Doctrine as the Teaching of the Church

Christian Doctrine

Christian doctrine is an area of theology that is essential to the life of the intellectual Christian. It is in this area, however, that the average Christian is largely unlearned. I say this as one who was not raised in a liturgical tradition; this, to me, has been crippling and paradoxically liberating. Crippling because of the lack of eloquence I am able to refer to the formal teachings of the church and at the same time, this lack of experience is liberating as it has afforded me the luxury of being able to approach certain topics in the church from an objective point of view. “Christian doctrine tells us that there is redemption for us and for the world, and each particular doctrine articulates some aspect of this redemption.”[1] Zizioulas articulates the driving power behind doctrine well in his first chapter entitled Doctrine as the Teaching of the Church. It is to the end of telling the redemption story of Christianity that we use doctrine in our communities.

The purposes of doctrine are pointed out in the title of this first chapter well. Teaching is the fundamental purpose for doctrine as it is the retelling and reinterpretation of the dogmas or beliefs of a particular system or people; in this case, Christianity. Without the tradition of indoctrinating our children and new believers, the beliefs and convictions of our original church fathers are not able to perpetuate into the next generations. It is this line of doctrine that has linked the modern church to its familial roots that were planted by the original disciples and authors of the bible — it is our lifeline to remaining a distinct people. Along with the purpose of keeping our beliefs relevant is the pragmatic reason of accuracy that doctrine affords us. Without some standard of beliefs set down, it is easy to see how any particular set of beliefs can be distorted until they no longer resemble the original beliefs. Moving beyond simply maintain relevance, Moltmann points out that the effect of the doctrines that we teach is to “develop and practice…thinking as well [as working out our doctrines].”[2] A theoretical doctrine is only so helpful if one does not allow it to affect their thinking and practice. This is a major part in understanding why we use doctrine as a means of communicating our faith.

All of this usefulness would be for naught, however, if the Christian church at large does not maintain clarity. Our doctrines also provide this for us; a base line of sorts to which we can hold all beliefs that come our way in order to discern what is worthy of ascription. An example of this is in a case of the original councils in which beliefs such as Arianism were dismissed as heretical to the doctrines that were set forth. While this divisiveness may superficially seem contradictory to the inclusive message of Christ, it serves the function of keeping the truths that were learned and reasoned from the God-man, Jesus untainted by personal preferences and cultural relevance. Following from this clarity is the essential common ground that believers can stand on. While there are definite differences between Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Western Protestant theologies, the distinct common ground of Trinitarian theology, the divinity of Christ and the works of the Holy Spirit is an essential bond that truly makes us “one, catholic, apostolic church”. Jesus calls the church to exist as one functioning body and to do this there has to be some agreement as to what metaphorical DNA we will have. The doctrines of the Christian church are that DNA that unites the hand, foot and nose of the entire church body despite our differences.

True to the purpose of distinguishing the Christian religion from all other world religions, there are friction points that are unavoidable. The most obvious to point out would be the great schism between the Roman Catholic Church in the west and the Eastern Orthodox Church in the east. The fact that what divided these two similar traditions was the minute interpretation of a particular phrase that was contingent on dialectical differences in concert with the political plights of Charlemagne gives testament to the fragile nature of religious beliefs in general. It is because of the great fragility of such matters that doctrine must be scrutinized carefully because there is potential for unnecessary division among the body which is against the basis of our faith that lies in Christ’s calling us to one body. Another area in which friction has turned into permanent change is in the Christian cults that have cropped up over time. Groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons find their roots in Christianity but became heretical when they denied fundamental teachings of the church. In such cases, it is right that those holding to the heretical beliefs be pointed out and publically spoken against if they refuse to alter their beliefs. The friction that comes along with definitively stating what one believes is a healthy friction because it only serves to further purify the beliefs that have been set forth. A more recent area of friction is in the doctrine of hell. A couple years ago, pastor-theologian, Rob Bell released his book Love Wins which stirred up a lot of controversy in conservative Christian circles and, in fact, indirectly led to my older brother leaving a pastoral job at a church in Kansas. Many brought accusations of heresy against Bell and his book but were unable to point out in exactly what way he deviated from true Christian dogma. It is in the crucible of such friction that Christians grow, mature and stretch their minds in a progressive way.

