I’ve been thinking about
these things recently---and have not gotten around to writing a full column on
them:
1. I’ve been thinking a lot about death and dying thanks to his study of films on the subject in
connection with a new course he’s co-teaching with Steve Horst titled “Theology
and Philosophy in Film”
2. This has led to sober thinking about life, and some
of the mistakes I’ve made through
life.
3. For
instance I’ve been thinking that my greatest mistake has been theological—I’ve not fully grasped the importance of the
church. I’ve been a true “man of the
enlightenment” in emphasizing individuality… personal relationship with Jesus Christ, a personal walk with God, personal
devotions—to the exclusion of the corporate elements of Christianity. I’ve got to think more on this before
writing, but I’m increasingly thinking that there is no such thing as just a
“personal relationship with Jesus Christ” apart from a relationship with the
church. I know, I know—this sounds
incredibly Catholic. But I’ve been wrong to ignore the central role of the body
of Christ in the life of a real Christian—not just to helps
Christians be better people or to be a locker room for real life outside the
church, but I’m increasingly pondering the thought that there is so salvation
outside the church. I’m fed up with a
world charmed by Jesus who reject the church. But the world’s dismissal of the church is
not my central concern—but Christian’s dismissal of it.
4. Which has led me to the question, What is the church? For instance we
Protestants believe the Bible is the basis of Christian truth and
practice. But we don’t. Most of us believe the Bible says things
based on the church’s teaching. Indeed
that is what our articles of religion are—a list of interpretations of what the
Bible really says. But we keep saluting
the flag of a “Bible-based doctrine” and we keep running up the sola scriptura
flag and saluting it as good protestants. Yet how did
we get our Bibles? Was it not the church
led by the Spirit who decided what would get in our Bible what would not make
the cut? (We’ve been recently reminded of this recently through the popular
book (and coming movie) the Da Vinci Code. But who is the church? Is it some mystical spiritual body—the church
unseen? What good is that? Then is it the broken frail self-centered
fleshly contraption we know as denominations?
I am thinking about the inadequacy of the notion that I personally am supposed to read my Bible personally to find out what God is
saying to me. That sort of thinking leads to all kinds of
wacky results including
5. I’ve also been thinking about Electronic
Materialism. How we love new electronic
gadgets and what was once a piling up of larger treasures on earth has largely
been supplanted by piling up (and discarding still-perfect-but-the 5.0 edition)
of software and devices. Is this a
materialism we have bought? What about Nicholas Carr’s
bombshell article “IT doesn’t matter” saying that this constant quest for the
most recent device and software is no longer paying off for business. Could it be that the prophets of
anti-materialism in this area may come from the world and business, not the
church?
6. I’ve been also thinking someone ought to write
something arguing for earlier marriage.
Nobody I know does—certainly none of my colleagues or my students’ parents. All my students have been brainwashed by the
Baby Boomers to wait until their education is finished before they get
married. Parents threaten that they’ll
cut off their kids form the dole if they get married so they wait. But when they are both godly young people,
they are in love, and the couple is the perfect match? How is waiting until after college (or until
you are 27-30 as many recommend today) helping marriages? Is it really true that you get better spouses
when you wait? What does this notion do
to the many Christian women (especially those on college campuses like mine)
who now are believing this idea and proudly announcing “I don’t need a guy” and
“I am a complete person and need no man to complete me” and “I’m not even
thinking about a guy until I’m in my late 20’s” Are these gals headed for a late-20’s life
more like the women on HBOs Sex and the City? Or is it a good thing. Someone ought to think about this and not
automatically adopt the world’s “a later marriage is a better marriages”
doctrine without at least examining it.
7. And, I’ve been thinking about how worship has become
mostly a performance on a “stage” with an “audience.” Is worship the work of the people or a
performance to watch? How did we get
here? Is there a way out?
8. And speaking of worship, I’ve been pondering how
worship among my students is so privatized—sort of like “having personal
devotions in a group.” Is this a good
thing? Is worship at its best a
corporate thing or a personal thing?
Certainly in heaven worship is
corporate, What is corporate
worship… and is there such a thing as when “the sum is greater than the
parts”—when something different happens when a group worships together not as
individuals – as sort of worship gestalt?
9. I’ve been wondering if there are “rules” for pastors
retiring—like I’ve written about how one ought to resign and leave. If something’s not out there I might write
something. God knows I’ve seen lots of
pastors retire and be a royal pain in the neck to their successor. What are the rules for retiring—for the sake
of the church?
