My previous two posts (here and here) looked at what many philosophers deem to be a special kind of knowledge, one which is the basis for the standard view of knowledge. It is called propositional knowledge. Here is a short recap.

Propositional knowledge requires three conditions. Propositional knowledge requires truth. You cannot know something unless it is true. It is never right to say, “He knows it but it is false!”. That lacks complete logic. You cannot know that George Jetson was the first man to step foot on the moon. The reason you cannot know that is because the facts indicate that Neil Armstrong was the first person to step foot on the moon. You know a proposition only if it is true. What we must now deal with is an understanding about what it is for something to be true. The simple and widely accepted answer to this is contained within the correspondence theory of truth.

Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality.] Additionally, a “proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts. A proposition is false if it fails to correspond to the facts.”

A second condition for propositional knowledge is belief. If you know something, you must believe it or accept it. Belief in this case is being used in a broad sense. Any time you take something to be true, you believe it. This includes hesitant acceptance as well as fully confident acceptance. If you do not even think something is true, then you do not know it. In addition, it must be stated that you can believe something without it being true, having the facts to support it. Propositional knowledge requires belief, but belief does not require truth.

Philosophers also say that a third condition for knowledge is justification for the belief. What justification amounts to is of considerable debate. Justification is something that comes in degrees, meaning that you can have more or less justification. In addition, you can be justified in believing something without actually believing it.

The modern church has adopted propositionalism as the basis for understanding truth and knowledge within the context of Christianity. The Bible is understood propositionally. Belief is understood propositionally.

In the context of Christianity, however, we must deem propositionalism desperately lacking. In fact, Christians cannot beholden our knowledge of God in a propositional manner. Here’s why. By definition, propositional knowledge must contain verifiable facts. Does the scripture have facts? Yes, indeed. It is a fact, propositionally, that David was a king in Judah. It is a fact, propositionally, that Solomon was a very wealthy king of Judah. It is a fact, propositionally, that Jesus lived and a fact, propositionally, that Jesus died. It is not a fact, propositionally however, that Jesus walked on water. Though I believe that He did, it is not provable or factual.

The basics of our faith are not factual, propositionally; they are beliefs. We cannot factually verify that Jesus walked on water. We cannot factually verify that it was an angel of death who killed all the first-born of Egypt in Exodus. We cannot factually verify many of the miracles of scripture. They are beliefs, not facts.

However, to equate truth as propositional means that we must deal with truth through the lens of an epistemologically propositional framework. To do so destroys our Faith.

Does that mean that there is no truth? No. Does that mean that there is not such a thing as absolute truth? No. I believe in truth and in absolute truth, which is found only in a relationship with Jesus Christ. Yet to define knowledge and truth through one particular framework means that we have to take the good and bad that framework brings. For a Christian, propositionalism cannot work.

The second implication for the church is that propositionalism potentially distorts the gospel. Belief in a propositional framework is used in a broad sense. Any time you take something to be true, you believe it. This includes hesitant acceptance as well as fully confident acceptance. In addition, it must be stated that you can believe something without it being true, having the facts to support it. Propositional knowledge requires belief, but belief does not require truth. To adopt the gospel with hesitant acceptance and equate that to the biblical definition of belief distorts what it means to believe in Jesus Christ. Belief in Christ is not an acceptance of facts It is a emotional, mental, and physical response to the calling of God upon a person’s life. If even the demons “believe” and are still bound to an eternity in Hell, then belief has to be more than acceptance of facts; it is a movement towards God as a response to God’s calling.

The framework that best exemplifies biblical truth and biblical salvation, then, is a relational framework. Salvation is a response to Jesus wooing us relationally. Truth, biblical truth, is found only in a relationship with Jesus and the revelation of the Spirit (I Cor 2:14). Therefore knowledge and truth are best described as relational, not propositional.

Related posts:

• The Impact of Service on the Reputation of the Church
• Unleashing Your Creativity
• MORPHE: Depression in Ministry
• Identity and the Metanarrative
• Characteristics of Gridlocked Systems

Ps 119: 1-8, The Message

Related posts:

• Prayer Support in Ministry
• The Pneumanaut and Prayer…
• Ancient Future Praying
• A Prayer request for Dan Kimball
• George MacLeod Prayer

During my doctoral work with Len, he impressed upon us over and over and over of the reality of a relationship with Jesus. Jesus was everything.

