As a pastor trained in some of our best evangelical institutions–Moody Bible Institute, Dallas Theological Seminary and Fuller Theological Seminary–you can bet that I was taught emphatically about the Bible. My training was during the years that “expository preaching” was elbowing out all other forms of sermonizing. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards, as two examples, would not have been called to any pulpits I was familiar with because they did not teach the Bible book by book, verse by verse.

One of the givens about the Bible is its alienness to us. I mean, first year Bible college students learn about the Bible’s formation: written over millennia in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek (with a Hittite and Persian term here and there), in Ancient Near Eastern cultures as foreign to USAmericans as Islamic jihadists, and by authors with both low and high literary skills. Yes, all of this formation was under the supervision of the Holy Spirit of God. For the Bible to be “yes, that’s the Book for me…,” one must cross massive language and culture chasms, geographical and temporal chasms, genre and thought-form chasms. I mean, who today names their kid Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz and why would a personal name like that even exist? What would be his nickname? Shallie or Hash or Baz?

What’s up with no mention whatsoever of Sadducees and Pharisees in the Old Testament, yet when you start the New Testament, they are like bees in a hive? Where did they come from?

I’ve discovered that there are many ways to approach the Bible–like scholarly, pastorally, devotionally, exegetically, historically, lectio divinally, geographically and stupidly. USAmerican evangelicalism’s penchant for dumbing down is nowhere more evident than the average believer’s knowledge of the Bible (and this with the best expository preaching in the world going on every Sunday). It makes you wonder.

Let’s sit in a circle and read a Bible passage. What does it mean to you, Susie? And how about you, Joey, what did you get out of it? Many Christians care more about the exegesis of the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution than they do the Bible. What the Bible text “means” to Susie might be down-right heresy, but who’s to tell? And, Joey, bless his heart, can’t even pronounce “propitiation,” and even if he does get it out, he’s probably clueless to the wonder of the term. Joey? He got confusion out of the text. Ah, isn’t the Bible grand?

Somehow the fact of the Bible–it is here–and the presence of the Spirit–He is here–means for many that “the church” is free to sit in a circle and share downright meaninglessness. And, hey, with “the priesthood of all believers” at play, no authority exists to correct sheer stupidity being peddled as good Bible study. “But, John,” you reply, “We can find all good things biblical on-line. We don’t need scholars and pastors and leaders telling us what the biblical text means. We got laptops.” As if all the stuff on line just, presto!, appeared.

Even when the exiles returned to Jerusalem, when the Scriptures were read by Ezra, some chosen Levites interpreted the meaning of the Law so that the people could understand it (Nehemiah 8:8). The exiles had lost facility in Hebrew and needed help with the text. These are Jews and this is their Torah in their land. The only chasm to cross was language, but it had to be crossed.  Think of us so far removed in time, space/geography, language, culture and thought-form sitting down with the Bible. It is not People magazine. “But, John, we have the Spirit to guide us into all truth.” True. But you can read the Gospels all day and not get Spirit-direction on where the heck Pharisees and Sadducees came from…generally and historically speaking. (Unless, of course, you received a miraculous revelation, but I doubt that’s going to happen.) And the minute you turn to a Bible study tool to help you, you reach for an authority, a human authority. Oops.

Read the excerpt from Justin Martyr, written about 150 AD, describing an early church service (before the Constantinian revolution). It is chapter 67 of his “First Apology” and is one of the earliest descriptions of a Christian worship service.

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place [no, this can't be!] and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read [the Scriptures], as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president [the one who stands before] verbally instructs [just who does he think he is?], and exhorts [!] to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president [sounds clearly pastor-like]in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president [who is this guy?], who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Instruction (from the Word), exhortation and succour/comfort,  collection. A leader. 150 AD. No pooling of ignorance. Well, well.

The nature of the church has been an enduring conversation through history. What is ‘church’? How do we ‘do church’?

