Many will recognize the title of the song – How He Loves. I’m sure it’s been on the hearts and lips of millions of believers around the world. John Mark McMillan penned the words to this song following the death of his dear friend, Stephen Coffey. If you look up the song on Wikipedia, you’ll find a bit on the background of the song:

“Coffee was a youth minister for Morningstar Ministries. On November 1, 2002, during a church prayer meeting, Coffee prayed out loud, ‘I’d give my life today if it would shake the youth of the nation.’ That very night, he was in a multi-car accident and died of serious injuries.”

According to the same source, McMillan was recording in a studio in Florida upon hearing the news. The following day McMillan wrote How He Loves as a means of expressing his pain and frustration to God.

It was this song that Dee and I played over and over again throughout the day (and night) after losing our child. Whether crying, angry, silent – the song was on repeat for weeks in our home. We both agree that it was God’s means of grace to us in our darkest hour. Although our house is filled with hundreds of theology books and numerous bibles in multiple translations, it was this song that seemed to seep through the cracks of our broken souls and bring a soothing reminder of God’s love.

What’s weird is that the Wednesday night prior to the horrific news, Dee and I told the story of John Mark to a group of students in a bible study. In fact, we even played a video of his testimony regarding how the song came about. I remember receiving a gentle text from a friend who upon hearing the news simply said – “We love you guys. Just remember the message you two taught the teens last week. O how He loves!” The text came a few days after the song had already filled our home. It was a gentle reminder of the Spirit that we needed to continue focusing on God’s love.

It’s interesting (and often painful) to hear what people say to those who are drifting the seas of loss and suffering. I don’t want to go into great detail about this, because I know that each person who spoke with us during this time was doing so from genuine concern and love. Suffice it to say, we do well to sit with the hurting, wrap our arms around them and simply weep. And when the time arises for us to speak, may I be mindful of the danger of pithy sayings that misrepresent the heart of the Father. Thankfully, there were those in our lives who simply loved us. They listened to us – even in our silence. They sat with us. They reached out through sweet letters, calls, and texts. They filled our home with His love.

So, let’s connect this with the Scripture text from our last blog – “Happy are people who grieve, because they will be made glad” (Matt 5.4).  Our grief or mourning, although including times of crying and wailing before God and others, is not necessarily the same as shedding tears. It’s being “deeply saddened and concerned to the point of action” (G. Stassen, Living the Sermon on the Mount, p. 47). Glen Stassen draws upon Clarence Jordan’s eye-opening exegetical work and notes something extremely helpful to capture the essence of the passage:

“Penthountes [the Greek word oftentimes translated ‘mourning’ or ‘grieve’] does mean being sad because of a loss, as when your father dies or your sister is fired from her job. The reign of God will bring healing and comfort. But it also means repentance: Christians who pray for God’s reign to come are all the more aware that what is happening in themselves and their society is far from God’s reign. Their prayer life compares God’s compassion for all people with the suffering, violence, injustice, and lack of caring that hurt people; they are realists as to the causes of the wrong. They truly want to end their sinning and serve God. They want to share in a community that experiences the mustard seeds of the kingdom, the small daily breakthroughs of God’s reign.”

I don’t share this to say that people who suffer or experience loss need to repent of something that caused such. That’s not what I’m trying to say at all. I think the heart of Stassen’s take on the passage is that our mourning over the brokenness of our world (even our own lives!) drives us to the point of utter dependency upon God. In a posture of repentance, we should seek to align ourselves with God’s reign and participate in His action of deliverance for the world. In doing so, we enter into the joy (happiness) that Jesus speaks about in Matthew 5.4.

“Happy are people who grieve, because they will be made glad” Matthew 5.4 (CEB)

During our “Kingdom Q&A session” at youth camp last week, one of the questions was whether Dee and I have ever lost someone that we love.  I know that the student had no clue what happened to us earlier this year.  It was obvious when the student came up to me after the session and apologized for asking the question.  Of course, there was no apology necessary.  He didn’t know what we’d experienced.  And it offered us an opportunity to share of joy in God amidst grief and mourning.

Earlier this year, Dee and I experienced the most horrible tragedy of our lives.  We lost our first child.  Words can’t capture or do justice to the depth of pain that such loss brings.  And there is no preparing for moments like these, which have a beginning point but seem to go on endlessly.

This is the first time that I’ve written about this publicly.  I spoke with Dee about doing so, and we agree that it may be an opportunity for us to minister out of our pain.  And since it’s something that we addressed during our Q&A session, I’ll share a bit in connection with Matthew 5.4.

