In 1997, I was pastoring my first church out of seminary. It was in Louisiana, literally in the middle of no where. It was a young church that had been without a pastor for almost two years before I arrived. They forced their first pastor out by cutting his salary and making life hard. After less than a year, they were doing the same to me.

I was married just over a year and loved my wife dearly. During the week of Mother’s Day that year, she flew to spend time with her mom and dad and I spent that week praying and fasting. It was during the first night of that journey that God broke through and in very clear terms indicated that I was to resign. Two weeks later I did. We sold our house (3 days, all cash) and moved to my in-laws’ condo in Central Florida.

My wife’s cousin knew a guy who had started an internet company, and since I had a degree in computer information systems, he gave me a shot to do some light database work. That led into internet programming. That led into more intense programming and five years and two companies later, I had done work for Microsoft, a Top 5 CPA firm, the 4th largest law firm in the US, and the largest association of retailers in the country. I would go on to do some contract work for a division of AOL/Time Warner.

I had not only programming experience, but enterprise systems administration experience. I had load-balanced web servers, clustered databases and managed some pretty rugged hardware. I was good, not the best by any means, but good and respected among my peers. I still mess around with coding some and often tell my friends that while I can make things work, I don’t always know how to make things pretty!

I have recently reflected back on those days with fondness and disdain. It was good money and I got a thrill out of solving problems and working on different projects. However, I also knew what it was like to work 80-100 hour weeks, to neglect my family, and to live an unhealthy lifestyle.I was thankful to get back into ministry.

As I reflected back on my programming experience, I thought about those I followed and the joy and struggle of figuring out how they wrote code. Programmers often have a signature way of writing code. You can tell their code from others, you can tell their influences, and you can learn a lot about their maturity as a programmer. You can even assess how they think.

For instance, I break everything down into functions. If it can be broken down and used more than once, it immediately goes into a function. I once did some highly complex programming for a web project where everything was a function. The web page code was a series of function calls that were part of a separate file. Some functions did complex work and others just wrote out html.

In having to understand other people’s code, programming is a lot like doing biblical hermeneutics. So in a new series I have entitled “A programmer’s guide to biblical hermeneutics”, I want to try to assert what I am calling a relational hermeneutic. I will walk you through how programmers write their own code and how they decipher other programmer’s code. I will then apply that to biblical hermeneutics and try to demonstrate the importance of a relational hermeneutic.

I hope to provide you with an unique perspective on interpreting scripture as a result.

Related posts:

• Leg Three: Ideology
• links for 2008-07-16
• Does Acts 2 Justify Large Multi-Site Churches?
• Evangelizing Children Without Manipulation
• Praying for Unbelievers

I’ve been listening to him for decades. In this episode of Key Life, he talks about righteousness (part of his series on it). What a great 13 minute talk from October 19, 2009.

Related posts:

• What positive psychology can help you become
• What is the Gospel? Our problem

Introduction
The Medicis were a banking family in Florence, Italy in the fifteenth century. In addition to their banking endeavors, they funded creators across a variety of disciplines. Thanks to this family, and others like it, sculptors, scientists, poets, philosophers, financiers, painters, and architects converged upon the city of Florence. There they met, learned from each other, and broke down the barriers between cultures and disciplines. The integration of their disciplines forged a new world based on new ideas. This period of time became known as the renaissance. Florence because the eipicenter of a creative explosion and launched one of the most innovative eras in all of history.

By stepping into an intersection where people are able to associate concepts from one field with those of another, creative new insights are born. In addition, even whole new fields are developed. Two examples are found in the field of biology. First, the integration of biology and technology created a bio-tech industry that develops technology based on biology, agriculture, food science, and medicine. Modern use of the term usually refers to genetic engineering as well as cell- and tissue culture technologies. Yet, the concept encompasses a wider range and history of procedures for modifying living organisms according to human purposes, going back to domestication of animals, cultivation of plants and “improvements” to these through breeding programs that employ artificial selection and hybridization.