I myself have encountered several discussion indirectly related to doctrines of the Christian church. One such example is when, in December of 2011, Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church decided to cancel Sunday services in exchange for his entire church committing to doing acts of service in their community. While promoting this event, some other pastors across the country had opposing feelings; one such pastor, Erik Raymond, felt strongly enough to write a blog about it. My best friend who lived near Raymond’s church sent me the blog and asked my thoughts. The basis of Erik’s argument was to pose a dichotomy by asking if churches are primarily called to meet formally or to acting in service to the community. This gets right to the heart of the ecclesial doctrines of the church i.e. what is our function? I unfortunately never got a response from Raymond, but it is just as well since my purpose was not to confront him, but to give my two cents in response to his two cents. As alluded to before, I have also been privileged to witness my older brother who is a youth pastor in Iowa confront different doctrinal issues in his ministry career such as the aforementioned doctrine of hell.

Overall, I appreciate my experiences with doctrinal debates and the education that I have gained from pursuing a Christian academia. My understanding of doctrine is a little more liberal and abstract due to my lack of liturgical upbringing, but is no less a large part of my beliefs today. The purposes of defining ourselves, clarifying ourselves and purging our beliefs of falsehoods is a noble and well working function that the Christian church has yet to cease benefiting from.

Pax,
The Dread

---

[1] Zizioulas, J., & Knight, D. H. (2008). Lectures in Christian dogmatics. London: T & T Clark. Page 1.

[2] Moltmann, J. (1993). The Trinity and the kingdom: the doctrine of God (!st Fortress Press ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Page 20.

for my college peeps

I wrote this for an online newspaper :) enjoy!

College can be an amazing adventure with many challenges and many rewards. One such challenge is often the professors themselves. While the majority are approachable, kind and helpful, every so often one has a professor that seems to have it in their mind that part of their job description is to make the students life miserable. While this is completely unfounded logic, it often seems so and, because of this, the student is left with the conundrum of how to handle the situation.

             Most students either opt out of the class or squeak by with a “D” for a grade. While both of these options seem justified, neither is actually helpful. In the first place, the student is still left with credits to fill. This can be particularly problematic if the class is one that is necessary for the student’s degree. The latter works to an extent but is still not ideal since grades like that or lower can be detrimental to a student’s GPA, thus costing potential scholarship money and chances at grad school. So what is this poor, academically abused student to do?

              I propose that the problem is often not with the professor at all, but with the way that the student regards their education. Now before you stop reading and throw this paper in the trash, I challenge you to consider for a moment.

             While I admit that there are those few disgruntled teachers who probably do have some vendetta against the potential that each student possesses, I think it is more accurate to say that most teachers’ main goal is to help students succeed. This reflects well on the teacher and is often the inspiration for going into education in the first place. If this is (generally speaking) their main goal, then it is highly unlikely that a “tough teacher” is actually being hard on you in particular. This begs the question: if this is the case, then why the struggle? Why is it that my professor seems to always assign the hard assignments during homecoming week? Why the ten page essay on a topic that I could not care less about? There must be a rational reason. Right?

             As previously mentioned, I think that the true problem is in the eyes of the beholder and not the object beheld. What I mean is that I think it is accurate to say that most students are in college to get a degree. Profound, I know; I point this out, however, because there is a fundamental problem with seeing a college education this way. Going to college simply for a degree that will help you make money later in life in order to gain some sort of faux financial stability in an economy that is largely unreliable anyway is a very non-motivational reason to be spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours. I think that there is a lot of evidence of this when you look at how frequently students change majors, how many students drop out and how many students openly admit that they hate going to class.

