The Blue Parakeet by Scot McKnight July 28, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Language, Theology and Ministry.1 comment so far
I have heard Scot McKnight speak, used some of his more scholarly works, and followed his blog for a few years now. I like him; he’s a provocative and relevant speaker as this is true of Blue Parakeet in the Lisle Library, as I could now read it for myself. As I suspected, it is clear (it has a great structure, essentially intro and then two parts, with those parts subdivided well), full of good scholarship (though more aimed at laity, it is published by Zondervan/Willow Creek) as well as helpful in use of illustrations and pictures (the whole idea of a “blue parakeet” comes from a story about an escapted pet blue parakeet that Dr. McKnight saw; this becomes his controlling metaphor as he seeks to help us “unleash” the Bible and rethink how to read it). I liked it on the whole, as his approach to Scripture is much like mine, while it would seem that using a similar approach, we come to different conclusions. I concur with much of the message of the book, though I have a few critiques.
The introduction of the book deals with the fact that, whether we admit it, we all pick and choose what we apply from the Bible (except in really extreme causes!). The question is, how do we justifiy this sort of “picking and choosing.” In many ways, that is the purpose of the book. McKnight then uses a metaphor that we often cage the “blue parakeet” of the Bible, either by rigorously seeking to apply it or holding it captive to tradition. Instead, we need to read it as it stands on its own, as well as in conversation with others in history (reading with tradition). There are three elements that McKnight wants to impart in regards to approaching reading and appying the Bible. The first is that the Bible is not an instruction manual/rule book, mysterious puzzle with a code to be solved, blessing book, reader response/inkblot test, or having one privileged portion; it is a story. I affirm; I have taught this persective many times. We need to read it as the story of God’s redemption; McKnight modifies the usual Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration to Creation, Crack, Community (Israel), Christ, Consummation. Not sure if I will adopt this view (I have more of a view that would talk about redemption through a people failing (Israel) and moving into a person (Christ), but I affirm it. The second part tells us that the goal is to listen to God; to listen and obey God. The goal is not to obey the Bible but the God who reveals Himself in the Bible. While this might sound a bit too neo-orthodox for some, this is something that I have taught as well (even using 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as well), viewing the Bible as a way to a relationship with God. The Bible is His inspired Word but knowing it is not an end but a means to an end: knowing Him. So far, so good!
The third part of approaching the Bible–discerning–and then the case study–women in ministries–is where Dr. McKnight and I seem to differ more; I don’t think in principles as much as in application of principles. The idea of discerning is that through the Spirit and the historical/cultural context of our faith, we must see how the Bible patterns our life. This is where the rubber hits the road and where it gets messy. One critique I would give this book is that not enough time was spent on how to “discern,” which is understanding God through His Word and then applying it to our world today. This process means that we must understand what it said it its day (Moses’ ways in Moses’ day–careful Bible study) as well as what our world is really like today (I don’t know if Dr. McKnight cover much about how to “exegete the culture”). This is more difficult than Dr. McKnight seems to mention, as both processes are very complicated. He tries to do so with a case study, but this case study seems to lack much exegetical discussion of culture (furthermore, his approach to the discussion does not seem that different from others who have not advocated his same approach to Scripture). In some ways, McKnight does not mention how we must analyze culture to see where it is neutral to God’s created order and where it is in opposition to God’s created order–we must embody the gospel in the culture but this also means that we must confront the culture and transform it. A way that I see this having implications in his case study of women in ministry is the issue of whether we have an increasing androgynistic culture, if there are connections between feminism and the new “Roman woman” that he talks about in 1 Timothy, the variety of cultures/heritages/perspectives in our culture today (is there an “American culture” or “cultures in America”) and whether there are other paradigms (household of faith) that affects how we view church leadership (we also differ with how we see the created order affecting the issue, are the differences of men and women tied to the fall or creation?). Furthermore, it is much more difficult to exegete the original meaning, as we seem to differ in some readings concerning 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2. We are never going to have unanimity in these issues, which should also lead to some humility; perhaps there is a place for both. Something I definitely think that people should take away from this section, though, is the question of what minstries we see women doing in Scripture, as opposed to seeing what they might not be allowed to do. I am not quite where he is in terms of overall practice, but I think he has some insights we need to keep in mind.