In view of the first two posts on ’styrofoam theology’ and the resulting comments, I need to temper my viewpoint and write this:  Not all organic church proponents have a skewed view of a pastor nor do all seek to eradicate the pastor from ecclesiology.

My concern in this post is to push back against the deconstructionism that permeates a segment of the organic church movement.  In view of the postmodern wave that many are riding, we have to admit the prevailing suspicion of all things authoritative. I am not so sure that the idea of ‘pastor’ is questioned as much as any attendant authority that comes with the idea and/or position or function of pastor. In some organic church thinking, you must locate all authority in Jesus the Head and all authority in his body, i.e., in all Spirit-filled believers equally.  And we are told that this is exactly what the New Testament is getting at, what Jesus wants, and what Paul’s letters espouse.

There seems to be an advanced, evolved being in the organic church: the totally non-authoritative leader. But, as this new, oxymoronic creation is explored, we discover that actually all in the church are non-authoritative leaders. The only legitimate Leader is the Head: Jesus. The “priesthood of all believers” in the lexicon of this organic church thinking results in a flattened organizational chart.  Any questioning of this organic thought invites the accusation that the questioner has bought into the “ways of the world” or “the way the gentiles rule” by lording over others, not serving them. Thus, any and all hierarchy is heretical in ecclesiology. The “priesthood of all believers” is yanked from its contexts and infused with meanings of alleged authority that would shock Peter and John. Yes, the phrase means all believers have access to God without any other mediator. Yes, it means that each believer is to offer his or her life and praise as sacrifices to God. But to conclude that we can add to these biblical realities the idea of egalitarian authority in the church is a blatant error. It just isn’t in the phrase. Luther, who resurrected the phrase from the rubble of the deformed expression of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, was an authoritarian leader bar none.

I have a good friend who is a well-respected New Testament scholar. He informed me of this (his words):  “No such thing as non-hierarchical ancient world; no such thing. Anywhere. Ever.”

Jesus was born into a hierarchial world from a hierarchial nation (Israel) and lived a hierarchial life and discipled a band of apprentices who would sit on thrones and judge others (!) and Jesus founded, don’t miss this, a hierarchial church. The issue is not hierarchy because without hierarchy, you have anarchy. Of course, church leaders/pastors can sin and lord it over others even when they are commanded not to. But you do not get rid of “lording over” by magically and postmodernly getting rid of pastoral leaders, leaders with authority.

Authentic, Jesus-like pastors have authority through the gifting of the Spirit to “author life” in others (which is what authority means). Authority does not mean possessing raw power. This I think is the error of the postmodern mindset. Do only pastors have this authority? Of course not, but they do have it and are accountable to God for the lives of the people of God they serve. This is a serious reality.

I have noted a mantra from the organic church sympathizers. Any critique of their priesthood-of-all-believers, no-hierarchal-structure, anti-clergy/laity split, all-are-leaders-and-thus-none-are-leaders theology receives this: “Well, show me from the New Testament anyone with a modern pastor job description.” I want to respond, “Show me your thorough-going American egalitarian, democratic, consensual decision-making polity in the New Testament.”  It just ain’t there.

I admit that the modern pastor job description isn’t there, either. Yet, the modern pastor job description, while culturally informed, has deep, deep roots in 1st and 2nd century church polity. In their fine book The Pastor: Readings from the Patristic Period, Philip L. Culbertson and Arthur  Bradford Shippe present the shape, nature and expression of pastoral ministry and care. We are talking pastoral ministry in the 150s-early 200s AD. That is not that long after pastor/apostle John went to meet his Maker. Yep, there are solo pastors over churches. Ironically, and encouragingly, the writings of these early church pastors/fathers present issues you would find discussed at the “modern” National Pastors Convention in San Diego. And since these early pastors are not spinning pastoral ministry out of thin air, we assume they are continuing pastoral ministry shaped by The Didache itself.