               So what is the solution? A mind switch. No, I don’t mean swapping brains with the class nerd; I mean changing how you think about college. What if the reason you went to class was to learn? Again, profound. But seriously, what if the reason you were getting a degree was in order to possess an immaterial gift that no one could strip away? Knowledge. The irrevocable internalization of ideas that were once foreign to you, but now rest tightly in your grasp. That is something worth paying for; that is something worth going to class for and that is a motivational tool that cannot be matched.

               In this light, that hard as nails teacher who is out to get you becomes more like the refining fires that turn coal to diamond. Viewing education as a perfecting process (gaining something) rather than a progressive process (from point A to point B) makes the trying times of your education bearable by holding the goal of attaining something you never had before. Teachers who have high expectations are simply hotter fires who are helping you to refine your thought process.

               During this adventure called college, remember to keep your eyes on the final goal – attaining knowledge, not paper in a picture frame. This is the easiest way to handle difficult teachers. Change what you can: yourself.

              

Wrestling with God

I thought i'd sit down for a bit jot some thoughts on where i'm at. Right now, i'm a little less than 2 months out from graduation for my Bachelor's degree. In the mean time, i have no idea what God has for me career wise immediately after graduation. This got me thinking about Jacob...

"But Jacob stayed behind by himself, and a man wrestled with him until daybreak. When the man saw that he couldn't get the best of Jacob as they wrestled, he deliberately threw Jacob's hip out of joint. The man said, 'Let me go; it's daybreak.' Jacob said, 'I'm not letting you go until you bless me.' The man said, 'What's your name?' He answered, 'Jacob.' The man said, 'But no longer. Your name is no longer Jacob. From now on it's Israel (God-Wrestler); you've wrestled with God and you've come through.' -- Genesis 32:22 and following.

More often than not, the above picture is how i've been feeling lately.

The thing that blows me away about our relation ship with Christ is the invitation. Jesus says to us in Luke 11 "seek and you'll find"; this is an invitation to a hunger type of life style that seeks to tackle the hard moments in your faith. For me, this word has profound comfort in that I know God is ok with me asking "um...what's next, God?"

The most striking thing about the story of Jacob wrestling God is what happens afterword. Jacob is left with a limp after his wrestling match. That is to say, the man known afterwords as "Israel" never walked the same again. What a painful blessing.

So, God invites our struggle with the divine and afterwords, we'll never walk the same.

might be a little bit of a hasty conclusion, but i think it's fair to say that this is true out of true theophanies (God encounters).

though i'm in a place in my life that i desperately need guidance from our Father, I long to have the kind of blessing that hurts a little each day so that i can remember my true purpose and the things that i've learned about God and life in the process.

I hope this little mental vomit was helpful to you, the reader.

pax,
The Dread

My Centering Prayer Apology | another responsitory piece

This week in my youth group, we are practicing some ancient forms of prayer such as the Jesus Prayer, the Centering Prayer and other Bodily Prayers such as raising hands, kneeling and signing the cross. I posted a reminder on our facebook group and I had a mom of one of my regular attending students get a hold of me with this article by Matt Slick and asked my thoughts on his article. So I thought that this would be good blog fodder. Enjoy!

So, in opening, I just want to say that what Matt Slick says here (http://carm.org/centering-prayer) about the centering prayer is definitely a semi-informed opinion of how Christians should respond to the more mystical practices such as the Centering Prayer. I feel that I can say this with confidence, because from what I have studied on the subject, it is not something that can remotely be said to be outside of the greater Christian Tradition (that is, the tradition that includes Christianity’s entire existence all over the world; I will refer to this as “the greater Christian Tradition” with a big T as opposed to more local traditions with little t’s).

HISTORY

First, I want to talk a little bit about the history that is behind the centering prayer. This prayer pattern grew out of the writings of the Desert Fathers and Mothers. One such monastic was John Cassian (c.360-c.430) who spent 20 years in the desert before being appointed a deacon in Constantinople and by 415 had established two monasteries (one for men, one for women) in France. Cassian was deeply influenced by his time in the desert and left us his book The Conferences about his conversations with other Desert Fathers in order to acquaint Western Christians with their teachings.