The conclusion of the book in some ways moves to a “contextualization” of Christianity in each culture; we will live it out our faith differently in different times and places. I do not have a problem with that (must be my missiological training), within reason; this seems to be what happens in the Bible (though I would say that they contextualized under the inspiration of the Spirit; we do so under the guidance). There is diversity in Scripture; while I do not go as far as Ehrman and others and say that the 4 Gospels are 4 different religions, I do think that each community had its emphases and uniqueness, which affirms the validity of some differences in practices within the heart of the gospel (say Apostles’ Creed). But are these totally different cultures–or manifestations within sub-cultures? Does the “melting pot” feel of America mean that we have many different cultures or that we can have the gospel manifested differently within our nation because we are merging it? Is this why we have Willow Creek and the Episcopal church? Dr. McKnight mentions how he enjoys both of them and thinks that we need both; might the same be said in other areas of doctrine–such as the one of women in church ministries, which McKnight discusses (baptism, church order, worship styles, etc.). He does not seem to point to the fact that we could have a plurality of practices within a diverse culture–making the stance of something like the PCA vs. that of Willow Creek or other churches not in opposition but reflecting different ways of discerning in a multiplex culture.
As I said, a good, thought-provoking book. A good conversation piece. It corrects some mistakes that we make in reading and thinking about the Bible. I like it; however, it needs to be read in conversation with other books in Bible study (exegetical and cultural) 
There is a God by Antony Flew July 26, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Apologetics, Books, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.4 comments
Back in 2004, when I was teaching an apologetics class at church using Jesus Among Other Gods, the revelation that Antony Flew, a very well-known atheistic philosopher of the 2nd half of the 20th century, now believed in a God came out. It was true, as it came straight from the horse’s mouth–he myself. Of course, this was shocking news and well-received by Christian apologetics, panned by other atheists. I finally got around to reading Flew’s There is a God, in which he recounts his philosophical journey to deism. This is important to remember: he is a deist now who believes in the God of Aristotle, the unmoved mover; this god is self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient. God is not good or active (two key elements in the Christian god). Flew intially became a atheist because of the problem of evil; he says that this is not an issue, though, that determines God’s existence, but one that might reflect on His character. The two solutions in his mind are deism or free-will. He says that the evidence brought him to this belief; he is being true to his philosophical convictions that evidence should lead to one’s beliefs.
The first half of the book is Flew’s atheistic philosophical journey. There were many ideas that I did not totally understand, as they are were more philosophical and how he helped develop a different school of philosophy in some ways. Ironically, this school of philosophy has made some advances and has led to Flew changing his mind about the existence of God. He notes that philosophers have acutally made some advances in thinking over the past 50 years; there can be advances in philosophy! Flew then goes on in particular to look at the reasons he believes now (common apologetic arguments Christians). The appendices include another person’s review of the fundamental atheist movement (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens and the like) from more of a philosphical angle. Appendix B is NT Wright on teh resurrection; a great mini-primer from Wright’s prominent writings. I highly recommend B for everyone, not A, though, as it seems to technical. I thought I would briefly summarize the arugments that Flew notes help change his mind.
He notes three key areas (pg. 91) that lead him to believe that there is a god; the best explanation for these problems would be the existence of a god. They are: How did the laws of nature come to exist? How did life come from nonlife? How did the universe come into existence? Essentially, these are the old arguments from creation/design in some ways but from a different angle, looking at even more indepth science, with tight philosophical framings. The laws of nature are incredible–but why are there laws? Why do we assume laws? It seems that these come from the mind of God (as the best solution). Why is our universe perfectly suited for us; the conditions exist for life, but why is there life? How did it come to happen? (science can’t explain that). While some have posited the multi-verse approach (we just happen to be in the one where all conditions work), this only multiplies the issues and still begs the question: why and how? Science that points to a beginning of a universe seems to point that we cannot simply say that the universe always has been. This is not simply a “God of the gaps” but one that seems to be the best explanation for the data that we have at hand. Follow the evidence…
Note, this evidence leads Flew to the God of Aristotle, not the God of Abraham. The next question is whether this God has revealed Himself; if so, how has he revealed Himself. Or to put it a different way, what do we make of Jesus Christ. Is the revelation of God? That needs more than philosophy (though Wright does a good job of showing the historical “problem” of the resurrection…that the resurrection seems to be the best answer to a number of historical phenomenon. It made for a good read, not too deep; more of a “memoirs” by a philosopher, but glad I read it. If anything, it gives me confidence that these arguments can be convincing to people not yet Christian; however, more is needed than philosophy and intellectual discussions.