But, John, the church fathers are not inerrant and The Didache isn’t either. I agree. Yet, pastoral ministry emerged in a specific shape very early on by leaders deeply committed to the New Testament (and Old Testament) text. Recognized leaders emerged, taking oversight of the church and directing its affairs and disciplining its members. Teaching in line with apostolic doctrine was a priority and calling people to a kingdom-of-God morality was emphatic. We don’t see groups sitting around waiting for the Spirit to move and incite either teaching or moral accountability. We see pastor-teachers aggressively engaged in the care of the flock of God. Yes, there were some pneumatic groups who spawned heresy, but that was dealt with, too.

I am stunned that there is a movement that actually is trying to erase pastors and pastoral authority and care from the church. I do not question the fine intentions of those in the movement, but I do wonder about their discernment.

There is a kind of hocus-pocus going on in current evangelical (emerging) conversations. It is a kind of conversational slight-of-hand that is doing away with the concept of pastor. The word “pastor” and the idea of pastor is besieged by many and is being cast into the circular file of irrelevancy. With alleged biblical support and 1st century historical underpinnings , the pastor, presto!, disappears. The sad reality of this confident discovery is that if you do away with pastor, you do away with Jesus. I don’t think that has crossed the minds of the newly enlightened ones.

Jesus was so bold as to call himself twice the “good pastor” (John 10:11, 14). The writer of Hebrews calls Jesus the “great pastor” (Hebrews 13:20) and Peter describes Jesus as “the chief pastor” (1 Peter 5:4). In case it has slipped the minds of the wizened organic church types, the English word pastor comes from the Latin word for “shepherd” which translates the Greek word poimen in each of the aforementioned texts. Jesus didn’t call himself the good-priesthood-of-all-believers-guy. He dared to call himself not a pastor, but the good pastor. Do away with pastor and do away with Jesus. Wow, what amazing things verbal slight-of-hand can do! Gospel magic revisited.

I know the term (poimen) in noun form is only used twice of human leaders (Ephesians 4:11 and Jude 12). Jude gives us a description of bad pastors and Paul mentions pastors as gifted leaders to the church. Paul, now get this, is never called a pastor nor ever described himself by that term. Paul was an apostle. Even Timothy and Titus were not pastors; they were apostolic delegates, emissaries speaking and acting on Paul’s behalf. Yet, human pastors, good and bad, show up in the Scripture right along with apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers, overseers, elders, etc. Imagine that. But wait! There’s more. The verbal form, the ministry of pastoring, is mentioned twice, also. “Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). “Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve…” (1 Peter 5:2). It seems that pastoring is what elders/overseers do. Elder, what do you do? I pastor. We have not even tapped into the rich Old Testament sources that fill the New Testament term shepherd/pastor with amazingly relevant meaning. It cannot be denied that behind Jesus’ use of shepherd/pastor in John 10 looms the majestic text of Ezekiel 34.

“But, John,” you respond, “you have got to realize that the church, the church is a leveled playing field. The priesthood of all believers means that we are all apostles and prophets and pastors and teachers and evangelists, blah, blah, blah. Jesus is the head.” So, the new thinking and writing goes. There are no leaders in the church. There is no hierarchy. That’s pagan Christianity. What is so sad is that none of this new thinking is biblical and it is certainly not supported by history, 1st century or otherwise.

So, if you are a pastor as I am, hang tough. When all this trendy organic stuff goes the way of all styrofoam theology, you’ll still be faithful to your calling, training and ministry. Jesus, the Chief Shepherd, has his eye on you and your church. I think he sits on a throne and is surrounded by the 24 elders. Imagine that, heaven is not a level playing field, either. I don’t know if the new thinkers will ever realize that as pastors we live and serve within a monarchy and not within USAmerican play churches. They seem to have a beef against the enculturation of the church and think their skewed view of church gives them license to re-interpret the New Testament text and re-write 1st century church history. That, to me, is sad.

wishional church– those faith communities longing to be a missional church

hermesleuthtics– the process of finding “secrets” in the biblical text, i.e., the “secrets” of a successful marriage, the “secrets” of overcoming all doubt, the “secrets” of the End Times, etc.