I shared with the students how so much that we believe theologically is connected to our doctrine of God.  How you perceive God to be means everything regarding how you go about relating to God (and others).  Now, surely, followers of Jesus want to have their doctrine of God primarily shaped by the Scriptural witness.  But even those who tout scriptural warrant regarding their doctrine of God find themselves among a host of opinions about how God relates to humanity.  And there are many who name the name of Christ who maintain images of God that seem to be shaped by so many other influences than that of the bible.

Is God the one who perpetrates evil?  Does God cause suffering?  Does God suffer?  Does God’s will change?  Is God ever surprised?  Is it possible for God’s will to be derailed?  The list of questions goes on and on.

I’m not attempting to answer such questions.  I do want to say, however, that I do not maintain the picture of God as being that of the divine puppet-master who causes every single thing to occur (both good and bad).  The created order that God brought about is more dynamic than that.  I’m not a mathematician (that’s Dee’s department, of course), but think about all of the variables involved in free creatures making an unbounded number of decisions around the world.  The possibilities are mind-numbing.  And this isn’t to mention chaos or randomness.

Yet God, in all of his wisdom, masterfully works within such a (complex) created order with the purpose of redemption.  I say this to emphasize the relational sovereignty that God exercises over creation.  His workings are dance-like.  Overall, God seeks to lead graciously, while humanity (and angels alike) must choose to follow Him.

Given the war-torn landscape of the created order, there are definitely an untold number of things for which we grieve.  Things simply aren’t the way God intends.  The brokenness, rebellion and fragmentation of our world often result in mourning among God’s people.  Yet Jesus says in Matthew 5.4 that persons who grieve or mourn will be made glad.

And such persons, shattered by the fragmentation of our world, aren’t mourning passively without further response.  Meaning, our mourning or grievance with the current mess of our worldly system drives us to a place of repentance.  Or at least it should.  We don’t want to replicate the rebellion.  We don’t want to participate in the viral corruption of God’s creation.  Therefore, we pledge our lives to God – through a relationship with God’s Son – and swim against the tide of self-sufficiency, wayward affections and godless actions.  We find sustaining joy (happiness) in knowing that God will make things right in the end.

to be continued…

Recently, a friend sent me a message through Facebook regarding a status update on my wall.  My FB status read:

I’ve heard too much – “It is what it is.” My question – “What if ‘it is what it is’ NOT supposed to be?!” Am I willing to change (for the better)?

My friend went on to explain why he thought people refuse to change, even when they know that they should.  He suggested that at the heart of the issue was fear itself.  We were able to dialogue a bit about the issue, and I thought that a snippet from the conversation may be worth a post.  He asked my opinion about what’s wrong with the statement mentioned above.  Below is a snippet from the response.  Blessings

_____ ,

Great to hear from you! Thanks for the insight concerning the status. I agree that a fear of failure is crippling in many ways. It reminds me of Jesus’ response to Jairus in Luke 8.50. Jairus’ servant just came out of the house to report that Jairus’ daughter was dead and that Jairus should no longer trouble “the teacher” any longer. Upon hearing those words, Jesus immediately says to Jairus, “Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.”

Also, I think that a misrepresentation of God is crippling to folks. Meaning, some persons see God as the “divine puppet-master” who controls (meticulously) every single thing that happens in one’s life (both good and bad). This is such a dangerous (and, in my opinion, unbiblical) picture of God that many people maintain.

The Scriptures portray God as relational and taking the ultimate risk in creating humanity with a certain amount of freedom. We have the freedom to participate with God’s gracious love or we can resist such love. Similar to everyday relationships, we don’t want robots in our lives that simply say the right things and are controlled in their response. We desire persons to choose to love and affirm who we are. In like manner, God desires such a relationship with humanity. Yet, a true relationship entails a great risk that persons will choose otherwise. God, however, took the risk and deemed a genuine relationship with us worth the risks involved.

When someone says, “It is what it is” it seems to line up with the “divine puppet-master” picture of God; as if we don’t have a choice in how things are or will turn out. This isn’t to say that we can have things however we want them. But it is to say that God calls for us to trust in his love and participate in his salvation by following Jesus (by faith). Sometimes in life, persons simply resign to how things are. Their energy or motivation for bringing about change is pretty much sapped.

Fear very well may be at the heart of the issue. It reminds me of Psalm 111.10 – “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;all those who practice it have a good understanding.His praise endures forever!” If we fear (in the sense of ultimate reverence) anything or anyone more than we do the Lord, then we quite likely will be chained to a wrong understanding of ourselves & others, a misguided picture of God and a skewed approach to life altogether.

