Theology for the Masses

In this wildly ambitious work, Moreland seeks to cure Christianity from the malaise that plagues – the death of drama; he is mostly successful, though not for the reasons he would give. Written for a popular audience, the Kingdom Triangle is divided into two sections; the first attempts to show us the “crisis of our age,” attacking Naturalism and Postmodernism as the destroyers of drama. The second part is more hopeful, and is Moreland’s attempt to construct a solution to the problem by means of three foci: knowledge, the soul and supernaturalism. With his insistence upon objectivity and reluctance to engage the best of Christian postmodern thought, readers risk being more entrenched against any other approach to knowledge and theology. However, the other parts of the work shine in comparison. When Moreland is attacking naturalism and working to instill drama he is much more effective. This combination of strengths and weaknesses make this book a minefield for the lay reader. There is much good to be had, but one can easily get the impression that all postmodern and emerging Christians are to just as feared and protected against as the Catholic Church.[1]

Drama for your mamma (and the rest of the Body of Christ)

The chief contribution of this work is Moreland’s drive to instill drama in our lives. Moreland’s use of drama is interesting and is the most important theme in the book. Moreland sets it up as the life full of meaning and purpose contrasting it with the drabness of everyday life. His awareness of the hunger for drama is startling and speaks to a need which likely resonates with much of his readership. Wise are the ways Moreland suggests Christians resurrect drama and acute are the causes he identifies for its crucifixion. He identifies the narcissism, individualism, passivity, and immaturity of the self that our popular culture produces;[2] and advocates the flourishing of the self, which includes the development of self-denial, character, and the spiritual disciplines.

Don’t, Stop, Manifesting the Spirit…

Perhaps the most controversial part of the book for the target audience is Moreland’s insistence that we recover the activity of the Spirit in our daily lives. He calls this “being naturally supernatural”[3] and attacks Cessationists. In great contrast to his dealings with Postmodernist Christians and Catholics, he advocates love and charity towards people on different places on the continuum of the Spirit’s activities.[4] This advice is much needed in the North American Church today. He primarily challenges Cessationists by appealing to personal stories and the numbers of Charismatics in the world. Oddly enough, Moreland does not use Scripture to challenge Cessationists. Given his high view of and condemnations by means of Scripture, one would have expected the same here. Ultimately, his wisdom, gentleness, and honesty are instructive in this section.

I refute him thus!

“I refute him thus!” was Samuel Johnson’s exclamation as he broke his foot upon a rock in an attempt to refute Berkley’s idealism.[5] It is also method of attack Moreland employs in his critiques of Naturalism and Postmodernity.[6] Moreland’s treatment of Postmodernism is the chief disappointment Kingdom Triangle. Moreland, the unapologetic modernist, [7] constructs the frailest version of postmodernism possible for the purposes of rendering asunder with the mighty blows of the three-sentence-proof. Moreland goes so far as to dismiss and critique of his characterization of postmodernism by saying: “For one thing, my description of postmodernism is an accurate account that fairly captures and understanding of postmodernism … [so] I can hardly be accused of offering a caricature of the movement.”[8] This rather grumpy, defensive, and dismissive tone is found throughout his discussion of Naturalism, Postmodernism, and Knowledge. Moreland unfortunately, for one of Evangelical Christianity’s most highly regarded philosophers, reduces all of postmodernity into a “synonym for deconstructive relativism.”[9] Too often Moreland attacks his constructed postmodernism[10] with simplistic proofs which bypass the real issues at hand. An excellent example of this is his discussion of objectivity and language.[11]

This seems like a rhetorical strategy to appeal to the value of common sense and anti-intellectualism of his intended audience. This, combined with a lack of real engagement of the best of Christina postmodern theory will hinder the intellectual development of his readers in the wake of Modernity’s decline. It reeks of entrenchment rather than engagement.