Church Shopping….Lutherans July 14, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Church, Ministry, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.1 comment so far
Addendum to the post: I have listened to a few other sermons (including week 1 of the series) and the gospel was there; they do preach the gospel message. That being said, when there is a week when the gospel is not explained, I (as a Christian) miss the good news and fall back into my own works mentality. Just wanted to add that remark.
So, this past weekened Beth and I started our “process of church shopping.” While we think we know the church we will be fellowshiping with over the next few years, we thought it would be good to take some time to look around and see what else is out there. We can learn about other churches, ourselves, and, hopefully, God as well. Of course, my wife is very patient with me because I have my own peculiar ways of researching and considering churches [I am getting better]. I don’t want to be critical as much as learn and consider things, better defining who I am as a minister and how to help others in ministry. On the whole, it is a bit strange to go to church as an “outsider” and to simply go, but now I remember what this is like! That aside, here are some observations on our visit to a conservative Lutheran church this past week (I won’t name names).
-Lutherans have always been a bit strange to me. I haven’t really known a conservative Lutheran (at least one who is studying theology). One thing I realized in doing a bit of research that morning is that Lutheran-Missouri Synod seems even more conservative doctrinally than myself in the PCA, as they deem 6 day creationism and amilliennialism to be points of doctrine that pastors must hold. In addition, it sounds like one of the reasons I didn’t run into many Lutherans at Trinity (where I ran into just about everything else), was that their pastors have to go to one of their seminaries (I belive there are 2). I realized that in the PCA, we have Covenant, Westminister (2 campuses), Reformed Theological Seminary (multiple campuses), in addition to those of us who go to places like Trinity or Gordon Conwell. You even get the occasional Fuller, Beeson, or grad of another seminary. It seems a lot more eclectic in terms of training; while there is a stream, there are also multiple places people go. In addition, I realized I don’t know of any LCMS in the Gospel Coalition; they are also not in the National Association of Evangelicals. While NAE has its own issues at times, it almost seems that LCMS is even more separatistic, not necessarily in the conservative baptist sort of way, but that this church is almost outside of the usual evangelical circuit. Interesting thoughts that someone like me, not someone like my wife, would probably care about
-The service was not liturgical (they have traditional and contemporary services), it was contemporary. In many ways, it reminded me more of my roots than where I have landed now; while NPC is contemporary, I always feel that it is a different sort of contemporary than other services I have been a part of. The sermon was more topical, though the pastor did do some exegesis (though, being the NT scholar, I am not sure if I agree with some conclusions). Something I realized is how I have grown used to KNOWING the musicians personally; when you don’t know musicians in a contemporary service, you wonder sometimes if they are performing or worshipping. When you know them, you usually know that they are worshipping. So I had to think through my heart on it. The songs were mostly Vineyard and Contemporary Christian (had they done some Redman, Tomlin, Crowder, Sovereign Grace, etc., I probably would have been more comfortable! But that’s not the point). I worshipped, but I also wondered if all the songs are simply “happy” songs; they were all upbeat, etc. As I have learned by hanging out with worship leaders, we need these songs but we also need doctrinal songs, reflective songs, songs of confession, thanksfulness, and (maybe someday we will do these) lament songs. I would need to go back multiple times to see if this is a usual style. I continue to wrestle in my heart with whether I am more liturgical or contemporary; I feel like I am somewhere in between. I want creeds, confessions of faith, etc. but I also don’t want a pipe organ. And bottom line: I can worship God through whatever! God was glorified in the worship that morning.
-The sermon had some good content; the pastor is a good communicator. As he spoke, though, I wondered about Dr. Lorritis’ distinction between communicators and preachers. There is a difference; not sure if he really was a “preacher” in the true-est sense. While there were some good challenges–to love others, not judge them–the thing it missed was the gospel. Beth and I both said this after the service. Why don’t we need to wear masks? Because we can’t before God and we are saved by His grace alone. Why is it so difficult? Because in my heart, I think I am better than others. If there is something that I have seen grow in my heart over the past few years, it has been the need to ground everything in the gospel and when giving a challenge, to ask why it is difficult (which is because we DON’T believe the gospel in our hearts). I discovered some of my preaching style and what I want to hear in a sermon in this process.