Well, recently Len and Frank Viola appeared on the Steve Brown, Etc podcast. It’s a great interview. I encourage you to listen.

And here’s the manifesto…

A Jesus Manifesto
for the 21st Century Church

By Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola

Christians have made the gospel about so many things … things other than Christ.

Jesus Christ is the gravitational pull that brings everything together and gives them significance, reality, and meaning. Without him, all things lose their value. Without him, all things are but detached pieces floating around in space.

It is possible to emphasize a spiritual truth, value, virtue, or gift, yet miss Christ . . . who is the embodiment and incarnation of all spiritual truth, values, virtues, and gifts.

Seek a truth, a value, a virtue, or a spiritual gift, and you have obtained something dead.

Seek Christ, embrace Christ, know Christ, and you have touched him who is Life. And in him resides all Truth, Values, Virtues and Gifts in living color. Beauty has its meaning in the beauty of Christ, in whom is found all that makes us lovely and loveable.

What is Christianity? It is Christ. Nothing more. Nothing less. Christianity is not an ideology. Christianity is not a philosophy. Christianity is the “good news” that Beauty, Truth and Goodness are found in a person. Biblical community is founded and found on the connection to that person. Conversion is more than a change in direction; it’s a change in connection. Jesus’ use of the ancient Hebrew word shubh, or its Aramaic equivalent, to call for “repentance” implies not viewing God from a distance, but entering into a relationship where God is command central of the human connection.

In that regard, we feel a massive disconnection in the church today. Thus this manifesto.

We believe that the major disease of the church today is JDD: Jesus Deficit Disorder. The person of Jesus is increasingly politically incorrect, and is being replaced by the language of “justice,” “the kingdom of God,” “values,” and “leadership principles.”

In this hour, the testimony that we feel God has called us to bear centers on the primacy of the Lord Jesus Christ. Specifically . . .

1. The center and circumference of the Christian life is none other than the person of Christ. All other things, including things related to him and about him, are eclipsed by the sight of his peerless worth. Knowing Christ is Eternal Life. And knowing him profoundly, deeply, and in reality, as well as experiencing his unsearchable riches, is the chief pursuit of our lives, as it was for the first Christians. God is not so much about fixing things that have gone wrong in our lives as finding us in our brokenness and giving us Christ.

2. Jesus Christ cannot be separated from his teachings. Aristotle says to his disciples, “Follow my teachings.” Socrates says to his disciples, “Follow my teachings.” Buddha says to his disciples, “Follow my meditations.” Confucius says to his disciples, “Follow my sayings.” Muhammad says to his disciples, “Follow my noble pillars.” Jesus says to his disciples, “Follow me.” In all other religions, a follower can follow the teachings of its founder without having a relationship with that founder. Not so with Jesus Christ. The teachings of Jesus cannot be separated from Jesus himself. Jesus Christ is still alive and he embodies his teachings. It is a profound mistake, therefore, to treat Christ as simply the founder of a set of moral, ethical, or social teaching. The Lord Jesus and his teaching are one. The Medium and the Message are One. Christ is the incarnation of the Kingdom of God and the Sermon on the Mount.

3. God’s grand mission and eternal purpose in the earth and in heaven centers in Christ . . . both the individual Christ (the Head) and the corporate Christ (the Body). This universe is moving towards one final goal – the fullness of Christ where He shall fill all things with himself. To be truly missional, then, means constructing one’s life and ministry on Christ. He is both the heart and bloodstream of God’s plan. To miss this is to miss the plot; indeed, it is to miss everything.

4. Being a follower of Jesus does not involve imitation so much as it does implantation and impartation. Incarnation–the notion that God connects to us in baby form and human touch—is the most shocking doctrine of the Christian religion. The incarnation is both once-and-for-all and ongoing, as the One “who was and is to come” now is and lives his resurrection life in and through us. Incarnation doesn’t just apply to Jesus; it applies to every one of us. Of course, not in the same sacramental way. But close. We have been given God’s “Spirit” which makes Christ “real” in our lives. We have been made, as Peter puts it, “partakers of the divine nature.” How, then, in the face of so great a truth can we ask for toys and trinkets? How can we lust after lesser gifts and itch for religious and spiritual thingys? We’ve been touched from on high by the fires of the Almighty and given divine life. A life that has passed through death – the very resurrection life of the Son of God himself. How can we not be fired up?