The Gentle Curmudgeon

One final criticism of Kingdom Triangle is the bipolar writing style that Moreland employs. When attacking Naturalism and Postmodernism and constructing a theory of knowledge, Moreland writes in a grouchy, dismissive, and immature tone. He repeatedly deems things “sad” and uses brute force to argue his claims (see his listing to all the verse in the Bible that contain the word knowledge).[12] This is contrasted with the genuine love and concern from which he writes his other chapters.

Conclusion

Ultimately this book is a mix of the best and worst from Moreland. Moreland argues for the best possible modernist/foundationalist Christianity, and attacks the worst postmodern secularism, which he ties to all Christian postmodern thought. However, With the exception of the chapter on Knowledge, Christians would be wise to heed his words concerning the resurrection of drama. I would modify Moreland’s argument (that Naturalism and Postmodernism have caused the death of drama) to the Church’s acceptance of Modernism and lack of a response to its death have caused and sustained the death of drama. It is a shame this was not a two-volume work.

Notes:

[1] Moreland is deeply skeptical in this work about the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church , warning evangelical Christians to steer clear of their spiritual development classes (p.159).

[2] Moreland, Kingdom Triangle, 142-145.

[3] Ibid., 182.

[4] Ibid., 178-179.

[5] For more on this, see Dinesh D’Souza, What’s so great about Christianity (Regnery Publishing, 2007), 171.

[6] While Moreland and I agree on the perils of Naturalism, Moreland has a too narrow of a definition of postmodernism, see notes 12 and 13.

[7] See his infatuation with the self and objectivity, and unquestionable support of the correspondence theory of truth in Moreland, Kingdom Triangle, 78-88. and dismissal of critiques of modernity, such as the role of language creating worlds rather than nakedly describing them in Ibid., 85, 87.

[8] Ibid., 87.

[9] Franke, Character of Theology, The, 21.

[10] It is difficult to construct a positive definition of the varied modes of postmodernist theory. I follow Franke in maintaining that Postmodernism is best defined minimally as the critique of Modernity which requires “radical surgery.” See Ibid.

[11] Compare Moreland, Kingdom Triangle, 86. with Stanley J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), sec. The Problem of Language.

[12] Moreland, Kingdom Triangle, 114-120. Moreland opts for the brute-force technique for arguing that our knowledge must be certain (by his criteria and his criteria only, which happens to be foundationalist in nature).

I’m in the middle of reading Kingdom Triangle by JP Moreland for an upcoming class at Asbhry this fall. I have such mixed thoughts about this book so far. For every good insight he makes, Moreland commits an asinine ad hominim attack on someone’s position. The tone is hasty and… almost frustrated. It just seems as though he is picking the chaff of possible positions and calling it their wheat. I expect more from someone like Moreland.

This is not to say that the work is without merit. He is doig some interesting stiff with the idea of story (which he is calling drama for aome reason) and thick/thin worlds. I’ll post some more on this latter.

As I am nearing the completion of my degree and am on the cusp of having time to think on theological matters once again, I am struck by the inclusion of letters, letters, from Paul [1] to various peoples in the Canon.  I am an absolute Canonist (this will show up in an upcoming post which will complete my Paul and 1 Cor 11 series which has been on hold as I completed many school projects.) and take as an article of faith that what shows up in our present Canon belongs in the Canon.

However, having a sentence included in the Canon does not mean it should be taken as completely prescriptive 100% of the time prime facie.  When we have letters, we have to realize that a) letters are very different beasts than Gospels, Apocalypses, etc. and b) there are many different types of letters out there, each meant to be read in a particular way. 

With this in mind I have been pondering how we are to read the Pauline letters.  If we do straight theology from them, we might (but we might not) be missing something…I can’t think of any examples in the specific (and I will have my mind back early next week).

Any thoughts?

1. or people writing in Paul’s name [↩]

If you are looking for a web-based Bible reading service, consider YouVersion.  YouVersion is a site similar to BibleGateway hosted by LifeChurch.tv. The special thing about the site is that is acts as one stop shop for Bible study.  If you are an avid notetaker when you read the Bible, this may be the perfect site for you.

LifeChurch.tv just installed some major updates.  As a occasional user, I can attest that they considerably improve the user experience.  The site is quicker, the organization is better, and the parallel readers feature is pretty useful. 