Long story short, Cassian’s approach to contemplative prayer was the main monastic practice for 10 centuries in the West influencing St. Benedict, among others. Unfortunately, during the Scholastic period (12^th-15^th centuries), theologians like Thomas Aquinas brought the West out of the Dark Ages by recovering the ancient works of thinkers like Aristotle and others. After this, intellectual theology became the “Queen of the Sciences,” and spirituality was demoted to a relic of the superstitious past.  

There was, however, a 14^th century English mystic who remained anonymous by choice who wrote a book that would become the first spiritual classic in the English language called The Cloud of Unknowing. In this book, the author urges people to return to “prayer of the heart”. The author draws a metaphor of clouds where all creatures and all thoughts dwell in the “cloud of forgetting” and God dwells in the higher “cloud of unknowing”. The goal, then, for the author is to bring the contemplative person into the “mystical silence” which is the space between the two clouds by moving beyond simply thinking into a place of utter stillness with the Lord. Here is an excerpt:

“Here is what you are to do: lift your heart up to the Lord, with a gentle stirring of love desiring him for his own sake and not for his gifts. Center all your attention and desire on him and let this be the sole concern of your mind and heart. Do all in your power to forget everything else, keeping your thoughts and desires free from involvement with any of God’s creatures or their affairs in general or in particular. Perhaps this will seem like an irresponsible attitude, but I tell you, let them all be; pay no attention to them.”

I think this is beautiful. I mean this is really what we want, isn’t it: Communion with God, at least to some degree? With all the noise in the world, I think that it makes perfect sense that this communion would be easier if we turn down the noise on the rest of the world. I’d also like to point out here that this description says things like “keeping your thoughts…” and “center all your attention…” This is not, as Slick says “non-thinking” or “emptying of the mind”, but it is simply being intentional with one’s thoughts. In fact, the method reveals this truth since the practitioner is to hold a monosyllabic word like “love” or “God” in mind and use it to bring the mind back into focus when it becomes distracted (which, we all know, inevitably happens in quiet moments). This is true mental quiet (not emptiness), dwelling with God who came to Elijah in the “sheer silence” in 1 Kings 19:12 (NRSV). While The Cloud was well loved and read by English speakers in its time, the intellectual emphasis of Scholasticism eventually trumped the influence of the book.

 In more recent years, however, Christians have searched for sources of contemplation, meditation and mysticism (none of which are anti-Christian in themselves). As the world has “grown smaller”, Eastern traditions flood the west; in the 1960’s and 70’s, Yoga (a Hindu practice), Zen Buddhism, Transcendental Meditation and other forms of Eastern meditation influenced thousands of Americans. In response, some Trappist (Benedictine) monks have looked to John Cassian and The Cloud as well as St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross for direction in how to provide this mode of worship for contemporary Christians who long to live a more contemplative worship life. These monks distilled the teachings of the Christian forerunners into a Christian method of contemplative prayer that has become known as Centering Prayer.

Now that the history lesson is over, I’d like to shell out some theology; after all, this is the real reason anyone would have a problem with the Centering prayer, right?

THEOLOGY

I’ve already mentioned the theological and spiritual influences of John Cassian in the areas of Christian contemplative life, so I’ll expand a little. Cassian opposed the radical grace of Augustine, the main theologian of his (or any) time. While Augustine held that humans are totally dependent on God’s grace for salvation, Cassian held that humans must take the initial step toward God; thus, choosing him and then His grace kicks in.  This concept is known as Semipelagianism and is seen in Cassian’s practice of prayer: the believer first has to achieve a state of silence and contemplation and then God works in the believer’s heart. While Cassian’s theology wouldn’t be considered unorthodox today, it wasn’t politically wise to oppose Augustine, so Cassian’s writings were originally only influential in France. This is where Slick differs strongly as he is a self-proclaimed five point Calvinist (http://carm.org/what-i-believe-matt-slick) and, as such, believes that man has nothing to do with who accepts Christ.

