Some time ago a pastor asked me how churches could become involved in justice issues other than lobbying government. It is an important question, for the Bible, especially Romans 13, clearly indicates that government has been established, ordained, by God to mind the business of justice.
Perhaps lobbying strikes church leaders as a tainted activity, given its association with bribery, both subtle and overt. But, in a pure sense, to be present with leaders, both those who form policy and those who implement it, is a good thing. We must always keep in mind that while we are to submit to government, in a democracy each of us bears responsibility for government actions. Thus, when we speak to government we do not do so as supplicants, but as stakeholders.
But is this all? That is the question. I think we also must look at how we act in our own lives. What are the justice issues that we encounter, if not day by day, at least now and again?
In a review/discussion of You’ll Never Nanny in This Town Again by Suzanne Hansen, Caitlin Flanagen (The Atlantic Monthly, June 2006) delves into the question of justice towards those who work for us. The use of hired help, of servants, is becoming more and more prevalent in our society. People hire house cleaners and lawn cutters, and having a nanny is not all that uncommon.
Flanagan points out that these people are frequently mistreated, especially if they live-in or are present on a regular basis. Flanagan quotes another writer, Cheryl Mendelson in Home Comforts (a book my wife is gradually reading through) – Mendelson points out that people who work in our homes frequently have a job with ‘no health benefits, no pension plans, no vacation pay, no job security, no hope of advancement, and no redress for grievances and injustices except to leave a job they may desperately need.”
So, one of the things we can do about justice is examine any employer – employee relationships that we are involved in. Because it is our pocket book, do we in any way exploit them? Do we fulfill basic responsibilities for their well being?
Here is a thought. Perhaps this could be approached from the stand point of stewardship. A steward in an ancient household had servants under him. But, he knew that he was acting on behalf of his master. Thus, as employers, we should only see ourselves as stewards representing Christ in the employee/employer relationship.
Final quote from Ms. Flanagan: “When a wealthy woman hires an eighteen-year old girl as a live-in nanny, she has bought herself some help, but she has also – if she is a decent person—given herself the responsibility of taking a motherly interest in the young person.”
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Friday, July 14, 2006
Historic tension between evangelicals and modernism
David Fitch recently spoke at a seminar that I attended on the need of the church to leave modernism and connect with the post-modern world. Of interest was his thought that the belief in healing of the physical body, which was a teaching of A. B. Simpson, is not modern. Not that it is post modern either, but the doctrine does imply that science does not have an explanation for everything, which at least resonates with, shall we say, unspoken assumptions of many who class themselves as post modern.
This has caused me to reflect that while much of the evangelical way of doing church is a reflection of modernism, there are also many teachings, and some practices, which have always been in opposition to modernism. This is evident in more than one area, although the belief in miracles, healing and the affirmation of sign gifts, such as speaking in tongues and words of knowledge are the most obvious. I would, for starters, also note the following two.
The continued affirmation of creation as a special act of God. Evangelicals in particular have been reluctant to give up the Genesis account. The overall belief that God acted to create, and the rejection of a position sometimes called theistic evolution, has and continues to be a point of contention with modernism.
The belief in the inspiration of the Bible and the belief in its stories as having actually happened is as well an on-going point of opposition to the modern world view. While it could be argued that the doctrine of inerrancy is at its core a modern philosophical stand, it was an attempt at meeting a modernist challenge. My point is, that here, as in many other places, the methodology of modernism was adopted in order to address modernism.
This has caused me to reflect that while much of the evangelical way of doing church is a reflection of modernism, there are also many teachings, and some practices, which have always been in opposition to modernism. This is evident in more than one area, although the belief in miracles, healing and the affirmation of sign gifts, such as speaking in tongues and words of knowledge are the most obvious. I would, for starters, also note the following two.
The continued affirmation of creation as a special act of God. Evangelicals in particular have been reluctant to give up the Genesis account. The overall belief that God acted to create, and the rejection of a position sometimes called theistic evolution, has and continues to be a point of contention with modernism.