YouVersion is an interesting tool which could really improve communal reading projects.  Imagine an entire small group or Sunday School class reading through the Gospel of John and entering in their questions, thoughts.  I think such a thing could really improve communication and education.

“Just the text, M’am, nothin’ but the text.”  - R.R.Reno :: Recovering the Bible

With these words, R.R. Reno, founder of the Brazo’s Commentary project, hits upon the fundamental contribution of biblical scholarship and its fundamental flaw.  In divorcing a wholistic theology from the study of biblical texts we have unearthed a gigantic mound of new data to process.  We have recovered Paul, we have rediscovered Jewish attitudes on a plethora of subjects, all of which had been lost  2,000 years due to Christologizing and systematizing everything.  With our constant interpretation and reinterpretation with each generation, we built an ossified onion shell around the original context.  Biblical studies has cracked open this steaming shell and allowed us to peer into the distant past with the hopes of understanding “the meaning in the original context.” 

Then, in the hopes of not repeating past… “mistakes,”  they stop everyone in their tracks, and shout – “You shall not pass!” (lest you put words into the author’s mouths).  As Reno says:

We can point to many remarkable intellectual achievements in modern biblical scholarship, some of service to the Church. But on the whole the results have been disastrous. The “meaning in the original context” approach has made the Old Testament into the Hebrew Bible. To read forward to fulfillment in Christ is the unforgivable sin of modern biblical scholarship.

There is tremendous value in the above.  As a separate discipline, their hesitation is needed; as keepers of good method and great results, their work should be foundational to theologians.

On the other side of the coin, we have theologians who do an amazing job lifting out the overarching story of God out of our sundry scriptures.  There is narrative, there is parenesis, there is apocalypse… there is even some history thrown in there too.  The good theologian links these distant points of scripture with little wormwholes, crafting doctrine and translating it into the language of today. 

However, they sometimes approach scripture with creeds in hand, placing their polarizing filters over the text and interpreting today in light of yesterday’s interpretation instead of the text itself.  Their greatest accomplishment is their greatest folly, traditional interpretations become their foundation.  Luther’s theology [1] of the 1500’s is the only method of looking at the scriptures, or the background of the Scottish Enlightenment is the only philosophical framework to be applied to the scriptures [2]   – another layer of onion.  As Reno puts it:

We should not be terribly surprised by the tendency to push Scripture into the background. Theologians are in the business of making arguments, and the rough and ready variety of Scripture can seem unpleasantly unstable. We want sharply drawn truth-claims to feed into our syllogisms. We find conceptual clarity in doctrine, and the upshot is a temptation to neglect Scripture. Furthermore, in the abstract realm of concepts we can formulate pallid, pseudo-orthodox notions such as “Incarnational worldview,” or “sacramental imagination,” or “Trinitarian ethos,” and thus convince ourselves that our capitulations to the latest intellectual fashions are really grand theological achievements.

This tension between the two disciplines is inherent in the nature of their endeavors.  I both sympathize and are frustrated with both sides.  As person who applied to both theological and biblical studies programs and will soon have to choose between the two, I can really empathize with Reno.   I think that theology must be primarily informed by a good biblical studies background.  However, there is so much to learn, so much to consider.  As I lamented over at Hank’s, my theology is stunted (purposely) while I try to sort out the basics. 

R.R. Reno does an excellent job of navigating this divide and imploring the need for this wall to be torn town and replaced with a bridge.  I highly recommend reading this thoughtful and respectful editorial.

R.R.Reno :: Recovering the Bible

1. and political and social setting which tremendously influenced his theology [↩]
2. I don’t want to pick on any particular tradition as they are all guilty of it, I am most familiar with the reformed and restorationist branches of theology [↩]

(Disclamer – I often spell disclaimer wrong.  Also, this might be a bit rambly.  I also don’t know how to spell ramble when I use it as modifyer.  I also like to screw up the changing of “y” to “i” when you plop a suffix on the end of a word.  I also like to draw out jokes several paces past the funny point.)

