box.  Apart from Catholicism, there were competing contemporary movements that never received the favor of the state.  However, I am skipping over the earliest Anabaptists here, in part because their theology was never systematically chronicled due, I assume, to the large numbers in which they were slaughtered.  They certainly valued a literal, plain read as still evidenced today in legacy movements where women wear headcoverings and as evidenced in their own day by the egalitarian and pacifist communes for which they were hated as a threat to the stability of their stratified, war-prone societies.  They also had mystical arms.

Secondary illuminations did not by any means die with the rise of Protestantism.  Luther and Calvin’s intended corrections were lost on many of their own followers such that allegorical methods continued to hold the privileged position.  Robert H. Stein quotes from Archbishop R.C. Trench’s 1841 work, Notes on the Parables of our Lord as proof that the early church fathers were still exerting more hermeneutical influence on Protestants at times than Luther or Calvin.

My example is Charles Spurgeon, the famous particular (i.e., reformed) Baptist who died in 1892.  He was at once rooted in historical-grammatical interpretive methods and continued to take spiritual-allegorical liberties such as attention to metaphors that might be intimated by the original Hebrew or Greek name-places.  In defense of the same, he writes the following in a sermon on Melchizedek, “First King of Righteousness, and After that King of Peace:”

“A teaching was intended by the Holy Spirit in the names: so the apostle instructs us in the passage before us.  I believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture; hence, I can see how there can be instruction for us even in the proper names of persons and places.  Those who reject verbal inspiration must in effect condemn the great apostle of the Gentiles, whose teaching is so frequently based upon a word.  He makes more of words and names than any of us should have thought of doing, and he was guided therein by the Spirit of the Lord, and therefore he was right.  For my part, I am far more afraid of making too little of the Word than of seeing too much in it.”  (p. 60-61, C.H. Spurgeon, Pulpit Legends: Christ in the Old Testament)

The apostle Paul and other New Testament writers saw fit to introduce layers of import to the text, even further inspirations from individual words. Spurgeon’s sermons provide evidence that he considered this a skill not only for the writers of scripture but also for the post-canonical Body of Christ.  We might avoid some errors by foregoing spiritual senses for literal senses alone, but we lose some of the text’s life—life that we need.  And this is in itself something of an error.

In one of the ironies of theology, the establishment of the historical-grammatical method of inquiry as the valid scriptural interpretation for “conservative” scholars arrived following a publication by a “liberal” German scholar, Adolf Julicher, in 1888.  From there on the allegorical interpretation of parables in particular was finally widely condemned, and a strict hermeneutic developed in which a parable could only have one point.  That point would be its original meaning for Jesus’ hearers (Stein, 50-52).  [See Part Four for a summary of Kenneth E. Bailey’s challenge to the legitimacy of claiming Jesus’ hearers would only recognize one primary point of parabolic comparison.]

Secondary illumination seems a bit like the charismatic gifts in the history of the Church—usually used and misused in some corner while fluctuating in general popularity.  However, secondary illumination actually has had a much more robust supporting history until recently than do the similarly debated charismata.

Given the many valid challenges to methods of secondary illumination which modern conservative exegesis presents, I want to suggest an integrative approach to scripture.  I’ll start by presenting some thoughts of John Locke, applying them in a way he likely would not to the area of hermeneutics.

“The Afro- Americanization of white youth…this process results in white youth-male and female- imitating and emulating black styles of walking, talking, dressing and gesticulating in relations to others. The irony in our present moment is that just as young black men are murdered, maimed and imprisoned in record numbers, their styles have become proportionality influential in shaping pop culture.”

Through the practice of globalization the same big city dilemmas that were once housed in the inner city have been transplanted to the suburbs and around the world. The mindless pursuit of crime as a legitimate form of employment is embedded in the Hip Hop psyche. The mishap that has befalling the church is that it has become enslaved to the very same message that it deems evil in Hip Hop. Dr. Lamont Hill asserts,

“My point here is not to excuse the troubling condition of the hip-hop generation. Clearly, we have moral and ethical issues that must be resolved in order to approximate the level of service rendered by our foreparents. I also do not intend to isolate or vilify the …Church, as they are not the first nor the only institution that fails to fully practice what it preaches.”

In context Hip Hop has refused to connect with an organization that they identify as being just like them-the church. That is why it is not uncommon to hear, “I love God but hate the church.” In hypocritical fashion they have viewed the Christian church as “no better than them.”

