Audacious Incarnation

One of the significant debates in the early church was whether Jesus really became “flesh” or just appeared to do so. Neo-Platonism, a major Greek philosophy influence on thinking at the time, assumed the material world was evil and could not imagine the spiritual and material mingling in the same “flesh.” That point of view or paradigm led to interpreting John’s clear statement that “the Word became flesh” in ways that would have undermined both the Incarnation and Trinity.

Fortunately Athanasius, an early church father, stood firm for the audacious thought that the Divine Creator had actually become part of the created.

“But let them listen to this: if the Word had been a creature, He would not have assumed a created a body, in order that He might give it life. For what help can come to the creature from a creature, which itself is in need of salvation? But since the Word, being Creator, Himself became the Maker of the creatures… clothed Himself with what was created, in order that He again, as Creator, might renew it, and be able to repair it.”- Athanasius

It’s still an audacious, mind-blowing thing that God has done to really be “with us.”

Thoughts on Shame and Grace

In a recent conversation with Andre Oosthuizen on Facebook, I shared some of my journey to see internalized-shame as the significant barrier to internalizing grace.

Andre lives in Amanzimtoti, KwaZulu-Natal and has a wide-ranging ministry that is built on a “new paradigm” understanding about grace. The paradox is that this “new paradigm” is really the “old paradigm” of many Early Church Fathers that is now being recovered as the really “good news” about grace for guilt and shame.

Just thought I’d post my comments back to Andre for those interested in the larger “conversations” that are happening outside the BT Community.

Why Inerrance Doesn't Matter

Roger Olsen, a very honest and respected theologian posted the following to his blog Roger E. Olsen. It's an example of how dysfunctional are we when mis-labeling and obfuscation are the keys to keeping one’s job in Evangelical educational institutions. Sounds like part of the Don’t Talk, Don’t Feel, and Don’t Trust Rules:

…. for most of us the word “inerrancy” has become too problematic uncritically to embrace and use.  To the untrained and untutored ear “inerrant” always and necessarily implies absolute flawless perfection even with regard to numbers and chronologies and quotations from sources, etc.  But even the strictest scholarly adherents of inerrancy kill that definition with the death of a thousand qualifications.  Some who insist that you must be evangelical to be faithful to Scripture’s authority say inerrancy is consistent with biblical authors’ use of errant sources.  In other words, they say, the Bible is nevertheless inerrant if it contains an error so long as the author used an errant source inerrantly.

How many people in the pews know about these qualifications held by many, if not all, scholarly conservative evangelicals?  When I teach these qualifications to my students (as I have done over almost 30 years) the reaction is almost uniformly the same: “That’s not what ‘inerrancy’ means!”  I have them read the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and most of them laugh at the twists and turns it makes in order to qualify inerrancy to make it fit with the undeniable phenomena of Scripture.

The biggest qualification is that only the original autographs were inerrant.  Think about this. … (more)

Audaciously Re-Reading Romans

Richard Beck has tackled an in-depth review (10 posts as of today) of an amazing book on his blog Experiential Theology. The book The Deliverance of God: An Apocalyptic Rereading of Justification in Paul has created quite a reaction. It’s a major rethinking of the way most of us have been taught to read Romans that is foundational to what he calls the Justification Theory of the Atonement.

What is the Justification Theory? Briefly it includes:

• there is a just, holy and omnipotent God who is characterized by retributive (punitive) justice;
• human beings, across the board, are unable to achieve moral perfection;
• God will judge us negatively. Despair comes when we realize that we cannot rescue ourselves;
• the judgment of God, previously directed at the human person, is satisfied by the death of Jesus;
• the righteousness of Jesus, his blamelessness, is imputed or reckoned to the believer.;
• accepting through faith the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. God’s judgment is satisfied and the believer is “saved,” counted as righteous before the Judgment Seat of God.

 Sound familiar? For many of us the idea that there might be another way to understand “the Gospel” seems dangerously audacious. The glue holding this point of view together is the usual reading of Romans 1- 4 as an expression of Paul’s personal theology. Campbell suggests is that in those four chapters,

Healing Our Stinking Thinking

A comment to a previous post continues to bounce around in my mind like a pinball machine – thanks Lenny.

I heard believers “…stating that only “Christian(s)” do the “right thing” for nonselfish reasons and non-believers do the “right thing” for selfish motives. These people have been believers since childhood. It is my opinion that they have had little experience with choosing the “right thing” without relating to God. I remember choosing to the do the “right thing” unselfishly before being a believer, so I disagreed with their belief. With this being my experience I have questioned what difference does God make in our lives?

Prayer as Trinity Dancing

Perichoresis is a term used to describe the dynamic, creative interaction within the Trinity and into which we have been adopted. Often referred to as the “dance of the Trinity,” how does that relate to our image of prayer?

“Lengthening Our Memory 4“: Scott McKnight, at Jesus Creed, shares from Chris Hall’s book, Worshiping with the Church Fathers, in which he examines the topic of prayer in the fathers….

What, or who, has been your best teacher for prayer?

Clement of Alexandria: prayer is communication with God. But this brings in theology: “true theology is the adoration offered by the intellect” (86). Hall here explains the Trinity in terms of perichoresis: God is love in communion, God has always been love in communion, and God created out of that love. Prayer is communion in that communion and God wants us to talk to him because those who love one another want to hear from one another, even when they know what the other one asks.

Father, Son and Spirit, I like that. I’ll have more of that communion dance please.

Confidence in the Incarnation

Is there a vision of the future in which we can have enough confidence to find meaning in today? What is the basis of that vision in a world that seems to have no confidence in any ultimate reality? Without that ultimate vision we become experience-seekers, moving on to the next stimulating experience when the current one fades (relationally, spiritually, emotionally, and drug-seeking behavior at its extreme.)

T. F. Torrance suggests that vision is not rooted in a future-state dualistic heaven with the destruction of creation, as typically in Evangelicalism, but a here-and-now reality that is yet to be revealed. The confidence in it is rooted in both the character of the Trinity’s love and that the redemption of creation was intended before its existence. [He uses the term "church" here way beyond any institutional expression]:

“The church of the risen Lord has no right to be a prophet of gloom or despair, for this world has been redeemed and sanctified by Christ and he will not let it go. The corruptible clay of our poor earth has been taken up in Jesus, is consecrated through his sacrifice and resurrection, and he will not allow it to sink back into corruption. Hence the whole creation groans and travails waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God, looking forward with eager expectation to the hour of final liberation and renewal in the advent of its risen savior.”

Atonement: The Person and Work of Christ Thomas F. Torrance, Ed: Robert T. Walker; Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic and Paternoster, 2009. p 263