Coined a term by British scientist and broadcaster Heinz Wolff in 1954, bioengineering is the application of engineering principles to address challenges in the fields of biology and medicine. Biological engineering applies principles to the full spectrum of living systems, including molecular biology, biochemistry, microbiology, pharmacology, protein chemistry, cytology, immunology, neurobiology and neuroscience. It deals with disciplines of product design, sustainability and analysis to improve and focus utilization of biological systems.

Developing what has been coined the Medici Effect requires breaking down barriers between fields. This involves a process of creating an environment where low associative barriers exist.

What are associative barriers?

Take a moment to consider the following situation: Susan is twenty-eight years old, single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in biology and minored in public policy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with issues of sustainable development, global warming, and overfishing, and is politically active. Which statement is most likely to be true?

A. Susan is an office manager.
B. Susan is an office manager and is active in the environmental movement.

If you answered B, you are in good company; most people would give that answer. But the correct answer is A. If you are confused about this, consider another analogous question. Which statement is more probable?

A. An apple is green.
B. An apple is green and expensive.

This time the answer is apparent; clearly it is more likely that an apple is just green than that it is both green and expensive. The two questions are similar, but expressed in different ways. Yet we tend to make a mistake in the first case but not in the second. Why? The key difference between the two presentations is that in the first case our mind quickly makes a number of associations. Key words, such as sustainable development, global warming, and overfishing, are all associated with the environment. In most instances it would make sense to infer that Susan is active in the environmental movement. Therefore we are more likely to make assumptions about who Susan is as a person, rather than maintain a mind open to possibilities. These connections happen automatically and subconsciously. The effect is subtle, but very powerful.

Psychologists have an explanation for what happens during this process: They say that the mind unravels a chain of associations. By simply hearing a word or seeing an image, the mind unlocks a whole string of associated ideas, each one connecting to another. These chains of associations tend to be clustered around domains related to our own experience. When a chef sees a cod in a fish market she may think of a particular recipe, which in turn makes her think of the menu items for the upcoming evening. But a writer for a sport-fishing magazine may see something very different. He may think instead of his latest fishing trip, instantly recalling the tackle he used and a story he should write about it. The mind works this way because it follows the simplest path—a previous association. Although the chef may know of sport-fishing, and even have done it on occasion, it is much more likely for her mind to quickly lead the thought pattern, with little or no effort, to the field she uses most—cooking. Chains of associations are efficient; they allow us to move quickly from analysis to action. Although chains of associations have huge benefits, they also carry costs. They inhibit our ability to think broadly. We do not question assumptions as readily; we jump to conclusions faster and create barriers to alternate ways of thinking about a particular situation.

Researchers have long suspected that these associative barriers are responsible for inhibiting creativity. Experiments have been conducted to examine the difference between high and low associative barriers. One of the first conclusions made by one of the earliest creativity researchers, J. P. Guilford, is that creative minds tend to make unusual associations because they engage in so-called divergent thinking.

Consider the following exercise: What words do you think of when you read the word foot? The most common response by far is shoe, followed by hand, toe, and leg. Eighty-six percent of the subjects in a test with more than 800 people answered with one of these words. On the other hand, only one person each responded with rat, snow, physics, dog, or hat. Consider another example—what words do you think of when you read the term command? The most common responses to that word were order, followed by army, obey, and officer. These answers accounted for 71 percent of all responses. Only one person each answered with words such as polite, obedience, war, and hat. Guilford’s conclusion was that a person with low associative barriers is more likely to think broadly when responding to a word such as foot and is therefore able to come up with more unusual ideas. This means that a person with low associative barriers would find his chains of association taking irregular paths outside of a specialized field, rather than predictable ones inside a field. For such a person, foot and command may even connect; notice that the word hat appears in both cases. Individuals with high associative barriers would more than likely produce the common responses, but remain unable to see how the two words are linked unless specifically prompted to find a connection.