The church in an effort to respond to the woes of this community tries to conform those in Hip Hop, to the climate of church. The Ambassador, a former member of the Christian rap group Cross Movement laments,

“Missionaries have been known to go to other countries to transmit Christianity only to transmit more than their theology, but also their cultural preferences. The church is in danger of doing the same thing with regards to Hip Hop. They are trying to give a new generation their Christian faith as well as their “church” culture. Even worse, this narrow-mindedness often leads to a failure to accept the hip hoppers who are in Christ and their ministry contributions. This is a sad commentary, but even sadder, it’s not new.”

This ethnocentric behavior is counterproductive and ineffective. The church has failed to take the time to really become integrated into Hip Hop. Due to the lack of integration the church has developed a misunderstanding about this culture. Though vile at times, insensitive of women and glorifies violence the Hip Hop Nation has in effect become the “baby” being thrown out with the bathwater. It would suggests that these misunderstandings are based out of ignorance rather than being intentional and missions.In disagreement Ambassador asserts,” The hip hop community is one the most needy, yet one of the most neglected by the community of faith (the church). Sadly this is often justified in the name of holiness, because at first glance it would seem noble to flee from such a godless people… Sometimes it seems like the church wants Hip Hop destroyed, not cleaned up…”

Hip Hop has been left out in the cold to die from the stance the church has taken. The church has required Hip Hop to make a change prior to becoming a part of the community of Christian faith. This adds to the frustration of trying to reach a community that has disengaged from the church.

The church has sought to project Christianity from afar without being immersed in the context of the Hip Hop. Donald Larson addresses the need for the missionary to be inside the community in order to affect change. The church has neglected the importance of these encounter models when it comes to mission work in the Hip Hop. They have remained outsiders for which Larson declares has “negative connations.” There have been no models of approach to reach this people group. They have been mix within the totality of other cultures or groups. Dozens of denominational studies have confirmed that the average new church gains most of its new members (60-80%) from the ranks of people who are not attending any worshipping body, while churches over 10- 15 years of age gain 80-90% of new members by transfer from other congregations.

Herein rest lies the problem for Hip Hop as it relates to mission-new churches have a greater probability of reaching the lost in comparison to churches 10-15 years in age.(per Tim Keller) It is imperative that new church plants and missions be launched. In most of the cities where the Hip Hop community resides the response of mission work in little to none.

Allen Thompson discloses 8 reasons for such slow response:

1. religious climate,
2. social climate,
3. cultural learning,
4. financial cost for ministry in the city,
5. limitations of worship venues in the city,
6. use of inappropriate models,
7. premature timing of public launch, and
8. difficulty of developing leaders in high-turnover urban context.

George Hunter made a comparison of the year 1870 versus the year 2005. What he found was that the urban cities in America alone would be where 90 percent on the population would be housed.

Though few in number, there are some churches that have taken the challenge to reach Hip Hop. Some of those churches are Epiphany Fellowship (Philadelphia), The House (Chicago), Calvary Chapel (Philadelphia), Redeemer Presbyterian Church (New York) and Lifeline Bible Fellowship (Denton, TX). These churches have developed infrastructure in urban cities where those of Hip Hop are located. They have been successful in reaching Hip Hop and have thus started planting churches within the same context. Epiphany Fellowship states,

“Most of those born after 1965 (especially African-Americans) have been exposed to western American Christianity. So many of us have become disgruntled with the gap of relevance which exists between this current generation and the past generations. Because of this great chasm, this generation has denied the historic Christian faith and its forms of expression that is distant from their present day experience. Postmodernism and hip-hop have developed a strategic partnership as a means of cultural expression and identity, for those without identity and meaning.”

Many of the missional minded churches echo the same tone as it relates to the Hip Hop. They are a people group that are left out of the sphere of the fellowship of churches and deemed unreachable. Though Hip Hop is settled in the same cities as major Christian ministries, they still have remained unreached. Churches and the society as a whole have failed to develop major statistical data on this unique culture. With an estimated 500 billion dollars in revenue and 37 million people projected in the culture, the church has missed an amazing harvest.