Calvinblistic– description of vitriolic language used by classical determinists to excoriate others

Empireronomics– the results of detecting the concept of “empire” permeating the biblical text

superslapsarianism– Reformed seminarians slapping each other a high five (points).

Obamalogy– discovering how Barak Obama is closer to Jesus than ______.

Old Testosteronement– a Texas manual of new sexual insights into the “Song of Songs”

N.T. Wrightitis– a rash some conservatives get when reading Tom Wright’s views on Pauline theology

theosystemicide– the decline of interest in systematic theology

“Tickling the ears”– hearing more from Madame P. T. about the Great Emergence (which by the way is very stimulating)

Bible Belt Buckle– a Southern Baptist blackberry dessert casserole

Hallelacunae! — the joyful shout textual critics make when they resolve a crucial textual issue

theoneurological map– exquisite exegetical pursuit to tell others exactly what God thinks by going behind the revealed text into the very brain of God (see hermesleuthtics above).

innerinerrancy– (related to “theoneurological map”) the concept guiding some exegetes who actually have the ability to read more from a biblical text than the Holy Spirit ever intended be read (and they feel quite proud of themselves).

Empiricism is coming to the truth by using the human mind in examination of the evidence. Thomas wasn’t a gullible man who was going to “take others’ words for it.” He wanted to see for himself and touch for himself and reach his own conclusion. He needed evidence that demands a verdict. And Jesus in his gracious way invited Thomas into the evidence (see last post). I take it, then, that Jesus isn’t adverse to empiricism nor reluctant to provide evidence in the journey of faith. Having said that, we need to probe a little more because Jesus went on to say this to doubting Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

I don’t want to make more of this than Jesus did. But I don’t want to make less either. Jesus didn’t say, “Blessed are you, Thomas, because you have seen me…” Jesus did compare, dare I say contrast, Thomas’ adoring surrender because of the evidence to those who would believe without seeing, without the empirical evidence. Jesus reserved the term “blessed” for them. Why?

To reduce faith to requiring evidence for origin and growth would shove faith onto a tiny playing field and away from the grand scope of reality. Rationalism and empiricism for all their persisting dominance since the Enlightenment horribly reduced reality. Placing the human mind as the arbiter of truth based on scientific inquiry has made midgets of us all.  Reality is too vast to wear only a lab coat. Perhaps that is why brilliant Jesus said, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

From time to time evidence may be brought in as a servant to faith. It is never lord of faith. Jesus is Lord of faith and the evidence, too. Jesus served Thomas. He didn’t rebuke him. Yet, he moved Thomas and the rest of us to contemplate a vast reality where a knowing occurs without evidence or even in the face of contrary evidence. ”I believe, therefore I am.”

A thoroughly Jewish human being–Thomas–is confessing to the resurrected man–Jesus of Nazareth–acclamations of adoration and surrender reserved only for Israel’s YHWH. The context is Thomas’s touching Jesus’ wounds resulting from crucifixion. While the awe of resurrection stuns Thomas, the death marks of the cross are visibly and inescapably evident. Thomas crumbles in worship before the man, Christ Jesus, while blurting out attributes of undeniable (O.T.) deity. Thomas makes it very personal with the double “my” (see Greek text). 

Is Thomas prototypical of the Revelation 7:9-10 scene? Is this Jewish doubter-now-worshiper a present incarnation of future and cosmic redemption? Can we who possess the complete Story fast-forward to the restored End? “After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. And they cried out in a loud voice:
   ”Salvation belongs to our God,
   who sits on the throne,
   and to the Lamb.”

The one man Thomas before the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth offers us a glimpse of the impact of God’s salvation on the nations of the earth. All the nations. The apocalypse of John gives us a peek into the future.