The belief in the inspiration of the Bible and the belief in its stories as having actually happened is as well an on-going point of opposition to the modern world view. While it could be argued that the doctrine of inerrancy is at its core a modern philosophical stand, it was an attempt at meeting a modernist challenge. My point is, that here, as in many other places, the methodology of modernism was adopted in order to address modernism.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Atonement
Atonement
The May issue of CT contains an article "Nothing But the Blood" by Mark Dever. Dever notes a resurgence in alternate views of the atonement, alternate that is to substitutionary atonement. A facination with alternate views can be picked up in some of the "emergent" writers. In their desire to see more community they seem to edge away from people becoming Christians as individuals, and want to attach that to a view of the atonement that presents as something other than individuals having their sins forgiven. Some of the historic alternate views are: Christus Victor, Christ won the battle over principalities and powers -- usually read with a demythologized hermeneutic as sociologically principalities and powers, i.e., powerful social structures and contructs which enslave people, especially the poor and powerless, but which could as well be read from a supernaturalist hermeneutic as demonic forces; and variations of the moral influence theory -- that in viewing the cross we realize that God really loves us and so we want to be more like God.
Dever is right when he asks: "...why pit these theories against each other and discount, ignore, or diminish biblical language that describes the death of Christ?" That all the various theories have some biblical support was presented so well by Roger Nicole in his chapter "The Nature of Redemption" in Christian Faith and Modern Thought (ed. Carl F. H. Henry, 1964). Nicole lists six key terms that describe atonement and shows that they are all interconnected: Sacrifice, Reconciliation; Propitiation; Battlefield; Purchase; and Court of Law.
I believe that each of these is important, but if there is one that is the keystone it is propitiation. Unless there is propitiation the demands of the court of law are not met, we are not redeemed (I reject the notion that it was Satan who was paid -- no, it was God the Father), and no reconciliation. Because their was propitiation there was indeed a victory over demonic powers, not because they were paid off, but because their right of access is removed. And, there is moral influence, because I am in awe that such a price was paid and I understand that it places me under obligation to the one who paid it.
But, if propitiation is not what happened, then I beg someone to give to me a phenomonology -- a pure description -- of the dynamics of what did occur. How exactly does it work that the death of this perfect man defeated the evil powers -- be they demythologized sociological structures or whatever, or supernatural demonic forces. And more, if there is no propitiation, then why would I ever see the cross as a sign of God's love. I would join those who would see it as a horror, a kind of cosmic child abuse. And, by the way, I have always hated the illustration of the man who let his son be ground up in the gears of a draw bridge to save the passenger train for that very reason. It is not atonement.
Without propitiation we either romanticize the cross, or we dismiss the cross and fall into legalism, or some kind of combination of both. I wonder if some of the problems that the emergent writers are concerned with actually arise out of evangelicalisms losing its grip on the meaning of the cross as substitution rather than the opposite.
The May issue of CT contains an article "Nothing But the Blood" by Mark Dever. Dever notes a resurgence in alternate views of the atonement, alternate that is to substitutionary atonement. A facination with alternate views can be picked up in some of the "emergent" writers. In their desire to see more community they seem to edge away from people becoming Christians as individuals, and want to attach that to a view of the atonement that presents as something other than individuals having their sins forgiven. Some of the historic alternate views are: Christus Victor, Christ won the battle over principalities and powers -- usually read with a demythologized hermeneutic as sociologically principalities and powers, i.e., powerful social structures and contructs which enslave people, especially the poor and powerless, but which could as well be read from a supernaturalist hermeneutic as demonic forces; and variations of the moral influence theory -- that in viewing the cross we realize that God really loves us and so we want to be more like God.