Another theological charge that has been put against the Centering Prayer is “Quietism”. In the 17^th century, some people in France took some of the writings of St. Theresa of Avila, who advocated a “prayer of quiet,” to outrageous extremes. Quietists taught the prayer to become utterly passive all the way to the point of annihilating the will. Any thoughts, even of Christ or the cross or salvation or anything good was rejected. The logical end to this train of thought, however, is moral laxity since outward behaviors then would have no influence on the inner quiet of the pray-er. For good reason, Quietism was condemned by the church in 1687 and died out shortly thereafter. This seems to me more of the practice that Slick is speaking out against and to that end, he’s spot on.

Centering prayer, however, isn’t quietistic at all. As opposed to annihilating the will and fully emptying the mind, the pray-er moves into God’s presence and finds rest there. The idea is to first acknowledge the love that God has for his creation and then quiet the mind to rest in, center on and contemplate that love. In fact, the author of The Cloud spends a lot of time emphasizing the Christ-centeredness of the prayer. For several chapters he reflects on the story of Martha and Mary in Luke’s Gospel (10:38-42) in which Mary represents the contemplative life and Martha represents the active life. In this story, Jesus calls what Mary has found (joy in the presence of Christ) the better thing. The anonymous author imagines that what Mary is reflecting on isn’t Jesus’ body, voice or odor, but has moved beyond the sensory data into centering on Jesus, the Christ, her Christ. She’s simply basking in his love for her. This is drastically different from other meditations such as the Ignatian meditation where the prayer places themselves in the biblical narrative and imagines the sights, sounds and smells in that scene. M. Basil Pennington was one of the Trappist monks who helped develop the modern version of the Centering Prayer and he writes in 1980:

 “Centering Prayer is an opening, a response, a putting aside of all the debris that stands in the way of our being totally present to the present Lord, so that he can be present to us. It is a laying aside of thoughts, so that the heart can attend immediately to him.”

What’s awesome about this is that it doesn’t replace or encompass other prayer styles but instead it supports them. Prayers of petition, thanksgiving and the like are all influenced and pushed to a higher degree because the pray-er has spent a lot of time basking in God’s love.

CONCLUSION

That’s more or less all I have on the matter. When you look at the history of the centering prayer and the theological concepts behind it, I think it’s safe to say that it is very much a part of the Christian Tradition (big T) and thus completely safe to practice. Now with regard to Slick’s concerns about being open to demonic invasion, I would like to say the following:

Yes, if one were to empty their will and try and annihilate themselves in search of a spiritual high, I think that they might be making themselves vulnerable to spiritual attack; however, this is simply not what the centering prayer is all about. Now one might argue “yes, but meditation itself might open you to spiritual attack.” And to this, I would answer that, if you are a Christian and the Spirit of Christ lives in you, then there is no need to worry about demonic attack. Paul writes that we are delivered from evil in Ephesians 2:2 and Colossians 1:13&14 so, for a Christian demonic temptation and attack is expected (1 Corinthians 10:13) but with the understanding that God will always show you a way out. Also, 1 John 4:4 states that the one who lives in us (the Holy Spirit) is greater than the one who “lives in the world” (the devil) and because the Holy Spirit and a demonic spirit cannot co-exist in the same person (2 Corinthians 6:15), possession isn’t a concern.

All this to say that what I teach to students and friends is the centering prayer of the Christian Tradition that is all about turning down the noise of the world and the noise of our own minds in order to engage and rest in the love of Christ. We need this in our loud world. I think that Slick’s final comment about avoiding the centering prayer and whatever church promotes it is, in a way, him saying to avoid a large part of the Christian heritage in the Desert Fathers and Mothers and thus is kind of a silly thing to say. I do, however, understand him saying it based on his previous occult experiences, I would just say that his conclusion is under-informed and bias.