10. I’ve been meditating a lot on the Bible and how we
know what it means. The immature answer
“It means clearly what it says” doesn’t work for me. I see too many Christians and denominations
saying it means something different. So
how do we know what it means? These
questions of a bible hermeneutic are constantly on my mind the last five
years—especially since I talk about it several hours a week with my colleague,
Ken Schenck. As mentioned above, I see how the church has a role in determining
what the Bible means, but I’ve got to think more about this before I write more
on it. Right now I am objecting to the
“original meaning” scholars who argue that the Bible can only mean what it
originally meant. These scholars mock my
students quoting Jeremiah as if God meant He actually had plans for them
personally. This group of evangelical
scholars argue that the meaning of the Bible is locked up in the original
meaning—and SURPRISE—only they have the key, since the ordinary person can
barely access the ancient meaning of the text, I am wondering if this is any better
than the medieval Catholic church when the Pope controlled the meaning of the
Bible. I’m increasingly being convinced
the Bible can be read today by people today and God speaks through the Bible in
ways the ancient writers would not even understand. This “Bible as sacrament” notion is how I was
raised, how most of the evangelical church lives, and how all the most
spiritual people I know use their Bible.
Are all these folk wrong and the “original meaning mafia” right? Or is the “original meaning is the only
meaning” crowd about to pass off into history as a new generation of
(postmodern?) scholars rise up to scoff at their predecessors fetish with the
original meaning—as if they could actually get it by their precious literary
method. I’ve got to think a lot more on
this because I’ll be getting some powerful Bible scholars at Asbury and
elsewhere really mad if I write it. So I’ll just keep thinking about it.
11. I’ve been contemplating the notion of leaving an
endowment to a church or University. It
seems to me that if I like what a particular institution is doing now, the most
likely time they’ll keep doing what they are doing now is, well, now! It seems to me that people who
endow something think that it will go on and never change—that their money will
keep supporting the thing in perpetuity.
But the truth is if they spent down the gift in the next five years that
institution would be closer to what they giver wanted. So I’ve been thinking about what those godly
people would say today who left their estates to endow Harvard because it would
train ministers forever to bring spiritual revival to the colonies. But I’d better think more about this one
too—because I’d be biting the hand that feed me—I work in a University that
hires full time people to get endowments.
12. I’ve been wondering if I’ve missed a whole
understanding of holiness by making it mostly a personal business. On reading the Scriptures recently I’ve seen
that holiness is a lot about a group, the church being holy, not just
individuals. I’ve not said much about
this ever—I think it has been a mistake of mine. Jesus’ atonement was to make a holy
church—without spot or wrinkle. I’ve always assumed this was accomplished by
making a bunch of holy individuals, but I’ve been wrong I think. Holiness is as much about the church being holy as individuals
being holy. When I wrote the book
Holiness for Ordinary people I didn’t even think of a chapter or the holy
church. Shame on me. “We grow too soon oldt
and too late schmart” (Pennsylvania Dutch saying).
13. I’ve been thinking about para
church ministries and local church service.
Why would people prefer to go into para church
ministries like Campus Crusade, Navigators, and Kingdom Building
Ministries? Why would people prefer to
give to these organizations or the local church? What can people in both learn from each
other?
14. I’ve been pondering the notion of entire
sanctification. It is interesting to me
that the masses of evangelicals believe that a person can not save
themselves—that they can be regenerated only by God and nothing they can do
will save them. And God can do that in
an instant—in a miracle moment of conversion.
But when it comes to sanctification they switch—they assume that
sanctification can neither occur in a moment, and most of it is an effort to
“grow spiritually” which they define as developing spiritual disciplines. Interesting. Why can evangelicals believe in an
instantaneous all-by-God’s-miracle first work of grace but not a second? And, why do most “holiness people” agree with
them?
15. Are we free to change sacraments? That is, can the church drop a “sacrament”
or demote it and invent new ones? If a
sacrament is a God-ordained means of grace—a channel through which God prefers
to pour his power and grace—can God discard old sacraments like wineskins and raise up new one like holy laughter? Or more direct for revivalists like my own
denomination, can we demote the sacrament of Holy Communion and replace it with
personal devotions as the chief form of spiritual growth? And can we demote baptism and replace it with
the altar call conversion as our new sacrament of induction into the
kingdom? Or, is it OK for my students to
consider “worship” (meaning the musical praise part of the service) as the
primary sacrament—the primary channel of God’s changing grace for them today?
16. Should I even be thinking about these things? Is it good to think? Or is it dangerous? Should I spend more time dreaming up new
programs for pastors to initiate in their local churches? These things I’m thinking about aren’t
directly demanding in the “real life” local church. Has my thought life become representative of
the ivory tower academic world more than grass roots local church? Is it a waste of time for me to think (and
write) about such things?
17. (Well, those are some of the things on my “thinking
list”—I just ran out of time typing up the list… after all, I’m not writing a
column… I’m just writing some of the things I’ve been thinking about…
From