Dever is right when he asks: "...why pit these theories against each other and discount, ignore, or diminish biblical language that describes the death of Christ?" That all the various theories have some biblical support was presented so well by Roger Nicole in his chapter "The Nature of Redemption" in Christian Faith and Modern Thought (ed. Carl F. H. Henry, 1964). Nicole lists six key terms that describe atonement and shows that they are all interconnected: Sacrifice, Reconciliation; Propitiation; Battlefield; Purchase; and Court of Law.
I believe that each of these is important, but if there is one that is the keystone it is propitiation. Unless there is propitiation the demands of the court of law are not met, we are not redeemed (I reject the notion that it was Satan who was paid -- no, it was God the Father), and no reconciliation. Because their was propitiation there was indeed a victory over demonic powers, not because they were paid off, but because their right of access is removed. And, there is moral influence, because I am in awe that such a price was paid and I understand that it places me under obligation to the one who paid it.
But, if propitiation is not what happened, then I beg someone to give to me a phenomonology -- a pure description -- of the dynamics of what did occur. How exactly does it work that the death of this perfect man defeated the evil powers -- be they demythologized sociological structures or whatever, or supernatural demonic forces. And more, if there is no propitiation, then why would I ever see the cross as a sign of God's love. I would join those who would see it as a horror, a kind of cosmic child abuse. And, by the way, I have always hated the illustration of the man who let his son be ground up in the gears of a draw bridge to save the passenger train for that very reason. It is not atonement.
Without propitiation we either romanticize the cross, or we dismiss the cross and fall into legalism, or some kind of combination of both. I wonder if some of the problems that the emergent writers are concerned with actually arise out of evangelicalisms losing its grip on the meaning of the cross as substitution rather than the opposite.
Friday, April 14, 2006
Rebirthing Simpson's Vision
Rebirthing Simpson's Vision
Years ago I sat with my highschool classmates while a representative from General Moters invited us to join the annual car design contest for high school students. I, like tens of thousands of boys, tried to draw a new car. But, the logistics of finally producing, from scratch, a 1/12 scale dream car in wood overwhelmed me, and I looked for a different future. But not everyone. Some went on. In the current issue (March 2006) of Car and Driver Patrick Bedard reviews a new book by John L. Jacobus: The Fisher Body Craftsman's Guild. "GM wanted innovators...who could predict the future with their dream-car designs." And some did. From the contest came some of GM's top designers such as Virgil Exner Jr, Charles M. Jordan and Terry Henline. Sadly, GM killed off the Guild in 1968 when it decided it "was in the business of manufacturing and selling cars, and not in the business of teaching America's youth the intricacies of automotive design."
Reviewer Bedard comments: "But maybe the teaching worked the other way. The rise of guild graduates within GM, to about 35 percent of its stylists in 1957, suggests that it was the youth of America doing the teaching."
And I might add, that perhaps this tells us why GM has produced unbelivably boring cars for the last twenty years. They stopped being taught by teens, they stopped developing a talent pool from high school up.
Currently the evangelical church is, rightly, concerned with the training of leaders. What I notice is that this concern is focused primarily in two places. First, on those who are already in leadership positions. Who are the bright and shining stars? Send them for more training. Who are the ones who are OK -- the B level leaders? Coach them. All fine and good. I have no complaints.
The second point of concern is with college/seminary training. Here the waters muddy. Why can't they turn out the highly polished leaders that require no further work? Or at least, that is what I hear. Nevertheless, I am deeply a believer in formal training for ministry.
But, what about before college/seminary? What about the youth, the high school level? Have we forgotten them? Have we turned the youth programs into sophisticated spiritual kindergartens? Is everything focused on appeasing parents who want a safe place for their children? Are we being taught by, as well as teaching, the youth of our churches the intricacies of Bible study, world changing prayer, preaching (yes, I said preaching), evangelism - including cross cultural evangelism (which is more than hauling a bunch off for a Short Term Mission Adventure), peer-counseling? And the list could go on.