 Peace,

The Dread

My Theology of Worship

I wrote this as part of a written interview and thought i'd share :)

My theology of worship is, in a nutshell, more about a lifestyle and attitude than 30 minutes set aside on a Sunday (or any other day for that matter). First, I believe that worship can be done in any action throughout the day as long as the will and intention is directed toward glorifying God. I read the book “practicing the presence of God” by Brother Lawrence and, while it was somewhat exhaustive, the one line that stuck in my head more than any other was when Brother Lawrence says that for him, he feels as much in the presence of God while picking up a straw from the ground as administering the Holy Eucharist in service. I think that worship is this: having an attitude of reverence and relationship with God in every moment of one’s day. Paul writes to the Church in Corinth and says “So eat your meals heartily, not worrying about what others say about you --you’re eating to God’s glory, after all, not to please them. As a matter of fact, do everything that way, heartily and freely to God’s glory” (1 Corinthians 10:31, MSG). The way that I understand this passage is that this is Paul saying not only CAN everything be done to God’s glory, but that we SHOULD do everything, even eating, to God’s glory; this is worship.  This attitude relates to corporate worship in this way: one cannot be a leader of a congregation in worship in any capacity if he/she does not first have a regular habit of worshiping in their personal life and maintain it as a lifestyle. I also believe that this will be evident in the effectiveness of a leader. Worship is not something that can be marginalized to any time frame without sacrificing some of its purpose; that is, a relationship. After all, one would hardly call meeting with their spouse for half an hour a week, a relationship. I do believe, however, that the time spent in corporate worship is a beautiful and beneficial time for all who engage their hearts in an effort to draw especially near to God.

Peace,

The Dread

my thoughts on Rick Warren's service event: a reactionary piece.

in reponse to Erik Raymond's "What are we saying when we cancel church services in favor of community service?"

Ok, so first off, I know almost nothing about Erik, so I hope that this does not come off as offensive. Love over everything. Also, I am not necessarily gung-ho for Rick Warren either as I admittedly have not read any of his literature; my position about what I’m going to say is strictly in reaction to the blog (?) that Erik posted here --> http://www.ordinarypastor.com/?p=9521

First, I would like to commend Rick Warren on his event; 20,000 people is an amazing number of people acting out God’s love.

In answer to Erik’s “the Good”

I agree that this number of people doing good in their community in the name of Christ is an encouraging thing; so, I only want to add to Erik’s comments here. Acts of service is more than simply an idea in Christianity, but it is indeed what Christ acts out in his ministry. As Christians, we are trying to be like Christ; Bottom line. We are not trying to imitate the religion, Christianity, but the man who started the movement. There is a lot to be learned from our Church history, but this goes in positives and negatives (for example, hospitals set up by the beguines versus the “holy” crusades). We need to remember that the formal church is our family history and in order to be effective, we must imitate the successes by following the heart of Christ instead of simply doing church because it’s what we do.

In answer to Erik’s “the Concern”

First I would like to point out the logic behind your initial concern. The way you have set up the dilemma is as follows:

N = Nebraska game is on

W = Wedding

C = Formal Church Service

S = Acts of Service

~ = negation

H = Holy

> = greater than

If N, then ~W

Therefore, N >W

W is H

 So if all this is true, then the following must also be true

C is H

if S, then ~C

Therefore, S > C

The problem with this logic is that it all hinges on one premise: the commonality that weddings and church services are Holy in some way.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that people won’t get the idea that S > C, but I think that this is kind of a Slippery Slope of an idea to ride down since it’s not really based on the necessity of people following this train of thought. One might just as easily say that ~W or N (either you don’t want a weddings or you do want to watch the Nebraska game). It really comes down to just that. Maybe a small group of people will choose to watch the game over having the wedding, but the fact that they still want the wedding eventually is grounds enough to say that N > W is not a deductively necessary conclusion from the first premise (If N, then ~W).

