Christian Academic and the Postmodern Spirit June 27, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Education, Ministry, Spirituality.add a comment
I went up to Trinity yesterday to meet with a professor in regards to my school program there in the fall (and beyond) as well as the to meet up with an old friend. My conversation with Dr. X was very interesting, as we started talking about Ph.D possibilities. It is interesting how the world views evangelical institutions as second class schools. It is interesting how many graduate schools will not let “evangelicals sit at the table.” Besides the fact that this would be academic discrimination in ways (whatever happened to not discriminatory according to creed), it flies in the face of the postmodern spirit, doesn’t it? If truth is contextual and cultural, then why do we marginalize a context and culture (evangelical Christian)? In addition, why is a group that readily acknowledges its viewpoint and convictions (part of the postmodern ethos) be disqualified because they acknowledge them and seek to integrate them in terms of their education and life. Doesn’t postmodernity say this is true of everyone? I am sure I am off base at some point, but I think there is a lot of truth to what I have been pondering.
What I also find interesting is the respect given towards Catholic schools (both in secondary and post-secondary levels) but the disrespect given for Christian schools. What’s the difference….I don’t know, but maybe someday I can figure it all out.
Eyes Opened June 24, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Ethics, Justice, Ministry.add a comment
I came back from my trip with Sacred Road Ministries (www.sacredroadministries.com), a PCA church planting ministry on the Yakama reservation in Washington state. While I had tried to prepare for this trip over the past few months (and prepare others), I knew that there was no way that I could totally be prepared. I was shocked by what I learned and saw, in terms of the way that we have treated our first neighbors in past and in the present. As the missionary (Chris Granberry) pointed out, Native Americans do not like it when we say that “We know that they HAD a hard time” because it is still current. The struggles on the reservation are real…injustices are real. You cannot help but go and see that things are not the way that they are supposed to be. I have never considered the plight and how we should seek to “put the wrongs to right” before this trip on reservations. What can we do to help thing? How can we put this on the agenda for the government; we talk about all sorts of social programs (whether you like them or not) but what about our first neighbors? Is the per capita check of $25 every other month really a gift or a slap in the face? Is the land that we gave them (9% of their original land, in a region that is a desert…which was strategic) compassion? How can we fulfill the call to be like Christ, to be like God, and have concern for our neighbors, to do justice and love mercy? I am pondering….may we all ponder together.
Knowledge of the Holy (Part 2) June 11, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Small Group.add a comment
Well, this week in small group we attempted to look at chapters 3 and 4 in A.W. Tozer’s Knowledge of the Holy. However, as things work out, we really only discussed chapter 3, as we began to see some implications from this chapter. This chapter was on “An Attibute about God: Something God Has Revealed About Himself.” We began by discussing how we should views attributes, that they are things true of God, that they are his “personality.” That is, we should see God as a person, not just an idea, so these are things true of his person. Someone compared it to a painting, as we see all the different shades of who God is, but they are even beyond words. We talked about how it causes us to relate to Him. Therefore, as we journey to look at God’s attributes, we look at WHO He is.
At this point, we began to discuss how God is revealed–how does He reveal Himself. Tozer (and Brian) seem to point to 3 C, but there is a fourth C that we discovered together as a group. God reveals Himself in Creation (General Revelation), as seen in Psalm 19 and Romans 1:20ff. We see things true about God in His creation–and in humans. We affirm that things that humans make and God has made, but we also know that it is fallen. There is a limit to this revealation. As we consider who God is, we should look at creation. He has also revealed Himself in Communication, in the Word. We see this begin in Hebrews 1:1-2, as He spoke through prophets. We learn about Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Restoration from the biblical stories, we learn things about how God relates to us. We need to look at the Word of God to fill in the blanks that we see in creation. The third C is Christ, which we see in Hebrews 1:3, John 1:18, Colossians 1, amongst other places. That is, Christ reveals God. We also see this in John 10:30 and John 14, as to see Christ is to see the Father. We see God walking as a human, so we have a sympathetic high priest (Hebrews 4) and also the reality of Christ’s example and His death. Christ ultimately reveals God. But we discovered that God reveals Himself to the world as well through the Church, the community of His people. John 13:35 and 1 John 4:17 point to this, as well as Matthew 5 and 1 Peter 2. Our lives can reveal things to the world–we displayed God. Therefore, we must know who God is and live in His presence to show Him to the world. The Christian life is called to be a life of “improversation of the gospel” into the world today. That means that we have use wisdom and know the framework of God’s character to live into his reality today–and to show Him to the world. What an honor–we reveal to others who God is? What better way to challenge us to understand Him more, as it helps in worshipping Him and helping others worship Him.
Not Yet….. June 9, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Ethics, Spirituality.add a comment
I have been thinking a lot lately about the biblical narrative of creation, fall, redemption, restoration. I have been thinking about how important that is to keep in mind. As I have been doing a lot of studying in ethics lately, I have seen some of the implications for life. I couple I want to type to help me process…
1. The Fact of the Fall-this is the basis for which we make the claim that what IS is not necessarily what OUGHT BE. We see brokenness all across the world. We cannot argue from the way that something is currently and then accept it, we must wonder if this is the way that it is supposed to be. Furthermore, it reminds us that just because we CAN do something does that mean that we SHOULD because our hearts are tainted by the Fall.