The local community of Christians that I am apart of does a wonderful job of stressing and acting upon the need for community among Christians (and others).  JR and myself have just finished a really good Sunday School series which envisions evangelism as the process by which we invite peregrini into our communities and build up a contextualized identity exchange by means of learning a new conceptual language, experience within a lived gospel, etc culminating with the peregrini choosing to accept Christ and adopt citizenship in the Kingdom of God.

One of the byproducts of this series was the awareness that we are horrible at doing this and that we need to make very specific and targeted changes to the way we live out the gospel.  We, as a group, aren’t finished with brainstorming and implementing the ways through which we will accomplish these goals, but we are making real progress. 

As we are making a more concerted effort to invite people into our comfortable communal bubble, there have been accompanying stresses upon our individual relationships.  People are able to hide in community, divisions cannot be worked out among strangers.  In reflecting on our community’s recent experiences and through discussing this with the ever-insightful Meredith, we decided that community and intimacy is a paradox:

Community hinders intimacy, but intimacy can only come through community.

We have decided that in order to be a real gospeling community, we must be constantly inviting, but if we are constantly inviting, we lose those intimate relationships with others in the community.

To use a small-scale example, myself, JR and Scott meet at least once a week to share what is going on in our lives, talk about video games and comics, reflect upon stuff, discuss theology, and pray for one another.  We have built a very intimate relationship with one another through this process.  On several occasions other friends of ours have stopped by and joined our conversations, whether it be professional acquaintances, personal friends, etcetera.  While these people are with us, we are unable to share ourselves fully with one another, we simply don’t have the requisite relationship with the new comers to do so. 

This does not just apply to the local assemblies of the body of Christ, Meredith and I have noticed that the same thing happens with us.  When we invite friends over, or host communal events, etcetera, we loose opportunities to build and maintain our own intimacy, one of the most precious commodities in a marriage.  Our challenge has been to build intimacy first, and when that tank is full, to be as hospitable as our natures allow.

Now, I am not saying all of this for the purpose of disparaging the notion of being an inviting community, I am doing do it precisely because I value such a notion!  Only through invitation can we build community, only through invitation can we fulfill Christ’s call on our lives.  However, we must confront and overcome the difficulties that arise in such endeavors.

How might we, as a gospeling community, maintain our intimacy while still being an inviting one?  I welcome all thoughts and insights, both from members of our own community and others.

I’d like to direct you all to this article from the New York Times Magazine about Mark Driscoll and the “new Calvinism.” It’s really interesting, and definitely highlights some important issues surrounding both Driscoll and the (relatively) recent Calvinism resurgence.

I find this quote, from the final page of the article, especially interesting:

Nowhere is the connection between Driscoll’s hypermasculinity and his Calvinist theology clearer than in his refusal to tolerate opposition at Mars Hill. The Reformed tradition’s resistance to compromise and emphasis on the purity of the worshipping community has always contained the seeds of authoritarianism: John Calvin had heretics burned at the stake and made a man who casually criticized him at a dinner party march through the streets of Geneva, kneeling at every intersection to beg forgiveness. Mars Hill is not 16th-century Geneva, but Driscoll has little patience for dissent. In 2007, two elders protested a plan to reorganize the church that, according to critics, consolidated power in the hands of Driscoll and his closest aides. Driscoll told the congregation that he asked advice on how to handle stubborn subordinates from a “mixed martial artist and Ultimate Fighter, good guy” who attends Mars Hill. “His answer was brilliant,” Driscoll reported. “He said, ‘I break their nose.’ ” When one of the renegade elders refused to repent, the church leadership ordered members to shun him. One member complained on an online message board and instantly found his membership privileges suspended. “They are sinning through questioning,” Driscoll preached. John Calvin couldn’t have said it better himself.

I’m personally not a very big fan of Driscoll. I think what he’s done on the cultural front is important and interesting…but this article highlights the exact reasons why his hyper-authoritarian militaristic brand of Christianity (and the Calvinist roots behind it) scares me. Any thoughts, comments, reflections?