I agree that this is getting exactly at the debate over the mission of the church and I think Erik draws the dichotomy well:

“Are churches primarily called to the ministry of the word and sacrament or the ministry of mercy in the community?”

While I think this is set up well, I think Erik poses a false dichotomy immediately following:

“If the former you prioritize the church gathered. If the latter then this type of thing is easier to do.”

What I mean by this false dichotomy is that there are other options or reactions to the issue that are not being acknowledged here. For example one other reaction might be:

“if the former, you take the word of the gospel to people outside of the formal church and teach them about sacraments in everyday conversation; If the latter then you will drop everything you own materially and devote your life to serving people much like St. Francis did in giving up his birthright.”

What this response poses is a “both/and” approach to the issue. The false dichotomy comes in and says “there are only 2 options”, the both/and comes in and says “but wait, I have a third”. I’m not saying that the both/and is necessarily right; I’m only saying that posing it as a dichotomy, doesn’t really seem to capture the entire issue.

In Christ’s ministry, he often served people and healed them where they were hurting when they were hurting; much like Saddleback Church is doing. He also, however was a pious Jew and made sure to not neglect the traditions that teach us who we are. And finally (and I would say most importantly), Jesus was all about relationships. He didn’t set out to make a religion; if that were the plan, he would have wrote a book or, dare I say it, come as the Messiah that the Jews expected: knight in shining armor, there to slay their oppressors and rule the earthly kingdom of Israel. But this is not Jesus’ method; instead, he starts making friends. That’s it. He goes around and meets people and forms relationships with them and then lets them write about him and tell his story later.

To me, this means that the proper reaction to the question “is the church’s primary calling to word and sacrament or mercy in the community?” is “well, what did Jesus do while he was here?” and the answer to that is “Jesus did both”. So I don’t think we can look at what Rick Warren is doing as flexing between two options, but simply exercising the other arm (pardon the work-out metaphor) or being more Christ-like in action.

“Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”                -- Heb. 10:25 (KJV)

I looked up the verse Erik gave in Hebrews and initially, I agree that it appears to say “you must have an assembly of Christians formally”. Upon closer inspection, however, the word used in this verse that gets translated as “forsaking” is Egkataleipo (transliteration) in the Greek which is to say abandon, desert or to leave behind. I hardly think that Rick Warren is encouraging his church to abandon meeting formally all together. Furthermore, in this verse, the word translated as “exhorting” is Parakaleo (transliteration) in the Greek which means to summon, to admonish, to beseech,  to instruct, to teach, to console, to encourage and strengthen, to comfort. To me, this sounds like an interesting way to say “be in relationship with each other more and more as we see the big Day approaching”. It is framing the way Christians should act from a context of teaching, comforting, consoling and strengthening, but implies a sense of someone asking for this to be done. I believe in my core that the people being served on the day that Rick Warren cancels “church” will feel comforted, will be encouraged and strengthened and by this, they will learn what it means to be a Christian. I don’t think they will immediately think to the doctrine of what the church’s calling is, though they (unfortunately) may be shocked that a church is doing this; instead I think they will be attracted to Christ the same way that the marginalized were attracted to Him while he was on earth in human form.

I contend that it is, in fact, good for people to see that the church’s priorities include them. I don’t think that Rick Warren’s actions show that the church doesn’t know what it’s supposed to be doing, but that the bottom line is that Christ is all about people. Saturday would work for something like this also, but by doing it on a Sunday and canceling what people think is the entirety of what it means to be the church, Rick Warren is teaching (Heb. 10:25) his congregation and the people that they touch that there is more to Christianity than filling a pew and this is how to do that part also. Many don’t know how to practice acts of service, so what better way to show them, but to use time that they have already blocked off for God to do God’s work.