In the search for intersections, low barriers provide an advantage. The problem is that there are strong benefits to keeping our natural cognitive barriers in place. Our brain evolved the way it did for a reason. It generally enjoys finding order in things, grouping concepts together, and finding structure in the environment surrounding it. A person with high associative barriers will quickly arrive at conclusions when confronted with a problem since their thinking is more focused. He or she will recall how the problem has been handled in the past, or how others in similar situations solved it. A person with low associative barriers, on the other hand, may think to connect ideas or concepts that have very little basis in past experience, or that cannot easily be traced logically. Therefore, such ideas are often met with resistance and sentiments such as, “If this is such a good idea, someone else would have thought of it.” But that is precisely what someone else would not have done, because the connection between the two concepts is not obvious. Two people or two teams—one with high barriers, the other with low barriers—will approach a similar opportunity in completely different ways [1]

The key to creativity is to break down associative barriers. The to breaking associative barriers is through diverse cultural backgrounds, experience, and interactions with multiple disciplines.

What then, can Christianity learn by engaging in a Medici Model or a model of Integrative Theology?
Truth is truth regardless of the source because all truth is from God. In addition, the revelation of God through the created order gives us a glimpse of God. Just as a diamond has multiple facets which reflect light that beautifies the diamond, so all of creation and all of the domains of society reflect something about the character, nature and function of Godhead. Not only are we created in the image of the Godhead, created to reflect the character, nature and function of the Trinity, but all creation was created in order to reflect the Godhead’s glory.

The glory of our God is revealed through the domains of society. Each, by themselves, reveal only a small part of that glory. Therefore, by integrating multiple disciplines, humanity can see how the Godhead reveals itself in ways that allow the finite creation to more fully understand the creative Trinity.

Prior to the past two centuries, pastors were the most intelligent and respected people in the community because they were so widely read. Most pastors and ministers read books on law, medicine, math, and science. In doing so, ministers were often the town counselors, whether it was law or the sciences or personal relationships. Today, however, this is not the case. John C. Knapp, a professor at Samford University and Columbia Theological Seminary, wrote an article three years ago about the perceptions of the church by businesspeople. He mentions one study that featured interviews with 200 Christians from all walks of life, ranging from a Fortune 500 CEO to retail clerks. Each was invited to identify a time when they had encountered a particular ethical problem in the course of their work. When asked if they had sought counsel from a pastor or spiritual leader all but two or three said no. The most frequently given reason for not doing so is that their pastor would not understand or would not care. Another survey of 2,000 people who regularly attend church were asked, “Have you ever in your life heard a sermon, read a book, listened to a tape, or been to a seminar that applied biblical principles to everyday work issues?” Ninety percent said, “No.” [2]

I realize the amount of information is enormous and doubling every year. However, ministers are loosing the ability to influence the world because of a perceived inability to understand or comment on issues that their congregants encounter. Many pastors would struggle to discuss something other than their hobbies and the Bible with people whom they interact.

In addition, ministers face a very real discrimination in many areas of our culture. When I moved from Alabama, where pastors were appreciated, to Delaware to pastor a church, I experienced this very real discrimination. The person we bought our house from told all of our neighbors that a pastor had bought his house. Five years later, there is a very different relationship between those neighbors who were here when we moved in and who moved in after we did. Those where were here prior to our coming have little to say to us. Those who have moved in since our arrival, talk with us often. The difference was in how we were able to present ourselves. I had worked as an IT programmer, and still did some consulting on the side. I present myself as a consultant. This opens the door to communicate from a business perspective, an IT perspective, and about work in general. I always tell them I am a pastor, but only after I have presented myself as someone who is not just a pastor.

Specialization in ministry, therefore has created a clergy that only see God and life through a single lens: theology. Ministers get bachelor’s, masters, and doctoral degrees in religion or theology. As a result, most people do not go to their pastor with questions about work-related issues because they do not believe their pastor would not understand or care.