Love this quote:

But don’t build your church on what you’re not

via Who Cares What You’re Not? – Craig G.

We conservatives gotta be careful that we don’t define ourselves as what we are not, but rather as what we are, cives regni dei. [1]

1. citizens of the kingdom of God [↩]

I often hear a lot of talk about America and her Christianity, whether it be discussions on her roots or current mission to bring democracy to the world, in the circles I run.  I hear it both ways.  I get emails about Obama being the Antichrist and read blog posts on how Christians should disavow the government.  Well, with all of that in mind, I came across this explosive quote for your consumption and perhaps discussion.

We’re not a city on a hill. We’re temple prostitutes at the altars of materialism and neo-imperialism. – via Lingamish

Whaddya think?  Is that a fair assessment?  Regardless if you think it is or not (it is a bit polemical, but there is some warrant there), I suggest reading the whole thing, especially when it comes to his ideas of what do do now (listed here to generate convo)

1. First of all then, pray for kings and all who are in authority that we might lead quiet and peaceful lives. (I Tim 2:2)
2. Here’s how you handle forwarded emails – reply with “THIS MESSAGE IS STUPID AND UNTRUE. Get a life, people!!!”
3. Mock apocalyptic preachers
4. Let go of abortion as the litmus test for candidates
5. Build God’s kingdom through acts of mercy not political activism

I’m a huge fan of 1, 4, and 5.  It’s really hard for me to insult and mock the ideas of people that I know.  I’d rather just talk with them, rather than attack them.  (at least in the abstract)

Today’s discussion began with a restatement of the problem :: Evangelism is very important, but none of us evangelize.

We then took a look at the following videos:

1. Bullhorn Guy

2. Bullwhip Guy Video

Impressions of the the Bullhorn Guy Video:

Rob Bell’s bullhorn guy was attacking a method of evangelism that seeks to publically condemn the sins of passers-by by declaring them all sinners and “sending them to Hell.”  Instead, Bell advocates that we employ “love without an agenda.”  How do we go about doing this?  We listen to them, we meet their needs, and we invite them into the best life possible.  He says that “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”  This is the capstone of Bell’s attack against the street prophet.  We cannot go about treating people at notches on our evangelism belt – but treat them as images of God, actual and whole.  You can’t scare a person into loving something.  Allegiance born out of fear will be broken the second that fear is alleviated.

  Impressions of the Bullwhip Guy Video:

The Bullwhip Guy Video (BuWiG for short) took issue with Bell’s approach.  Through the example of Jesus clearing the temple, He critiques the notion that God is simply loving and accepting of all.  Instead, there are objective moral truths that we are called to convey – the chief of which is that Almighty God is angry with our sin and will judge us accordingly.  This is a very real and dangerous predicament – and we should not hide this aspect of our worldview – because in terms of people’s eternal condition – it is the most important.  Buwig draws primarily off of Jesus and the cleansing of the temple, but he also has the proclaiming John the Baptist and the brash and harsh criticisms of the Old Testament prophets in mind.  He pleads with us to keep 2nd Timothy 4:3 in mind and not to just tickle people’s ears with what they want to hear.  We cannot turn away from the truth.

Buyers and Sellers Are Driven Out of the Temple, a woodcut by Gustave Doré (1832-1883) as found in theDoré Bible

Synthesis:

Both Bell and Buwig have points.  When we share the gospel with someone, we need to approach them as people first and never as checkmarks.  We need to find ways to love them without an agenda, to meet their needs, and to invite them into the best life possible.  However, we can’t be shy about our motivations.  Under our worldview, if you don’t accept Christ, you accept Hell.  We can’t bandy around this point.  A dimension of our love must entail a corrective element.  Each view’s strength was its weakness – We must love, meet needs, and invite, but we can’t hide other aspects of the truth.  In sum, we must find a way to blend these two approaches.  We must find a way to present the truth in the best way possible for those who are lost.  This will require a great deal of effort and will move us out of that cliché of clichés, our comfort zones.