To put it in a question: What was the engine, or the accelerator, of the Lord’s amazing life? What was the taproot or the headwaters of his outward behavior? It was this: Jesus lived by an indwelling Father. After his resurrection, the passage has now moved. What God the Father was to Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ is to you and to me. He’s our indwelling Presence, and we share in the life of Jesus’ own relationship with the Father. There is a vast ocean of difference between trying to compel Christians to imitate Jesus and learning how to impart an implanted Christ. The former only ends up in failure and frustration. The latter is the gateway to life and joy in our daying and our dying. We stand with Paul: “Christ lives in me.” Our life is Christ. In him do we live, breathe, and have our being. “What would Jesus do?” is not Christianity. Christianity asks: “What is Christ doing through me … through us? And how is Jesus doing it?” Following Jesus means “trust and obey” (respond), and living by his indwelling life through the power of the Spirit.

5. The “Jesus of history” cannot be disconnected from the “Christ of faith.” The Jesus who walked the shores of Galilee is the same person who indwells the church today. There is no disconnect between the Jesus of Mark’s Gospel and the incredible, all-inclusive, cosmic Christ of Paul’s letter to the Colossians. The Christ who lived in the first century has a pre-existence before time. He also has a post-existence after time. He is Alpha and Omega, Beginning and End, A and Z, all at the same time. He stands in the future and at the end of time at the same moment that He indwells every child of God. Failure to embrace these paradoxical truths has created monumental problems and has diminished the greatness of Christ in the eyes of God’s people.

6. It’s possible to confuse “the cause” of Christ with the person of Christ. When the early church said “Jesus is Lord,” they did not mean “Jesus is my core value.” Jesus isn’t a cause; he is a real and living person who can be known, loved, experienced, enthroned and embodied. Focusing on his cause or mission doesn’t equate focusing on or following him. It’s all too possible to serve “the god” of serving Jesus as opposed to serving him out of an enraptured heart that’s been captivated by his irresistible beauty and unfathomable love. Jesus led us to think of God differently, as relationship, as the God of all relationship.

7. Jesus Christ was not a social activist nor a moral philosopher. To pitch him that way is to drain his glory and dilute his excellence. Justice apart from Christ is a dead thing. The only battering ram that can storm the gates of hell is not the cry of Justice, but the name of Jesus. Jesus Christ is the embodiment of Justice, Peace, Holiness, Righteousness. He is the sum of all spiritual things, the “strange attractor” of the cosmos. When Jesus becomes an abstraction, faith loses its reproductive power. Jesus did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live.

8. It is possible to confuse an academic knowledge or theology about Jesus with a personal knowledge of the living Christ himself. These two stand as far apart as do the hundred thousand million galaxies. The fullness of Christ can never be accessed through the frontal lobe alone. Christian faith claims to be rational, but also to reach out to touch ultimate mysteries. The cure for a big head is a big heart.

Jesus does not leave his disciples with CliffsNotes for a systematic theology. He leaves his disciples with breath and body.

Jesus does not leave his disciples with a coherent and clear belief system by which to love God and others. Jesus gives his disciples wounds to touch and hands to heal.

Jesus does not leave his disciples with intellectual belief or a “Christian worldview.” He leaves his disciples with a relational faith.

Christians don’t follow a book. Christians follow a person, and this library of divinely inspired books we call “The Holy Bible” best help us follow that person. The Written Word is a map that leads us to The Living Word. Or as Jesus himself put it, “All Scripture testifies of me.” The Bible is not the destination; it’s a compass that points to Christ, heaven’s North Star.

The Bible does not offer a plan or a blueprint for living. The “good news” was not a new set of laws, or a new set of ethical injunctions, or a new and better PLAN. The “good news” was the story of a person’s life, as reflected in The Apostle’s Creed. The Mystery of Faith proclaims this narrative: “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again.” The meaning of Christianity does not come from allegiance to complex theological doctrines, but a passionate love for a way of living in the world that revolves around following Jesus, who taught that love is what makes life a success . . . not wealth or health or anything else: but love. And God is love.

9. Only Jesus can transfix and then transfigure the void at the heart of the church. Jesus Christ cannot be separated from his church. While Jesus is distinct from his Bride, he is not separate from her. She is in fact his very own Body in the earth. God has chosen to vest all of power, authority, and life in the living Christ. And God in Christ is only known fully in and through his church. (As Paul said, “The manifold wisdom of God – which is Christ – is known through the ekklesia.”)