Just a quick question?  If you were stranded on an island (like in the show, Lost) and you could have two books (not including the bible or “island survival guides”), which ones would you choose?  and why?

Peace     :whistle:

Hey everyone!  I want to invite you to check out the new online network project through Woodland Hills church (the local church where Greg Boyd is lead pastor).  The forum is really cool and has great potential for teaching, dialogue, small groups, etc.  The link is http://bridge.whchurch.org/ and there are already 629 folks on board (as of April 30).  Also, if you are in Alabama, you are welcome to join the “Alabama Group” which Jason Daughdrill and I created on the site.  It’s a cool setup for dialogue with folks in the local area (or a bit farther away).

Peace,

Shannon

I would like to unpack a bit further the issue of our last post (Sunday-Monday divide).  I appreciate the comments shared thus far.  The replies have been very helpful.  Sonny brought out a good point concerning the transition that occurred in the church’s identity during and after the time of Constantine.  For those who are unfamiliar, Constantine (ca. 272-337 CE) was a Roman emperor who allegedly had a vision that instructed him to draw the symbol Chi Rho (the first two letters of the word “Christ” in Greek, as seen in the picture above) on his soldiers’ shields during the battle of the Milvian Bridge, Oct. 312 CE.  It is said that in the vision Constantine was instructed, “By this sign you shall conquer.”¹

After emerging victorious in this battle, Constantine attributed the victory to the God of the Christians.  Thus, he and his co-emperor at the time, Licinius, issued what is known as the edict of Milan in 313 CE, which called for religious toleration throughout the empire.²  Until this time, as Sonny mentioned, the Christians were a suffering, persecuted minority.  However, after this edict, Christianity began to take on a more respectable, prominent role in the empire.  That’s a good thing, right?  Not necessarily.

Slowly but surely, the church, in her identity and purpose, began to merge with the empire.  And by the end of the 4th century CE, “the emperor Theodosius finalized the conquest of Christianity, making the faith of the Christians the only legal religion in the empire… The Church had arrived, or so it appeared.  Thus arose ‘Christendom’ – an alliance between church and empire.”³  After this transition, the church began to define the faith in a more compartmentalized manner.  If the empire is understood to be “Christian” and many of its members, for the most part, live in an un-Christlike manner, then discipleship (living under Jesus’ lordship) is emphasized less and less in teaching what it means to be “saved”.  And when one falls prey to the myth of a Christian “religion,” acknowledging proper teachings/doctrines takes precedence over entering a new way of life (now lived in allegiance to Jesus).  Thus, we divorce what we “believe” from how we live.  And as Dietrich Bonhoeffer says, “Christianity without discipleship is always Christianity without Christ.”

As Jeremy, Mike, Dee and Jason have also alluded, salvation entails more than simply claiming to be a “Christian” by title, church membership, and/or experience (e.g. saying the “sinner’s prayer” however many years past).  Not to belittle the relevance of admitting to others (verbally) that we are “Christians,” being part of a local assembly, or surrendering one’s life to Christ in prayer – at the heart of “salvation” in the New Testament is “to participate in the kingdom of God, that long-awaited rule of God, in which the rebellion, with its corollaries of lust and violence and greed and self-seeking, is undone.”4  And, in order to participate in God’s Kingdom, there has to be a change brought about in a person’s life.  He or she must “repent” of the old world order and, by faith, pledge his or her life to Christ.

Such a faith-commitment means that one no longer lives in accordance with the rebellious worldly system (cf. Rom 12.2).  By the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, we surrender each area of our lives to Jesus’ lordship.  Meaning, all of life is sacred or lived out “as unto the Lord.”  As followers of Christ, it is important to realize that our relationship with God is inextricably connected with our relationship with others (even our enemies!).  That at the heart of being witnesses of Jesus is living and loving as Jesus did.  We enter into a Christlike, Spirit-empowered life of love for God and others.  And, of course, we don’t do this by our own strength or smarts.  It is through the empowering grace of God that we enter into this new order; a way of life inaugurated by our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Blessings,

Shannon

¹ Lee C. Camp, Mere Discipleship: Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2008), pp. 25-27.

² See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I

³ Camp, Mere Discipleship, p. 26.

4 Ibid., p. 81.

I was thinking this morning about how our churches (for the large part) seem to be homogeneous, meaning, the people in our churches all seem to look alike and be very much alike.  I wondered is there a place for the marginalized of our society in our church, or would we marginalize them the same way the world does, just because they are different from us?