So… What is this thing we call the Gospel?

Let me restate what I presented earlier in the week about the context of the “gospel” in antiquity:

The word gospel comes from the Greek word euangelion, which merely means “good news.”  But how was the word treated in Antiquity, during the time of Jesus? After all, Christians did not create the word from scratch, but modified it for their ends.

For Rome, the Gospel was part and parcel of the Pax Romana. Military victories or births of the new Caesars were announced across the Empire as evidences that Rome’s Kingdom reigns, or that it had come to this area of the world. Rome called its worldview the Pax Romana, and it was ‘good news’ because Rome graciously allowed you to participate in their peace and prosperity in exchange for your willingness to confess Caesar as Lord (and pay taxes. And don’t start trouble).  It is therefore a fundamentally political term in the time of Jesus and Paul.

When the New Testament writers used the word ‘gospel’, then, they were co-opting it from Rome. They claimed that God, not Rome was reigning – that God’s Kingdom was coming to Earth, and that Jesus, not Caesar, is Lord. For the early Christians, the ‘Gospel’ of Jesus Christ was at least that God offers humanity an alternative worldview – one in which he is reclaiming the world from Sin and Death, and one into which he invites all of humanity.

Therefore, we need to view the gospel as the proclamation of the Kingdom of God and the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ in quasi-political terms.  Paul describes us as participating/partnering/sharing/contributing in the Gospel.  Upon participation in the good news will entail a new set of rights and responsibilities coupled with a new community.  How do we enter/participate in such a thing?  What, then, is conversion?

Stay tuned for next week, were we take a fresh look at conversion in light of our new understanding of the good news of Jesus

Right now, JR and I are leading Sunday School at Parkade Baptist.  We are doing a series on Evangelism.  Each week, we are posting recaps over at the Parkade’s CYP blog.  I wanna reproduce them here as a series.   As evangelicals, the notion of evangelism is very important to us.  Therefore it is paramount that we can do it effectively.  However, doing so might challenge the ways we have thought about this term in the past.  I welcome your thoughts and feedback.

We had a great time this morning discussing our previous experiences with evangelism.  Here are some of the things we worked though.  (Remember, we were asking about people’s experiences with evangelism in the past, not necessarily how they thought evangelism should work in a best case.)scenario.

1.  What do you think of when you hear the word ‘Evangelism’?  How does it make you feel?

There were a variety of answers here.  Answers ranged anywhere from memories of community revivals and Power Team visits to “street prophets” handing out tracts.  Several people remember evangelists trying to convert them on the street.  Others (both people who had been servers and who know servers) said that Sunday afternoons were the worst time to wait tables.  Not only were the tips lousy, but every so often, someone would slip you one of those Bible tracts disguised as legal tender.  Ah, that brings us to Bible tracts.  Not one of us were too thrilled at the prospect of giving or receiving tracts – they have left a bad taste in our collective mouths.  Additionally, we all have felt pressure not to “flirt to convert,” but to become friends with unbelievers for the sole sake of converting them.

Part of a Bible Tract from Chick Tracts.

Overall, we felt like in order to evangelize we had to be salesmen selling a product.  Often we felt like our “sales calls” were to be cold calls, instead of earning the right to present our product to them.  Hence, most of our emotions and memories of evangelism in our pasts had negative connotations.

Why was this the case?  Well, these methods just seem… impersonal. How can I blindly approach someone and ask them to make such an identify-altering decision without any kind of shared worldview or, most importantly, any kind of relationship.

2. Is Evangelism important?  How often would you say you ‘Evangelize’?  Why is this the case?

Of course, we thought evangelism was important.  How could we not?  After all, as one of our Bible professors used to say, “Every day people are dying and going to Hell.”  Hard to argue with that one.  However, despite the shared value placed on this thing we call evangelism, no one said they really ever evangelized.  Sure, some of us were sure to be extra nice and extra courteous to people, but we thought that did not lead a single soul away from the path of destruction.