2. The Fact of Restoration (in the Future)–this is also tied to redemption, but it is a constantly reminder that we will NOT have our best life NOW. We (and I include myself) think that life should be perfect, that there is an obligation that we can do what we want to do, that we are not limited in this world. However, our doctrine shows us that this is not true. There will be many longings in our hearts until the day that we die; life will not be easy. There is hope in redemption, we will see injustices fixed, but not all of them. Life will not be fair on earth and we should not expect it to be. We have glimmers of hope (that is what the doctrine of redemption teaches us), but we will not have the life that we totally want here and now. If we did, why would we even think about the eternal state.
There are WAY more implications for living than these, but I think that these have been on the forefront of my mind lately, so I processed them and shared them with whoever might read this 
Knowledge of the Holy (Part 1) June 6, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Small Group.add a comment
My small group is going through A.W. Tozer’s Knowledge of the Holy this summer. I figure I will post the lessons and what we are learning and talking about together here. This week, we discussed the first couple of chapters, which are called “Why We Must Think Rightly About God” and “God Incomprehensible.” Or you could look at it this way, why we are doing this study and how we are going to do it.
The first question is, why is it so important to think about God? I mean, this is really the epitome of theology, talking about God. Isn’t theology a boring, academic endeavor. Absolutely not, it has practical insights into our lives. We essentially looked at 3 points that Tozer directly or indirectly makes about studying God. (1) “A right conception of God is basic not only to systematic theology but to practical Christianity as well.” That is, our view of God affects how we live because it affects how we relate to Him. If we view him as “the man upstairs,” how much relationship do we have with him. Other common views of God are the old grandfather, the principal (you only hear from him when you get in trouble), the police officer, the authoriatian dicator, the “nice guy.” If God is nice and always wants good things to happen, how will we react in bad times? If we see Him as a dictator, why are we going to able him. We all have images of God. A popular one now is the “Divine Butler”–he’s there when you need him to make life easier. A question we need to ask ourselves is “what is our view of God? How does that affect how I relate.” For many, it is that He is a good Father, or that He is all powerful, but what about the Trinue God who exists in relationship? (2) The second key thought was, “The history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen about its religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God.” That is, if we view God as our standard, we will strive to be like him; He sets the tone for the world and our goals, so we must think rightly about Him to live right. The third point, (3) “The idolatrous heart assumes that God is other than He is–in itself a monstrous sin–and substitues for the true God one made after its own image.” This points to the fact that we make God how we want Him to be by default, so we must be intentionally about self-examining this view to make sure we are viewing Him as biblical. If God is simply what we want Him to be, will He ever challenge us?
After talking about why we should study God, the next point we moved to was how to get to know God. As N.T. Wright says, theology is like staring at the sun, you can’t describe the sun by looking at Him. In the same way, you can’t describe God by looking at Him (remember Moses only saw the “backside” of His glory). Words cannot totally express who God is–He is beyond words. So, how do we look at His rays? We do so by looking at the story of Scripture and how God has revealed Himself to the world in it. And ulitmately, we look at Christ who is God dwelling among us and “explaining” who God is (John 1). He has revealed Himself and we are called to know that revelation.
Am I postconservative? June 3, 2008
Posted by bdennert in Theology and Ministry.1 comment so far
I am almost done reading Reformed and Always Reforming by Roger E. Olson. The subtitle is “The Postconservative Approach to Evangelical Theology.” Essentially, Olson points to 2 different types of “evangelical” theology, interestingly enough with a TEDS professor as a representative of each stream. The conservative evangelical stream is very rigid doctrinally and very skeptical to new ideas in theology; it sees “historic evangelicalism” as being about content and doctrine; we then “contextualize” this content into today’s world and idiom. Dr. D.A. Carson is a representative of this branch. (Thomas Oden was in a sub category of this group as he is paleo-orthodox, holding to the creeds of the first few centuries as being the end all). The postconservative stream is representated by Kevin Vanhoozer, who looks at theology as more of a drama than simply information. While the former branch is rigid, this branch sees theology as the “improvisation” of the biblical story in today’s culture and world. Therefore, theology is not just saying old truths in new language, but is living out the biblical story in today’s world. Olson critiques the conservative evangelicals as having created a magisterium of theology (“historic evangelicalism”) which is really an “evangelical enlightenment” and tied to the Old Princeton School of Theology. What this has done is make tradition on par with Scripture in some ways, as there is no questioning of tradition. However, Olson points to the Reformation principles of Sola Scriptura and “Reformed and Always Reforming” as pointing to a need to question historic doctrines because everything is culturally located. The goal is to be more faithful to the biblical story. However, this is usually rejected by the conservative branch of evangelicalism, as “new ideas” are heresy.
What does this mean for me? I am struggled with the idea that my denomination accepts a confession from the 17th century as its rule of faith when we also say that we are to be constantly challenged by the Word of God. Haven’t we said that we have found the end all of theology? Maybe…but maybe not. You can be open to challenges, open to revision, without actually having to revise it. What I find interesting is that most people who question historic doctrines seem to start in culture as opposed to look at how the NT was prophetic in its own culture. I can hold to the “evangelical tradition” while also being open to change, rejecting the argumentations. For example, I have studied Stott on annihiliationism and rejected it because I think IT misrepresents teachings. Even Olson points to the fact that we have a deference toward tradition. I guess in some ways, it boils down to how we interact with new positions as well as what it takes to convince us of new teachings.