For example, what about those people who are mentally or physically disabled?  I have no doubt that our churches would feel compassion for these people.  I have no doubt that our churches would offer to help these people by offering food or money.  I have no doubt that our churches would pray for these people, but I wonder if we would make a place for them amidst us.

These are two very different concepts.  The first allows us to help the disabled.  But, in the second, we are opening up our world and allowing them to contribute and actually help us.  This would take much patience and love, and I am sure that it would be much quicker for me to cook a meal for my family than it would be for someone who is physically disabled. 

This is the crux of the matter.  Do we have time not only to give but to allow someone else to give to and minister to us?  Can we slow down and see that Jesus didn’t just give handouts to people and promise to pray for them; he spent time with them and allowed them to minister to him.

I have recently read about a community begun my Jean Vanier (a priest) called L’Arche (pronounced Larsh).  The name means “ark” in French.  In this community, disabled people live with those who are not disabled and they all contribute to life in the community.  After all, we are to be a community – contributing to each other.

Jean Vanier and Stanley Hauerwas co-wrote a book entitled Living Gently in a Violent World: The Prophetic Witness of Weakness.  In this book, Vanier describes his community and makes some compelling arguments about how this accurately reflects the heart of God.   He even makes an argument along the lines that in order to be a “Friend of God,” a phrase which I think is often misused by many people, one must embrace the weakness and frailty in one’s society the way Jesus did.

Hauerwas takes a somewhat more political view and argues that we must, as a society, allow the disabled to find their place in our communities.  We have become a society where we are focused on cures, and we have no time for care.  When we cannot cure someone, we want to hide him/her away in shame.  But, this is not the desire of God, nor is it healthy for our communities.

I agree with the two authors of this book and would encourage anyone to read it.  It is not long (less than 100 pages after you take out the table of contents and other things of that nature), but the book was heart-wrenching and helped me to see that ministry is not always about doing things for people who have less than you – sometimes, it is about allowing them to minister to you.  You may see yourself change right before your eyes.

Blessings,

Dee

Christian Greetings!

In conclusion to our survey of chapter one of Vondey’s, People of Bread: Rediscovering Ecclesiology, I have listed his six principles of using biblical images.  

Principles for the Use of Biblical Images:

1. Images must emerge from within the community of faith.
   
2. The images must emphasize the ecumenical unity of the Church.
   
3. The images must complement one another in depicting the reality of God, the Church, salvation, etc. (An example of this is by Augustine who speaks of the Church as “bride or the Body of Christ” when speaking of individual believer’s relationship with Christ; he uses the image of “mother” when speaking of the “self-sacrificing care of the Church for its children”; when speaking of the unity of the Church, he refers to the Church as “the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, as one body or one loaf.”)
   
4. Images are always dynamic, never static.  (This dynamism manifests in two ways: 1) an image may be replaced in the same context by another image without any transition and without change in meaning [e.g. 1 Cor 3. 6-17; where Paul uses "field" and "building" interchangeably]. 2) an image can evolve in its use by the same writer and take on a different emphasis or new meaning in another text or circumstance [e.g. Paul's use of 'temple' in referring to the local congregation (1 Cor 3.16-17), as well as of the body of each individual Christian (1 Cor. 6.19), as well as of the entire Church (Eph 2.21).])
   
5. All images are primarily theological instruments.  (As such, they point not only to the object, but to God and God’s activity in the world.)
   
6. All images used by the Church are rooted in the language and experience of Israel. (e.g. Paul calls the Christian communities “Abraham’s offspring” [cf. Gal 3.29 and Rom 4.16] and the “Israel of God” [Gal 6.16].)  *Importantly, the Christian experience of God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit unifies and transforms all biblical images.
   

Vondey contends that “bread is an image of the primary experience of the Jewish and Christian communities” (p. 34).

Blessings,

Shannon

Continuing our exploration of chapter one of Vondey’s work, People of Bread: Rediscovering Ecclesiology…

Vondey explores three functions of images: imaginative, illustrative and instrumental.

Imaginative function of Images – Herein, images serve “as vehicles of emotions, associations, and feelings; they serve not only as an informative but also an expressive medium” (p. 18).  Meaning, they help to capture (or imagine) a greater reality which lies behind the image.  The fact is that our ability to describe certain realities is definitely limited by language.  There are some things (realities) which images can better capture than can literal descriptions.  Vondey notes, “Initially, it was not a rich theological vocabulary, concise definitions or propositional statements, but the world of images that allowed the disciples to express what they had experienced” (p. 18).  

Remember:

1. Peter encounters the image of a descending sheet filled with animals, reptiles, and birds (Acts 10.10-16) which greatly impacted his understanding of the Church’s mission to the Gentiles.
   