The Christian life, therefore, is not an individual pursuit. It’s a corporate journey. Knowing Christ and making him known is not an individual prospect. Those who insist on flying life solo will be brought to earth, with a crash. Thus Christ and his church are intimately joined and connected. What God has joined together, let no person put asunder. We were made for life with God; our only happiness is found in life with God. And God’s own pleasure and delight is found therein as well.

10. In a world which sings, “Oh, who is this Jesus?” and a church which sings, “Oh, let’s all be like Jesus,” who will sing with lungs of leather, “Oh, how we love Jesus!”

If Jesus could rise from the dead, we can at least rise from our bed, get off our couches and pews, and respond to the Lord’s resurrection life within us, joining Jesus in what he’s up to in the world. We call on others to join us—not in removing ourselves from planet Earth, but to plant our feet more firmly on the Earth while our spirits soar in the heavens of God’s pleasure and purpose. We are not of this world, but we live in this world for the Lord’s rights and interests. We, collectively, as the ekklesia of God, are Christ in and to this world.

May God have a people on this earth who are a people of Christ, through Christ, and for Christ. A people of the cross. A people who are consumed with God’s eternal passion, which is to make his Son preeminent, supreme, and the head over all things visible and invisible. A people who have discovered the touch of the Almighty in the face of his glorious Son. A people who wish to know only Christ and him crucified, and to let everything else fall by the wayside. A people who are laying hold of his depths, discovering his riches, touching his life, and receiving his love, and making HIM in all of his unfathomable glory known to others.

The two of us may disagree about many things—be they ecclesiology, eschatology, soteriology, not to mention economics, globalism and politics.

But in our two most recent books—From Eternity to Here and So Beautiful—we have sounded forth a united trumpet. These books are the Manifests to this Manifesto. They each present the vision that has captured our hearts and that we wish to impart to the Body of Christ— “This ONE THING I know” (Jn.9:25) that is the ONE THING that unites us all:

Jesus the Christ.

Christians don’t follow Christianity; Christians follow Christ.
Christians don’t preach themselves; Christians proclaim Christ.
Christians don’t point people to core values; Christians point people to the cross.
Christians don’t preach about Christ: Christians preach Christ.

Over 300 years ago a German pastor wrote a hymn that built around the Name above all names:
Ask ye what great thing I know,
that delights and stirs me so?
What the high reward I win?
Whose the name I glory in?
Jesus Christ, the crucified.

This is that great thing I know;
this delights and stirs me so:
faith in him who died to save,
His who triumphed o’er the grave:
Jesus Christ, the crucified.

—

Jesus Christ – the crucified, resurrected, enthroned, triumphant, living Lord.

He is our Pursuit, our Passion, and our Life.

Amen.

*****

Related posts:

• What I Dig About Jesus
• Disturbing equilibrium
• That’s My Jesus
• If you want to lead me to Jesus
• Youtube Tuesday: My Jesus

This continues our look at the discipline called epistemology, or the study of knowledge and how people acquire it. I am relying on introductions to epistemology from two authors: Richard Feldman and his book Epistemology in the Foundations of Philosophy Series and Robert Audi’s second edition of Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy).

What is required for propositional knowledge, then if it holds such a special status? This is the question we will try to come to terms with in this post.

It is easy to come up with two conditions for propositional knowledge. They are truth and belief.

Propositional knowledge requires truth. You cannot know something unless it is true It is never right to say, “He knows it but it is false!”. That lacks complete logic. You cannot know that George Jetson was the first man to step foot on the moon. The reason you cannot know that is because the facts indicate that Neil Armstrong was the first person to step foot on the moon. You know a proposition only if it is true. What we must now deal with is an understanding about what it is for something to be true. The simple and widely accepted answer to this is contained within the correspondence theory of truth.

Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or facts on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. [1] Additionally, a “proposition is true if and only if it corresponds to the facts. A proposition is false if it fails to correspond to the facts.” [2]

Whether a proposition is true or not does not depend in any way on what anyone believes about it. It only depends on the actual facts at hand. Also, in this theory of truth, truth is not relative. No single proposition can be true for you and not for me. Additionally, Correspondence Theory does not justify any kind of dogmatism or intolerant attitude toward people who disagree with you. It is possible that the mere fact that others disagree wit you show provide some reason to reconsider you view. Finally, Correspondence Theory does not imply that things cannot change.