We felt at ease with living our lives as an example, but uncomfortable with evangelizing (see question 3) because if we do it wrong, the consequences are severe and we just did not know how to do it right.

3. Traditionally, what have been the most utilized methods of Evangelism? and 4. Discuss the process of Evangelism these methods employ.  That is, what is – from start to finish – the best-case encounter with someone who does not already know the Gospel?

A common sight on the University of Missouri Campus, Brother Jed, gently proclaiming the love of Jesus.

• Tracts
• Regular old relationships
• missionary friendships
• revivals (Power Team, etc)
• Sales
• Confrontational Evangelism (example, Brother Jed, see pic at the right)
• Inviting Non-Christians to:
  • Revivals
  • Power Team showings
  • “Christian” movies such as the Passion of the Christ or Fireproof

All of these things were ways to get people to walking someone down the “Roman Road” at which point we go and find another one to reach out to, having successfully added one more soul to the rolls of heaven.

At this point, we are reminded of the first line of the hymn, Each  One, Reach One, which encapsulates the this process:

Each one can reach one; As we follow after Christ we all can lead one;

5. What term should Christians use for persons who are not citizens of God’s Kingdom?

We had a hard time with this one.  Here are some that we came up with:

• pre-christians  – this describes those that will eventually become Christians.  They are already on the path that will lead them to Christ, they just need help down the path.
• seeker / explorers – these are terms coined by Willow Creek.  Explorer is replacing the term seeker.
• non-christian / non-believer  - If we are X and they are not X, then they must be non-X, no?
• the lost – This is pretty biblical, right?  It is how we translate τό ἀπολωλός in Luke 19:10, right?  They are who Jesus came to find.
• heathens – This describes their sinful behavior of which they need convicting.  Why not be accurate in our terms?  Why should we be bashful with the truth?

All of these terms are accurate to an extent.  However, that does not mean they are not without their problems.  A lot of these terms are offensive and overtly negative.  How well do you respond to negative terms foisted upon you?    How one refers to people in private tells a lot about how you really view them compared to how you treat them and speak of them in public.  Certainly those that we call unbelievers believe in something right?  How open am I gonna be to what a person wants to communicate to me if they say I am lost?  I seem to be doing just fine.  If I call you a pre-Christian, that assumes that they are going to eventually become a Christian.

We struggled to find a non-pejorative term that wasn’t watered down.  We could not agree on one term that fully encapsulated the person who is outside the kingdom of God.

Final Thoughts

We have a serious problem.  We recognize the need of evangelism.  We desperately want to lead people into the Kingdom of God. But we don’t ever do evangelism.

However we have not had a good experience with current evangelism methods.  They just aren’t working.  There is no real relationship there; people become items on a checklist, not fellow imagines dei who desperately need a restored relationship with their creator.

What is needed is a way of viewing and practicing evangelism that is effective and that treats people as more than mere numbers.  This is what we will be looking at in the coming weeks.  It will require looking at the subject in a completely new way, so stay patient and stay tuned!

Scott, over at Grace is Unfair, asked his readers for book recommendations.  Since Tom has asked for a list of readables from us, I thought I’d double-dip my recommendations here.  This is not a list of essential books, nor the most influential books I have read.  Instead, they are some good books that will help round any person.

Religious Studies

Gods of the City, edited by Robert Orsi - This is a collection of essays and case studies done on religious people in cities. It touches on all kinds of topics. There is a study of a Hindu temple in DC, a absolutely fascinating look at racial construction through a study of the Italian Harlem, the sacralizatrion of secular space by the Salvation Army, and the Japanese Presbyterian Church among others. (I have this book – can lend)

Playing Indian by Philip Deloria We constructed "Cowboys and Indians.

Savage Systems: Colonialism and Comparative Religion in Southern Africa by David Chidester: You will be blown away by this book. The anchor. The power of religion in defining the other. (can lend)

Early Christianity

Women and Christian Origins, by Ross Shepard Kraemer (Editor), Mary Rose D’Angelo (Editor) Another collection of essays; this time on women in early Christianity. Some are good essays, such as real women in the undisputed letters of Paul. Others are not so good, such as (I have this book – can lend, but I use it a lot)

The First Urban Christians by Wayne A. Meeks - Meeks looks at the earliest Xian documents (the letters of Paul) to describe tensions and texture of the first Christians, which were found in cities. The introduction is a pretty good description of NT scholarship in its own right.