2. Paul had a vision of a man from Macedonia encouraging him to come to Europe (Acts 16. 9-10).  
   
3. Luke connects both visions with the work of God through the images (11.12; 16.10), which directly connects to the outpouring of the Spirit in Acts 2 (v. 17; see Joel 2.28-32).
   

In this way, “after the day of Pentecost, the Christian witness was nourished by a distinctively pneumatological imagination. (*pneuma = Greek word for “Spirit”)… In other words, the biblical images were inspired by the Holy Spirit, nourished by faith, and shaped by the experience of the faith community.”

Illustrative function of Images – Herein, Vondey says, “The goal of this function is to increase the image in clarity, strength, and dynamic of its overall theological argument.”  The illustrative function requires much discernment because, if not careful, images can be used to illustrate improper theological truths.  We must always be mindful of the limitation of images and carefully express such limitations when utilizing images to explain the greater realities of God, the Church, etc.  ”The illustrative function of images is therefore dictated by the goal of harmony and unity in the fellowship of believers.  Images that illustrate the truth at the cost of destroying the fellowship of the Church are to be rejected” (p. 23).

Instrumental function of Images – The instrumental function is regarding how images serve as “vehicles of the theological presuppositions invested in them” (p. 24).  In this way, images which the Church discerns as wholesome and true serve as tools of communal formation and edification.  They are “models.”  Now, the thing about “models” of this kind is that they are influenced by the social and cultural setting in which they are used.  Thus, if persons today can no longer understand the significance of the image used in NT times (e.g. the Temple), then the effectiveness of the image is impaired.  Today, in many ways, we are in a crisis of the theological imagination, namely because of rare utilization of biblical images as instruments to strengthen and form the community of faith.  Vondey contends, “A revival of the theological imagination calls the Church to an understanding of the fundamental principles operative behind the imaginative, illustrative, and instrumental function of images” (p. 26).

Blessings,

Shannon

Hey all!  

I have been working through Wolfgang Vondey’s newest book, People of Bread: Rediscovering Ecclesiology.  (“Ecclesiology” means “the study of the Church as a biblical and theological topic”)  Now the Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at Regent University’s School of Divinity, Vondey is a COGTS alumnus.  He is originally from Germany and was raised Roman Catholic.  But now he is an ordained minister in the Church of God.  It reminds me of what a good friend said a few years back, “Catholics make good Pentecostals.”  (But that’s another post altogether.)

This week, I would like to explore some important points in chapter one – A New Image for the Church: Reviving the Theological Imagination

Throughout the Scriptures there are numerous images which represent greater (sometimes ineffable) objects and/or realities. Whether pictures, symbols, figures, metaphors, or analogies,¹ these images “stand between us and the reality we envision, often because we have no direct recourse to the object itself” (p. 14). This is not to say that the image is just like the object which it represents, but that there is a relationship between the image and its object.  ”Images help us visualize, illuminate, and comprehend, in the true sense of the word, ‘to imagine’ a reality that is otherwise distant, invisible, and incomprehensible” (p. 14). And no one biblical image portrays the fullness of God, the Church, etc.  Hence, there are various images used in the Scriptures which together portray the dynamic reality behind what they represent.

When talking about the nature and purpose of the Church, early Christian writers commented on images used especially in the NT. Of note, the most popular images discussed were concerning the Church as the people of God, the Body of Christ, and the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Such an emphasis was “greatly influenced by the emerging doctrine of the Trinity” (p. 16).  Yet, there were other early Christian writers who suggested additional images.

• Clement of Rome (1st century bishop) used the image of the Church as Christ’s army.
• The 2nd century document, Shepherd of Hermas, used the idea of the Church as a primal creation of God, represented by the image of an old woman.
• Cyprian of Carthage used the image of Noah’s ark, the sun and its rays, a tree and its branches, and a fountain and its many streams to illustrate the unity of the Church.
• Cyprian, Tertullian and Augustine often called the Church “mother.”
• Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose and Jerome also referred to the Church as a woman.

Importantly, when the early Christian writers used additional images, they were careful to relate such images to the thought world of the NT.

What are some images of the Church which you have heard or used that attempt to capture the nature and purpose of the Church (or God, salvation, etc.)? What are some of the benefits of the image/s?  What are some dangers in these images?  Is there a particular image that you remember from childhood (or another time) that helped you understand a difficult theological idea?

Peace,

Shannon

¹ Paul Minear notes some ninety-six images of the Church in the NT.  See Vondey, People of Bread, p. 15.