We live in a world where truth is under assault. Issues that used to be right or wrong or black and white are now categorized under the obscure concept of “grey.” There are many who reject absolute truth (absolutely, I might add!) in the quest for a sense of alleged humility. Unfortunately, many Christians have responded to this way of thinking by presenting everything in terms such as “either/or.” You have pick this or that. You can’t have it both ways. Everything is a mutually exclusive situation requiring that you pick one to the complete exclusion of the other. To even mention a “both/and” way of thinking is considered “liberal” or “selling-out.”

And this issue enters into the realm of… hermeneutics. How so? Grant Osborne defines and explains by writing:

“Often two options are presented as either-or, forcing the reader to make a choice when one is not necessitated. Carson connects this with “a prejudicial use of evidence,” which presents the data in such a way that the reader is influenced in a direction not actually demanded by the evidence.”  (Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral, 92)

Hermeneutical honesty demands that we follow the evidence. That is what true exegesis is concerned with – the original author’s intention and purpose! Not what we want him to say. That’s eisogesis, right? And anyone who is interested in hermeneutics knows that is a naughty word. Don’t do it. It’s bad. People will punch you in the face… literally or literary.

I’ve seen this type of “research” presented in a lot of sermons. Pastors will stack the deck with lots of “evidence” that leads to a certain conclusion. Yet upon further examination, that “evidence” is quite empty, and the house of cards falls. If a pastor wants to make a case for Credo-baptism or Cessationism, the “evidence” is presented in one specific way and a lot of misrepresentation and misinformation can take place.

Make no mistake, we do a great disservice to those we are speaking to or teaching if we have to misrepresent people or only present half of the evidence. Later, when they discover the truth, a lot of negative consequences can occur.

This happens a lot with word studies. Osborne gives us an example:

“One example is the use of institutional language by proponents of Early Catholicism, which assumes that the early church was charismatic and free and only at the last part of the first century developed church government. Therefore, all mention of “elders” or “bishops” (such as Acts 14:23; Phil 1:1) had to be late, while language of Spirit-led activity (e.g., 1 Cor 14:26–28) stems from the primitive church. This is an unwarranted disjunction, however, for charismatic freedom and institutionalism are not dichotomous. A good parallel was the Jewish synagogue, which had freedom and yet regimen within its programs.” (Ibid.)

So make sure that something is an “either/or” before you make it one!

vvv

I need to do some more exegetical work here, but I wonder if 1 Corinthians makes it simple. Paul writes to the Corinthians, “I appeal to you… that all of you agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). Upon first reading, this makes me really disturbed the clear differences that exist within many churches. Our diversity doesn’t seem to be a strong suit here, does it?

But I wonder if v.17 is the qualifier? Paul says that he was not sent to baptize, but to preach the gospel. So perhaps the agreement and unity is all about the gospel, and less about our musical styles, models of church government, and understanding of how children are to be incorporated into the local church. Maybe it is as simple as unity and agreement around the gospel.

So the natural question arises… what is the gospel?

What do you think? Is the issue of church unity as simple as this? What would you add?

Ambassador was a part of the Cross Movement before going through the above story. I’ve always liked his music. This is a cool story of redemption and reconciliation. Check it out…

“Added to [the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements] is the newest category that some called the “third wave” of the Holy Spirit. It originated at Fuller Theological Seminary in 1981 under the classroom ministry of John Wimber, founder of the Association of Vineyard Churches. This “wave” was comprised of mainline evangelicals who experienced signs and wonders but who disdained labels such as “Pentecostal” or “charismatic.” The Vineyard was the most visible movement of this category. By 2000 the third wavers, also called “neo-charismatics,” were credited with some 295 million members worldwide.” (The Century of the Holy Spirit: 100 Years of Pentecostal and Charismatic Renewal, 1901-2001, 9, emphasis mine)

There are two quick ways of defining the word “disdain”:

1. to look upon or treat with contempt; despise; scorn.
2. to think unworthy of notice, response, etc.; consider beneath oneself.

I really don’t think Synan is helpful when he suggests that those within the Third Wave category “disdain” the label of Pentecostal or Charismatic. In reality, the concern is first biblical / theological and the second is practical. Those of us in the Third Wave do not generally identify with those terms because (1) we do not believe that Spirit baptism occurs subsequent to salvation, (2) we do not believe that speaking in tongues is the initial and physical evidence of Spirit baptism, (3) we have concerns about the practical application of these two previous issues. Yet we would still strongly agree with Pentecostal / Charismatics with Continuationism and have many, many, many similarities.