A second condition for propositional knowledge is belief. If you know something, you must believe it or accept it. Belief in this case is being used in a broad sense. Any time you take something to be true, you believe it. This includes hesitant acceptance as well as fully confident acceptance. If you do not even think something is true, then you do not know it. In addition, it must be stated that you can believe something without it being true, having the facts to support it. Propositional knowledge requires belief, but belief does not require truth.

Philosophers also say that a third condition for knowledge is justification for the belief. What justification amounts to is of considerable debate. Justification is something that comes in degrees, meaning that you can have more or less justification. In addition, you can be justified in believing something without actually believing it. Say, as an example, that Bob has studied long hours for a test and did well on all the practice tests. He has a basis for believing that he did well, but he is insecure. He never believes that he has done well and does not believe that he has done well on this exam. Even though he does not believe that he has passed the exam, he is justified in believing he has passed the exam. To be justified in believing a proposition “is to have what is required to be highly reasonable in believing it, whether a person actually believes it or not.” [3]

There are great implications for ministry here. Can you note them? Are they right?

NOTES:
[1] Wikipedia contributors, “Correspondence theory of truth,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Correspondence_theory_of_truth&oldid=319739784 (accessed October 28, 2009).
[2] Feldman, 17.
[3] Ibid., 22.

Related posts:

• Propositionalism’s failure and its impact on the church
• Knowledge – An introduction
• Propositional Truth
• The Theology of Journey: Grey Theology
• Communicating to change lives: communication design

In this edition of MORPHE, I begin by looking at the themes in the lectionary texts for November 1, 2009 and provide some unifying thoughts. I also note the idea of justification in Ps. 24 and its comparison to NT Wright’s thoughts on justification.

Regarding the lectionary, I’ve used it some in the past, but think I will begin to use it more in the future. Many thanks to my dear friend Todd Littleton for the modeling of this. I’m hoping not to step on his toes with my podcast

Related posts:

• MORPHE V1.1: Ancient Spirituality and the SBC
• Theology of Justification: Michael Gorman – Part One
• MORPHE: No Pleroo without Kenoo
• MORPHE: The Importance of Eschatology
• MORPHE: Election Week Edition

Today I am going to begin work on a series of articles on epistemology. Epistemology seeks to develop a general theory stating the conditions under which people have knowledge and rational beliefs. It is the study of knowledge. During this journey I will be relying on introductions to epistemology from two authors: Richard Feldman and his book Epistemology in the Foundations of Philosophy Series and Robert Audi’s second edition of Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction (Routledge Contemporary Introductions to Philosophy).

There are several sources of knowledge. What we know about our immediate environment comes from perception and sensation. This is our awareness of external things and comes through sight, hearing and the other senses. Yet it does not account for our knowledge of our own internal states. For instance, you know you feel sleepy. This is a result of introspection. Other times we know something through reasoning or inference. For instance, when we know some facts and see that those facts support some other fact, we can come to know that additional fact. Scientific knowledge seems to arise from inferences from observations. We know some things because we can “see” they are true. We have the ability to think about things and discern certain simple truths. Additionally, memory is crucial in the knowledge of our past and in certain facts. A person’s testimony can also be a source of knowledge. Testimony is not limited to statements made on a witness stand. It includes what other people tell you, including what they tell you about what they know from their environment. The complete list looks like this:

• Perception
• Memory
• Testimony
• Introspection
• Reasoning
• Rational insight

From these sources, epistemologists develop what is called The Standard View, which basically states that there are many sources of knowledge and they include those listed above. The subject matter of epistemology arises from The Standard View.
Obviously, for the christian, there is one primary source that are not included on this list. This is metaphysical knowledge or knowledge resulting from the interaction through religious practices and experiences.

The Standard View also holds that propositional knowledge is more fundamental than other types of knowledge. In epistemology in general, the kind of knowledge usually discussed is propositional knowledge, also known as “knowledge-that” as opposed to “knowledge-how.” For example: in mathematics, it is known that 2 + 2 = 4, but there is also knowing how to add two numbers. Many (but not all) philosophers therefore think there is an important distinction between “knowing that” and “knowing how”, with epistemology primarily interested in the former. A third type of knowing is “knowing of”, or knowledge by acquaintance also exists.

In Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy, Michael Polanyi articulates a case for the epistemological relevance of two forms of knowledge (knowledge-that and knowledge-how) using the example of the act of balance involved in riding a bicycle, he suggests that the theoretical knowledge of the physics involved in maintaining a state of balance cannot substitute for the practical knowledge of how to ride, and that it is important to understand how both are established and grounded.

Philosophers admit that propositional knowledge cannot explain everything. However, it does hold a special status.

Related posts:

• The Forgotten Ways
• The conditions for propositional knowledge
• Propositionalism’s failure and its impact on the church
• Made to Stick
• Blogging the Spiritual Disciplines

Manifold Witness

Dr. John Franke is the Lester and Kay Clemens Professor of Missional Theology at Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, PA, a suburb of Philadelphia. A couple of years ago, I had the privilege of having lunch with him just to talk about theology, faith, and the emerging church. He was a gracious host. In addition, he challenged me with a question regarding the Trinity that changed my whole perspective of ministry and of God. He asked me, “What does it mean to hold to a Trinitarian theology?” In other words, what are the practical implications of a trinitarian theology? That set me on a journey that ended in me looking at all of ministry through the lens of the character, nature and function of the Trinity. I have called that concept the MIROR.

Dr. Franke has written a new book called Manifold Witness: The Plurality of Truth (Living Theology). The title is quite provocative and alone causes concern for many. However, if people will take the time to read the book, they will find a treasure chest full of wisdom, theology, and insight that can help them understand God, Truth, and knowledge. It will also cause them to consider the gospel and how it operates in culture.

Franke’s thesis is this: “the expression of biblical and orthodox Christian faith is inherently and irreducibly pluralist. The diversity of the Christian faith is not, as some approaches to church and theology might seem to suggest, a problem that needs to be overcome. Instead, this diversity is part of the divine design and intention for the church as the image of God and the body of Christ in the world.”

His thesis is an attempt to deal with this issue: “if the Bible is the Word of God, given so that all God’s people may be thoroughly equipped for every good work, and if God gives wisdom liberally to those who ask, and if the Holy Spirit is at work guiding the church into all truth, how are we to account for and make sense of the plurality of the church? Why is it that Christians from across time and around the world, seeing guidance and understanding concerning the mysteries of life, and the hope of the gospel, have come away from their study carrels and their prayer meetings with such different conclusions on nearly every aspect of the one faith?”

The word that gets everyone’s attention is the word plurality. Franke asserts that all human knowledge involves interpretation – that is is shaped by the conditions and situations from which it emerges. However, Franke also asserts that just because human knowledge and perceptions of truth are always formed in the midst of particular situations, this does not mean that ultimate truth does not exist. God has been revealed in the person of Jesus Christ and thus the reality of ultimate or transcendent truth is to be affirmed despite the acknowledgment of the interpretive character of human knowledge. In this, Franke follows the line of contemporary brain research on how we understand ourselves and our world as well as frameworks in epistemology, though these disciplines in general ignore the metaphysical.

In the book, Franke develops this theme in the areas of church history, church tradition, and church mission. He also indicates that his view of plurality can be expressed even in the orthodox view of God. God is both plural and singular. He is plural as in the three persons of the Trinity and yet singular in the Godhead. Therefore, truth and knowledge hold in tension plurality-in-unity and unity-in-plurality. Diversity of belief is thus an expression of the Trinity.

The implications of this plurality are found in the various denominations that have developed throughout church history. It also finds itself in the very different expressions of theology within the church. Franke’s idea is that if there is plurality, the full expression of understanding about God can be found in learning and appreciating various theological constructs. This is because theology is not a universal language. It is situated within the the reflections, goals and culture of a particular people and community. White, Western, reformed people view theology from that cutlure. White, Western, arminian people view theology differently. Theology formation is born out of the experiences and stories of the people doing theology. A black man or women may have a different understanding of theology based on whether they grew up in the ghettos of New York or in the suburbia of the Midwest or the in the homes of those who marched with Dr. Martin Luther King in South. And we can learn from their perspective. That doesn’t necessarily require agreement; yet at the same time, it may open us up to a different understanding of the heart of God.

It also finds its expression in the gospel. The gospel is an enculturated story. Franke agrees with Leslie Newbiggin who says, “Every interpretation of the gospel is embedding in some cultural form”. (118) The challenge for faithful Christian witness is not to arrive at some form of unenculturated gospel or theology but to be able to discern between legitimate and illegitimate enculturations of the gospel and theology.