In Memory of Her by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza This is a controversial work, but the best of trustful feminist scholarship. Schüssler Fiorenza is a hard-nosed german new testament scholar who teaches at Harvard. This work is an excellent sociological and exegetical study of the earliest Christians. She does not damn nor whitewash Paul – a rare thing in any scholarship on the subject.

The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles translated by William Wright. This is a interesting and sometimes unintentionally hilarious collection of Syrian acts of the apostles. It isn’t all of them (no Acts of Peter, for instance), but it will give you an idea of what popular Christians were consuming and producing at the time. (as opposed to the official story of the early church fathers) This work is over 130 years old and now in the public domain. I made a copy of it on lulu which I think you might like rather than the huge volume that also contains the Syriac manuscripts tradition.

Religious History

Augustine of Hippo by Peter Brown

The Divine Dramatist: George Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism by Harry S. Stout

These may or may not be distinctively Christian, but they have in some way helped me grow in my faith.

I love reading apocryphal literature.  Too many awesome and hilarious things happen in them not to read them.  Take chapter 17-22 in the Acts of Thomas.  In chapter 17, Thomas has been sold as a slave to an Indian merchant by good ole Jesus and finally having an audience with the king.  After showcasing his talents, the King says: “Will you build me a palace?”  “Oh yeah,” says Thomas, as he is sketching the plans for a grand palace on the ground, “Just give me the money and I’ll build you your palace.”  So the king gives Thomas a bunch of money and leaves.  He even sends him more silver and gold from time to time.  This is where we pick up the text in chapter 19:

But Judas was going about in the villages and cities and was ministering to the poor, and was making the afflicted comfortable, and was saying: “What is the king’s shall be given to the King and many shall have rest.”  And after a long time, the king dispatched messengers to [Thomas], and sent [the following] message to him: “Send me word what you have done and what I shall send you.”  And Judas send him word:“The palace is built, but its roof is wanting.”  Then the king sent to [Thomas] silver and gold, and sent him word: “Let the palace be roofed.”  And the Apostle was glorifying our Lord and saying: “I thank you Lord who died that you might give me life, and who sold me that I might be a liberator of many.”  And he did not cease to teach, and to relieve those who were afflicted, saying: “May your Lord give you rest, to whom alone is the glory; for he is the nourisher of the orphans and the provider of the widows, and he ministers unto all those who are afflicted."

In chapter 20 people start getting word to the king that Thomas isn’t building anything and that instead, Thomas was giving to the poor, teaching them about a new God and healing the sick among other things.  “And when the king heard these things, he smote his face with his hands, and was shaking his head.”  In chapter 21 the king calls Thomas over and is like: “Thomas, my son (I called him son), have you built me my palace?” Thomas says: “I have built you the palace.”  Then the king is like: “When can we go see this awesome palace you built for me with my money?”  Thomas responds: “You can not see it now, but when you have departed this world.”

That is just great.  What an excellent tale about viewing material wealth as a means to minister to those in need and to further the kingdom of God on earth wrapped in hilarity.  What an powerful metaphor, considering helping those in need as building palaces of the Kingdom of God on earth; to envision the kingdom of God, not as a political kingdom, nor a physical one, but as the just lives of people living in peace, harmony, and for the Lord.  While this tale is certainly noncanonical and is not binding in the least, it does aid in teaching me a godly truth.

John 18:38:

Jesus answered, “My Kingdom is not an earthly kingdom. If it were, my followers would fight to keep me from being handed over to the Jewish leaders. But my Kingdom is not of this world.”

Two things come to mind as questions to think about:

1. What does this mean for Christians and governments?
2. Is the kingdom of god that we hear so much about on earth now?  Or is it just something that comes later?