Summary

I want to say to Erik, that I apologize if my response seems offensive; please believe that there could be nothing farther from the truth. Part of the universal church’s beauty comes in her diversity of opinions.  I only wish to point out that the Great Commandment (Love God and then Love people) fits well within the Great Commission (preaching, teaching and making disciples). Teaching someone something doesn’t necessarily mean instructing; I learned most of what I know about cars by working on my own in the garage with my father-in-law. Making disciples, means making Disciples of Christ; to be a disciple of Christ means to be a pupil or adherent to what Christ was all about. What better way to be a pupil of Christ but to imitate him. Again, I think logically, it’s a far jump to say that this one event that Saddleback Church is having is going to sway people’s opinions on what the mission of the church is (hundreds of years of intentional debate hasn’t even accomplished this) and furthermore, I can’t see a single reason why we have to separate a traditional faith (that is, tradition oriented) from a practical faith (that is, one that is out there living what you say you believe).

As I said in the beginning of my response, Love over everything.

Pax,

The Dread

my reaction to "Love Wins"

So, I just got done reading Rob Bell's book "Love Wins". This is one that i had bought a while back and have really wanted to get to, so a couple days ago, i decided that i wasn't going to put it off any more..

Immediately after reading it, i felt inspired. It was kind of one of those "wow. that was a great...book?" The interesting thing is that after reading it, I didn't feel like I had learned a lot of doctrine or that i had been instructed. Instead, I felt like I had been challenged to stop and look again at how i actually act as a Christian.
In the book, Rob poses the question "are we going to believe our story about our lives or God's story about our lives?" I think this is the basic question when thinking about Christian living. it's not about the rules and how good or right about things i can be, but instead it is simply "will I live into the person that God says I am, or will i continue to go on being the best person that i can come up with?"
A challenging question to say the least, but so important when one makes the decission to be a disciple of Christ instead of a "Christian" or "small-town church practicioner" as one Pastor Lyman Bowling has said.
Bell is definately a pastor/preacher before he is a theologan. This is seen throughout the book in the form of his passion for the people. He doesn't write with the condescending tone of one who has it "more figured out" than everyone else and then is dutifully enlightening all of us. Instead, he longs to show people how God is, bottom line, Good and loving and because of that and the fact that he is God, Love wins in the end. Bell shoots to open peoples eyes to the misconcepts they may have held about God and the lie that Jesus saves us from an angry God. I love his words in the last chapter: "Love is what God is, love is why Jesus came, and love is why he continues to come, year after year to person after person." God is a pursuant of us which is why Jesus comes. To hold the distortion that God is the punisher and Jesus is the sympathetic one is just not going to work; because, its not the truth.
Immediately after this book came out, there was a lot of stir about what Rob Bell says about Hell. Francis Chan even went all the way out of his way so as to write a book called "erasing hell" as a reaction to Bell's book. I haven't been able to read all of it yet, but I mention this just to say how big a stir this caused. As you can imagine, then, i was anxious to read that particular chapter. When i got to it, however, I was a little let down in that i didn't find anything I didn't already believe to an extent. Bell definately does not claim a universalist stance; in fact, he affirms that Jesus is indeed the ONLY way, truth and life. I cannot really say too much about the details since he never outright says "here is my personal doctrine on hell". because that was not his intention as a pastor. Instead he adds this chapter in order to affirm that "yes, there is a result when you choose against God's will and God's truth about you. That result is exclusion from experiencing God for eternity.
I especially like his chapter about a real heaven in which it is not the fluffy clouds and white robes. I have recently said "Heaven should not be a goal for a Christian unless Heaven is strictly defined as eternal face-to-face experience with the Creator-Father". I think this falls well in line with what Bell is advocating. When we reduce salvation to a ticket in, we miss the point completely.

I could say much more about the book and all the things i liked about it, but I don't find much point. So, I want to leave you with this: Go get the book and read it. it's like sitting in on an amazing sermon. it convicted my heart to evaluate what i think of myself and if i truly live into what i claim i believe about God. Read the book and be challenged to remember that God is, at a base level, love and that in the end, Love Wins.

peace,
The Dread