If pastors could demonstrate through their ministry how the other disciplines of life could reveal God in a greater light, then the people they minister to and share with could see their work as a real expression of revealing God himself and proclaiming truth. Their work becomes an expression of ministry, not something different from ministry.

As a result, ministers need to be able to see God (and the Godhead en total) in and through the integration of multiple disciplines, as well as model  and explain God in the same manner. Consider this example:

If evolution is all about survival of the fittest, then why have humans evolved a sense of altruism and cooperation? The seeming contradiction has engaged theologians, scientists, and even comic book writers (think the Incredible Hulk) who’ve probed human duality and how its good half sometimes empowers selflessness to override self-interest.

The British biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins believes that altruism in modern humans is essentially an evolutionary oops, albeit a beneficial one. It paid off in prehistory, when people lived in clans and protecting others meant the survival of their own gene pools; now that we’ve expanded into large cities, our instinct to help others still kicks in, even though those we aid may have no relation to us. [3]

Enter Martin Nowak, professor of biology and mathematics at Harvard University. He’s been working on the possibility of a new principle in evolution, that of co-operation, without which, he’s shown using game theory, “competitiveness dethrones itself” – which is to say that natural selection couldn’t work. By co-operation he means something quite specific: foregoing of fitness advantage so that others may have it. His work resonates with that of other evolutionarists, notably Lynn Margulis, who’s argued that multicellular life could never have evolved without symbiosis, or the close and often long-term interactions between different biological species.

For the past three years, with Sarah Coakley, formerly of Harvard Divinity School and now at Cambridge University in England, Nowak pursued a study project, the title of which – “The Evolution and Theology of Cooperation” – gives a clue to its partnership between science and religion. Nowak said his work demonstrated the mathematical probability that being cooperative, generous, and forgiving produces better results for people than looking out for Number One. [4]

Assume for the moment that the evolution of species has occurred. At the cellular level of all organisms, Nowak and others have found, is this idea of cooperation. So God has laced within all life the idea of sacrifice, altruism and compassion. The character and nature of the Godhead is infused within the most minute expressions of life.

Now consider the idea that micro-evolution (evolution of a species) occurs while macro-evolution (evolution of different species) does not occur. This is my position. In this, we see again the implication of this research. God has infused all of creation to sacrifice, have compassion, and be altruistic. We know it is part of his character and nature because of Philippians 2, where Jesus emptied himself, took on humanities closed, and sacrificed himself that we may have the benefit of a relationship with Him and the other members of the Trinity.

Sin has corrupted the truth, then, that we are created in the image of God. In doing that, it distorted this great truth of sacrifice and compassion, creating a selfish aspect to our lives.

What is needed

Ministers need to see life from different perspectives. They need to be able to think and engage others in multiple ways and to connect the wonderful Gospel message in ways different than a purely spiritual and theological method. There are endless possibilities of gospel-centered interaction with college students and professors, with scientists and even the general populace through integrative theology for both ministers and those we serve.

To do that, we need to develop bring together experts in various fields and disciplines to discuss what they are learning in and through their work in those fields and consider how we can see and express God in that interaction of experts.

NOTES:

[1] Excerpted from The Medici Effect: Breakthrough Insights at the Intersection of Ideas, Concepts & Cultures. Copyright 2004 by Frans Johansson.

[2] Economics at the Jesus Creed: Michael Kruse 10. http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/11/economics-at-the-jesus-creed-m-8.html, accessed November 12, 2009. (Emphasis mine)

[3] Mathematics and faith explain altruism. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/09/27/mathematics_and_faith_explain_altruism/?page=1, accessed November 12, 2009.

[4] Sacrifice: bringing evolution and religion together? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/15/evolution-sacrifice-cooperation-religion, accessed November 12, 2009.

Related posts:

• Thoughtful Thursdays – Liberation Theology
• The Need for Understanding Missional Theology
• Blogging this week…
• A Theology of Journey: Introduction
• Communicating for change: what blogging taught me

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?