The church engages in the task of theological reflection through the development and articulation of models of Christian faith. The sources of construction for these models “are the Bible, the thought-forms of the contemporary setting, and the traditions that make up the tradition of the church. The intent of this constructive process is to envision all of life in relationship to the living God, revealed in Jesus Christ by means of biblically normed, historically informed, and contextually relevant models and articulations of Christian faith that communicate the Christian story and its invitation to participate in the reconciling and liberating mission of God.” (120)

I do have a couple of criticisms of the book. First, I would have appreciated Franke giving us some examples of legitimate and illegitimate enculturations of the the gospel and theology. I understand that this was not primarily a practical theology book, but some practical expressions of this thought would have been helpful. I appreciate that he may want us to do the hard work of figuring those out for ourselves, but an example or two would have been nice.

Secondly, Franke notes the following:

The Spirit engages in the ongoing work of speaking to the church in its varied setting through the appropriation of the text. This does not eliminate the importance of exegesis in an effort to engage the voice of the author, but it does point to the idea that the speaking of the Spirit is not bound solely to the original intention of the biblical authors. Literary theorists note that one an author writes a text, it takes on a life of its own as it is read and interpreted in new and constantly changing situations. The speaking of the Spirit through the texts of Scripture means that while the intention of the author is an important concern, it is not the only concern. It does not represent the fullness of the speaking of the Spirit, since this always involves the response of the reader. (77)

I find this statement discomforting. In part because I have been taught that it can’t mean today what it didn’t mean when it was written. That was the mantra of my New Testament professor. I would have appreciated Franke unpacking this further, providing some practical expression of this that would enable me to get a more complete picture of what he was trying to communicate.

Overall, I think this book has great value.

Note to the FTC: I bought this book myself!

Related posts:

• Truth: absolute, relative, or relational?
• Josh McDowell on relational truth
• Welch announces retirement plans in letter to First Baptist Daytona members
• Truth and Missional Living
• What aspect does culture play in truth?

Related posts:

• Monday Highlights: God’s Victory!
• It’s official!
• Re-inventing Leadership 1
• Re-inventing Leadership 4: Leadership Must be Redefined with Humility
• The MIROR: Organic Leadership

I grew up in North Alabama, a mere hour from the city that built the rockets that put men on the moon and the Space Shuttle into orbit. I had a dream of being an astronaut. As a kid, I had a telescope with which I could view the stars. I also had a blue astronaut outfit that I wore quite a bit. I was even the flight director on a shuttle simulator during a week of the very first Space Camp. I love the stars.

Recently, a well known evangelical writer offered to talk with those who pastor small churches if they sent him a direct message on twitter. He would call them and talk with them about their ministry. I know this writer. He has planted churches and pastored them, been a teacher and denominational employee. However, it has been quite a while since he has pastored a small church. The thought came to me: can someone who hasn’t pastored a small church in more than a decade give advice and suggestions to someone who is currently pastoring a small church? That question led me to another: Why do we clamor for the opinions of celebrity leaders and large church pastors? Why do we chase after the stars?

1. May of us want to be like these celebrities.

The morning I met Bob Roberts, of Northwood Church in Keller, TX and Glocalnet, I told someone that Bob Roberts was the Southern Baptist I wanted to be. And I meant it. I saw what he was doing and wanted to do it in Delaware. I wanted the impact he was having. I wanted to influence as he was influencing.

Unfortunately, so many of us, especially younger pastors, don’t really know who we are yet. So we want to be someone else. We want to do what they do, and go where they go and say what they say. We even wear what they wear (remember all the pastor wearing Hawaiian shirts after coming back from a Rick Warren conference?) We don’t know how to be who we are. More on this in a moment.

2. We think they are successful. We want to be successful so we model ourselves after people we deem successful.

Yet many ministers have a flawed understanding of success. Here is why.

1. We are numbers-oriented. We have adopted a CEO-based concept of success. We see things in terms of statistics. It is what we celebrate. Because we celebrate numbers, that becomes what we measure. It is a closed loop system where the output, numbers, becomes the basis for inputs, which then reinforce the output. Large church pastors then have credibility based on the standard definition of success.

2. We are a pragmatic people. We desperately want to know what works, regardless of the context. Any idea we can try to grow our numbers is a welcomed addition to our ministry arsenal. If we are honest, there are even times when we look for ideas because we haven’t done the hard work to come up with our own ideas or haven’t spent the time listening to God to give us His ideas.