Even more, and I know this can sound like a cliche, are we willing to learn from them? Fisher Body Guild judges looked at a lot of ho-hum entries, and I am sure many that were laughable, but year after year, there were some fresh concepts presented that shaped the look of future cars. Are we listening to the high schoolers of today? Do some of them have things to say that can shape the church of 2015?
Years ago I sat with my highschool classmates while a representative from General Moters invited us to join the annual car design contest for high school students. I, like tens of thousands of boys, tried to draw a new car. But, the logistics of finally producing, from scratch, a 1/12 scale dream car in wood overwhelmed me, and I looked for a different future. But not everyone. Some went on. In the current issue (March 2006) of Car and Driver Patrick Bedard reviews a new book by John L. Jacobus: The Fisher Body Craftsman's Guild. "GM wanted innovators...who could predict the future with their dream-car designs." And some did. From the contest came some of GM's top designers such as Virgil Exner Jr, Charles M. Jordan and Terry Henline. Sadly, GM killed off the Guild in 1968 when it decided it "was in the business of manufacturing and selling cars, and not in the business of teaching America's youth the intricacies of automotive design."
Reviewer Bedard comments: "But maybe the teaching worked the other way. The rise of guild graduates within GM, to about 35 percent of its stylists in 1957, suggests that it was the youth of America doing the teaching."
And I might add, that perhaps this tells us why GM has produced unbelivably boring cars for the last twenty years. They stopped being taught by teens, they stopped developing a talent pool from high school up.
Currently the evangelical church is, rightly, concerned with the training of leaders. What I notice is that this concern is focused primarily in two places. First, on those who are already in leadership positions. Who are the bright and shining stars? Send them for more training. Who are the ones who are OK -- the B level leaders? Coach them. All fine and good. I have no complaints.
The second point of concern is with college/seminary training. Here the waters muddy. Why can't they turn out the highly polished leaders that require no further work? Or at least, that is what I hear. Nevertheless, I am deeply a believer in formal training for ministry.
But, what about before college/seminary? What about the youth, the high school level? Have we forgotten them? Have we turned the youth programs into sophisticated spiritual kindergartens? Is everything focused on appeasing parents who want a safe place for their children? Are we being taught by, as well as teaching, the youth of our churches the intricacies of Bible study, world changing prayer, preaching (yes, I said preaching), evangelism - including cross cultural evangelism (which is more than hauling a bunch off for a Short Term Mission Adventure), peer-counseling? And the list could go on.
Even more, and I know this can sound like a cliche, are we willing to learn from them? Fisher Body Guild judges looked at a lot of ho-hum entries, and I am sure many that were laughable, but year after year, there were some fresh concepts presented that shaped the look of future cars. Are we listening to the high schoolers of today? Do some of them have things to say that can shape the church of 2015?
Monday, March 27, 2006
Beginning
Recovering the Vision of A. B. Simpson is, to begin with, a small homage to the Canadian Theological Seminary publication Rebirth of a Vision. It was then our desire to explore the nuances of Simpson's thought and apply them to the church in the eighties.
So long ago! But, the desire still remains. Actively I hope to comment on current trends, thoughts, books, articles and perhaps even movies and T.V. shows, as well as give thoughts of my own. The idea is to add stimulation to the on-going conversation in the church, especially the Canadian church, on how, once again, we can be part of the holistic vision of a leader such as A.B. Simpson. But, I will seldom actually be referencing Simpson. Instead, the reader should understand that his life and thought form a backdrop, perhaps even a stage, for the thoughts and dialogue which I hope will occur here.
So long ago! But, the desire still remains. Actively I hope to comment on current trends, thoughts, books, articles and perhaps even movies and T.V. shows, as well as give thoughts of my own. The idea is to add stimulation to the on-going conversation in the church, especially the Canadian church, on how, once again, we can be part of the holistic vision of a leader such as A.B. Simpson. But, I will seldom actually be referencing Simpson. Instead, the reader should understand that his life and thought form a backdrop, perhaps even a stage, for the thoughts and dialogue which I hope will occur here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)