Who exactly is this resurrected man? Why does Thomas revere him as YHWH? These questions turn us back toward the person and ministry of Jesus as the promised “Coming One” and as the suffering Servant of YHWH. How did this most unlikely of messianic claimants (“Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”) make so good on his particular claim when so many others had failed?

Thomas is the pivot of a doubtful humanity before the Christ, the Son of God. We observe a very human response to the sharpest point in salvation history: the death and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah, Savior of the world. As N.T. Wright is fond of asking, “Is God Jesus?” Perhaps theology is not working from deity to humanity, but just the reverse: thinking through real humanity (Jesus of Nazareth) to stunning deity (“my Lord and my God”) within the grand Story of God.

Emergency Conversation

You read it right: not emergent conversation; not emerging conversation…emergency conversation.

I feel a pastoral duty to start a new movement titled The Emergency Conversation. I will be sole author and provocateur. All adversarial comments can be aimed at me, not at Brian McLaren or Tony Jones or Doug Pagitt…or Peter Rollins. So relax everyone.

I will publish some books to help this new movement. An Old Kind of Christian: The Awesome Resurgence of John Gresham Machen. Taking a clue from Anne Coulter, my next book will be If Emergents Had Any Brains They Would Be Calvinists followed by a whimsical little fiction work titled The Shed in which the persons of the Trinity are called Larry, Moe and Curly. I will offer some theological tomes as well: The Eternal Primacy of Penal Substitutionary Atonement: Why Christus Victor Makes Me Sick. Included will be a book about Jesus because Jesus studies are really hip: Jesus of Nazareth: The Incarnation of Someone Not as Smart as a Dispensationalist Who Really, Really Knows the End Times. I must address another hot issue, so I’ll do a work titled The Tightly-Closedness View of God’s Sovereignty and Omniscience: Divine Meticulous Control of Nano-Particles and, Therefore, How Much More All Human Lives. To round out the publishing arm to sustain this movement, I will write an historical treatise Back to the Future: The Theological Shaping of the Apostle Paul or How Paul Learned Everything He Wrote from Martin Luther. That work should shut down this whole fantasy called NPP (New Perspective on Paul).

Why “emergency”? Maybe it’s contextual. In West Michigan too many fine Christians experience apoplectic seizures when the terms “emergent” or “emerging” are used, especially in conjunction with the word “conversation.” Pastorally it is just not right to allow them to experience so much trauma over words. They need comforting and coddling from that big old scary world of serious theological thought. In West Michigan we have a category along with justification and sanctification called petrification. We want our theology petrified…rock solid. We have hardworking, self-appointed theologians protecting the West Michigan flocks from slippery, ooey-gooey heresy, but who is mopping up the blood? Hence, the Emergency Conversation. We serve those caught in the gears of a, God forbid, changing world.

The Emergency Conversation is a movement of one…like most self-appointed protectors of the “pure” church. So, you can’t join. I don’t want my movement to get watered down by radical thinking, tattoo-wearing, beer-drinking, cool square glasses-wearing, postmodern, post-Christian, post-categorical, post-evangelical, post-trib, post-toastie types who have rejected the assured results of historico-grammatico-biblico-textualico- theologico-hebraico-aramaico-graeco-hermeneutics. But you can give money…lots of money.

Jeremy Bouma has a story to tell and he tells it well. Having grown up in a very conservative Christian environment (Hudsonville, MI) and having served in ministries where a mutant form of the Gospel was transmitted, Jeremy underwent a conversion. Through his own experience of “the dark night of the soul,” Jeremy came out rethinking and reformulating his faith within the postmodern, post-Christian culture of the USA. In all this, Jeremy found a deeper passion for the church and for the robust Gospel of Jesus Christ. Having spent 5 years doing “ministry” on Capitol Hill, Jeremy was sickened by how the politicians viewed Christians–just another lobbying and voting bloc that was no different than the N.O.W. or N.R.A. It was all about how to get in power and stay in power.