I was watching a video of Len Sweet speaking recently. He gave some concepts and ideas about an topic he was asked to speak on. During the question and answer time, Len was asked to walk through his thoughts and tell how they can be practically applied. Len is an architect kind of thinker. Architects design, contractors implement. That is not to say that Len can’t implement, just that he is at his best, I think, as an architect. What Len wanted to see happen, I believe, is for each of the folks in the conference to take the ideas and determine their own ways to implement those ideas. Our pragmatic mindset, however, often means we don’t do the hard work of thinking for ourselves.

Why we should limit our star-gazing?

1. In some matters of practical ministry, current perspective colors past success. What I mean by this is that what we do in the present can distort our view what we did in the past.

Our mind is a funny thing. Studies show that even after a short period of time, we have a distorted view of what actually happened. The pioneer cognitive psychologist, Ulric Neisser, examined people’s memories of the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger at two different times in the people’s lives – the day after and several years later. While most of the subjects stated that their memories of what they were doing that day were clear, in many instances the memory at the later date was dramatically different than the memory reported the day after the tragedy. [1]

What we think we did in the past may, in fact, be completely different that what we actually did. So when a pastor recounts how they implemented a plan or process, if they do not have specific recall and specific notes as well as others who walked through the process with them that confirm what was done, that leader may not be recounting correctly.

In addition, they may be looking through current “successes” and seeing actions from the past that didn’t happen. In doing so they are viewing the past through the present which will create a distorted understanding of the past. Therefore, we have to be careful at the value we place on the practices and processes of those we elevate to star status.

2. Each person is unique. You can’t replicate what someone has done because you are not that person. You do not have the same gifts and talents as that person. Simply trying to replicate what someone else has done could be disastrous. In addition, the experiences that form and shape each person are unique. I remember reading (or hearing) John Maxwell say one time that when has people come up to him and mention that they want to do what he does, he makes a bold statement. He says, “Are you willing to go through what I have gone through to do what I do?” The reason we can do what we do is because we have gone through what we have gone through. And that will be different for everyone.

3. The context is unique. The context that you live and minister and serve in is unique from the context the celebrity lives and serves in or lived and served in. Context in ministry is crucial to doing ministry.

So how do we gaze at the stars and not try to become the stars we see?

1. Learn to be who you were designed and purposed to be. That takes time. That takes dealing with the pain and struggles God has allowed in your life. Discover who you are, not who other people are.If you can do that, then…

2. Learn concepts and ideas instead of merely embracing the pragmatics of ministry. When I read books on ministry now, I read for concept, not for details. Concepts are transferable, details are not. Many ministry books are descriptive, not prescriptive in nature, yet the descriptive concepts are turned into prescriptive truths. The same is true for conferences. We need to be aware of that.

3. Read opposing views, particularly fair, gracious, and loving critics. When I was in college, I had a guy disciple me who was a youth pastor. We were talking about salvation one day, and I mentioned that I had picked up a book by John McArthur called “The Gospel According to Jesus”. He told me something I will never forget. He said, “You need to read an opposing view, discover both sides of the argument and then make your own determination.” So I did. And I was better for it. If you can get multiple perspectives, then that helps you place each person, each star you see, in a more realistic position. They are not on a pedestal nor are they in a tomb. They are who they are and do what they do and while you appreciate what they do, you do not elevate them to an improper position just below Jesus or the apostles.

4. Find a coach, not a model. A coach helps you discover your own ideas. A model is something you imitate.

NOTES:
1. Eugene Winograd and Ulric Neisser, Affect and Accuracy in Recall: Studies Of “Flashbulb” Memories, Emory Symposia in Cognition; 4 (Cambridge ; New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 9-10.

Related posts:

• The Science of Gossip
• Book Review: Experiencing the Trinity
• links for 2008-06-27
• Youtube Tuesday: Simply Christian Part 1
• Youtube Tuesday: Simply Christian Part 2

Great track by Beckon Q.  Beckon Q is a pop acoustic rock band whose style combines influences from Over the Rhine, Dashboard Confessional, Colbie Caillat, Nickel Creek and many others.

Related posts:

• United 93
• Can Canadian Missionaries Rescue the American Church
• Why Denominations Cannot Complete the Great Commission
• The Mohler/Patterson “discussion”
• Why faith spreads