I’m thankful for those who went before us as Continuationists… be it the charismatic mainline folks, the early Pentecostals, the sprinkles throughout church history, and the apostles. There is no disdain for those categories! Just some difference of opinion on important areas of distinction! But no disdain!

What do you think? If you are Pentecostal, do you feel disdain from Third Wavers? If you are a Third Waver, do you despise our Continuationist fore-bearers?

Chapell has a few interesting things to say about the dress code of preachers. First, he writes,

“We need to be careful that the exercise of our freedom does not indicate disregard for our calling or disrespect for our hearers. No Bible verse indicates what clothing we should wear in every situation, but prudent observation of biblical principles requires us to consider what apparel seems appropriate for particular situations, congregations, and cultures.” (p. 338).

Chapell wants to distinguish between formal and informal preaching situations. Beginning with formal settings, he writes,

“Formal preaching situations normally require you to dress in what your community considers formal attire. Usually this does not mean finery. Preachers’ garb seems fundamentally at odds with the gospel when it draws attention away from the message (Prov. 25:27; Mal. 2:2; Matt. 23:6). Clothing should be so appropriate for a situation that it simply passes notice. This will not occur if we wear silk shirts in a rural church or frayed blue jeans beneath a suit coat. To the objection that these are but cultural preferences that are beneath the concern of serious expositors (who want fully to embrace their Christian liberties), we must reply that even the apostle Paul did not allow his spiritual privileges to impede the gospel (1 Cor. 9:19–25). As long as a community’s standards did not require him to forsake the gospel, he willingly bowed to them to promote it. If we object too strongly to others’ expectations for our dress, we should also question whether we are more concerned for our rights than for the effective transmission of the Word (Rom. 12:10; Phil. 2:4).” (p. 338-39, emphasis mine)

Regarding informal occasions, he goes on to write,

“When informal situations call for informal attire, we will still find it difficult to communicate credibility if our clothes are ill fitted, dirty, rumpled, immodest, out of style, or poorly matched. Poor hygiene and an unkempt appearance can also get in the way of a ready reception of a message (1 Cor. 3:16, 17). Some communities will find certain lengths of hair, facial hair, or some clothing and jewelry styles difficult to accept (cf. 1 Cor. 11:14; 1 Tim. 2:9). Before crying that these standards are unfair and artificial, remember that identification with people is a key aspect of biblical persuasion (1 Cor. 9:22). Those who minister to the poor and the homeless know that dressing in the clothes a thrift shop provides may best communicate their biblical priorities to the community. Pastors called to an urban financial district, however, cannot usually afford to dress so simply and still be heard.” (p. 339, emphasis mine)

and

“We should not conform to improper cultural standards or reinforce community prejudices, but we gain little for the gospel when we force our own preferences on others. The goal is not to dress for success or to wear camel-hair tunics but to have our clothes and personal appearance be non-issues in our ministries. We have more important matters for people to consider. Congregations will better focus on the more vital issues when we care enough about the people and the gospel to dress so that Christ, not our clothing, preoccupies their thought.” (Ibid., emphasis mine)

I really appreciate how nuanced this whole issue with Chapell is. I think the issue can easily get clouded when you begin to mix “unchurched” people with “churched” people, because the standards of “appropriate” are quite different. But over all, this is excellent advice! And to disagree with Chapell, I’d have to make a pretty good case, right?

What do you think?

“So while some amillennialists regard all of the saving promises to Israel as fulfilled in the new covenant church without remainder and dispensationalists treat them as fulfilled only in a revived theocracy of Israel in the millennium, Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 seems more complicated. While Israel is the church and the church is Israel, this spiritual nation will be enlarged in the last days – this time, with a great influx of ethnic Jews. As I have argued, I do not believe that the New Testament teaches that the church is a replacement for Israel but rather that Gentiles have been grafted into the vine of the true Israel, from which the original nucleus of new covenant disciples emerged. Salvation has come to the world through the Jews; Jesus was sent to the Jews; the gospel was first brought to the Jews, and the kingdom grew from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. In the end, it will be brought full circle, from the ends of the earth back to Jerusalem again.” (The Christian Faith, 949-50).

As far as I can tell, this seems to be the view of Jonathan Edwards, J. C. Ryle, and, I think Charles Spurgeon. Interesting.