One of Jeremy’s favorite questions is “Are you kidding me?” And he asks that question to those who are espousing the view that the Gospel of Jesus is inherently offensive. Jeremy has written The (Un)offensive Gospel of Jesus (NovusLumen Publications: 2008). He believes the “offensive gospel” view is biblically, theologically, pastorally and practically wrong. Jeremy contends that view usually starts in the wrong place–with sin or with hell/heaven and it offers nothing substantive for life-transformation. But don’t get Jeremy wrong. He’s not substituting a wimpy, gutless Gospel. Jeremy offers a powerfully sweeping, compelling, confronting expression of the good news of the kingdom of God.

Jeremy does not harangue the church. He presents his concern with the “offensive gospel” view in one chapter. He, then, offers in the rest of his book a fascinating overview of God’s grand Story of redemption. And with all his theological expression, Jeremy never leaves planet earth.

I have the privilege of serving with Jeremy as he is fulfilling his pastoral internship here at Fellowship Evangelical Covenant Church in, you guessed it, Hudsonville, MI. How ironic. Jeremy is a good scholar, an insightful, emerging thinker, capable writer and is and will be an influential voice in the leadership of the Church at large.

Jesus’ cohort left him to buy organic at the nearest kiosk.

A Samaritan woman-”the other to the second power”-approached the community’s gathering space, carrying the symbol of her status in a harsh patriarchal culture.

Jesus said, “Water is good. Water is to be shared. Water is life. May we share in a drink of water together?” He lit two candles, too, symbolizing the two flames of life at the well.

The woman replied, “I am in the oppressed class–a Samartian–and you are in the religiously oppressive class–Jew. I am victim. You are power. How is it that you encounter me in an egalitarian way in a world of power-assigned values?”

Jesus pushed back, “Woman, I am post-Jewish. I am post-Second Temple Judaism. I am assigning new symbolic value to people, places and religion itself. I am on a journey through liminal space into the emerging reality.”

“Friend,” the woman asked, “what will this new reality be?”

Jesus continued to dialogue with the woman, “I don’t know. No one knows. We see through a glass darkly. We are simply deconstructing the old and hoping to see the new emerge. No one can step up and lead, of course, for leadership is a carryover of oppressive power categories incarnate now in the regimes of Rome. We must feel our way into the new world and will know it intuitively. To grope is to grow, we say.”

“Cool,” said the woman, “You give me hope as a worshiper of G-d. I thought you Jews had a corner on G-d and we Samaritans were outside the centered set where G-d lives.”

“Oh no, no, ” Jesus demured, “that is so wrong! No one owns G-d. G-d is not definable. G-d is the ineffable mystery. All our language about G-d only conceals G-d; constructing propositions does not reveal G-d. Let it go. Even more, all we have received about G-d as true has been shaped by alliances with power. Be suspicious. Yet know that I am emergent. I am come to speak truth to power. You have to dismiss some of your received thinking. Let me unpack this for you. G-d is accessed communally, not individually, and however the community defines G-d that is true G-d for that particular tribe. There is no one true ‘G-d’ for all people.”

The woman smiled, responding, “I am so hopeful because even in my societal weakness and personal brokenness, I feel that I am more qualified than the religious power-brokers to find G-d. I am an authentic seeker.”

“Seekers are finders,” Jesus warmly replied.

The woman paused a moment before she spoke. Then she confessed, “Did you know I am living with a man who is not my husband? I have had five husbands already. I will form a loving community of multiple-husbanded women and there encounter and define a loving G-d for us.”

“Yes, yes, you are the messiah for your niche. Welcome to the wonder of liminal space. Your loneliness gives you the moral authority and right to live with whoever and with as many people as you wish.”

Jesus’ cohort returned and shared double-shot mocha breves with all, wondering among themselves what the two candles meant.