-On the whole, there was some irony in that the sermon was about being welcoming to others and we really did not feel welcomed. While we got a few “hello”s and “good morning”s, no one seemed to ask for our names, stories, or take an interest in us as PEOPLE. We know that there were some regular attenders in our area as well. As Beth and I talked about this experience, in addition to being ironic, it was also challenging to us as we plan on being regular attenders somewhere.
-Communion was a bit confusing. I thought through some logistical elements for my own administration. In addition, though, I still don’t understand what Lutherans expect a person to believe about the real presence of Christ in communion. I am a “sign and a seal,” a “spiritual presence” in a special way guy. Is that good enough for them? Interestingly, at a PCA church, since we don’t say whether you do or don’t believe in the “real body and blood,” a Lutheran would probably feel more welcome to come to the talk. Once again, I see the need for myself to be more clear in the gospel conent and the logistics of the meal.
God is using this church, I am sure. I just don’t think we will be joining His work there (other issues: we are looking for a smaller church and I am not a big fan of churches that have different styles of worship in the multiple services, so it already had some strikes against it), but I will pray for them, recommend them to those who are looking for a church, and hope to understand the Lutherans a bit better.
Preaching the Old Testament July 6, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Ministry, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
This Sunday, I preached from the Old Testament, as I did Exodus 15, comparing it to the national anthems of different countries to see what this anthem of Israel would teach us. This was the first time that I did a formal sermon on the OT (I have taught OT many times and also have preached in classes, but never actually with a congregation). This is one area where I have seen the most shift in my perspective. A few years ago, I was so caught up in finding out and being faithful to the “original intent” of the passage that it likely would not have been a Christian sermon. That is, it might not have mentioned Christ! I am sure I did this in some of my early days teaching youth groups. Now, however, I see the dual authorship of Scripture (man and God) and the redemptive trajectory of Scripture as showing that it is not only legitimate to speak of Christ, but it is necessary to do so to be faithful to the truest intent of Scripture. This is not a supersessionist way of thinking that downgrades the Jewish faith as much as one that looks to see that it hopes have been fulfilled in Christ.
I am still exegeiting and seek to locate the meaning of the text within the text and within its original context. However, I am also moving from that context to our context; it is now not just talking to the nation of Israel but to the people of God who are the heirs to the promises of God and the writings of God. Therefore, I explain the text, explain typology, and explain application of this for us today. That is how I approach the OT now. (In some ways, I might have attempted to do this inherently, but now at least I know why I am doing it and can defend it).
How did this work out? I see Exodus 15 as being for the people of God. I see clear typology in that the exodus is a spiritual picture of the cross and the release from slavery to sin. I see us as having a very similar call to respond to what God has done. And in the cross, we see the true reason for why God is faithful to His people even though they stumble and begin complaining right after He has delievered them. I think this is being faithful to the meaning of the text and thinking through how it is going to apply to our lives today. May prayer is that I have been faithful to His purposes in giving us this text!
The “Mondays” for the Visiting Pastor June 22, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Ministry, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
I know that almost everyone gets a case of the “Mondays” when the weekend is over and the week begins. Many people are also aware of the special case of the Mondays that pastors have, in which they craft resignation letters, isolate themselves, and have a general depressing days. I’ve been there through these years of youth ministry and then this past year in Adult Ministries. I am experiencing today another special form, this is the “Mondays” for the visiting pastor (or really, the Sunday afternoon-Mondays) as I had a chance to preach at a church in the city. I keep pondering questions, “Did I connect with them? If not, why not?” “Should I have used more illustrations, windows into understanding the text?” “Was I too long? Was I boring? Was I too academic and lost them in the message?” “Did I try to say too much?” “Did I give them what they needed to hear?” “Was my structure clear and my main points sink in?” “Did they not appreciate my humor and attempts to break tension or was this seen as irreverent?” “What will the pastor think when he listens to it?” “Would they ever ask me to come back?” Part of this is not knowing how things usually work at this church (even if I have listened to previous sermons, they do not show me much of their culture and preaching style). And in the midst of this, I see that I long to have approval, to impress, to have people WANT me to come back. I might not connect with people. Others might not think about it as much as me.
Fortunately, my Mondays (which start on Sunday!) have found a great encourager in my wife. First of all, she always says good things about my preaching, which I need to hear. And now she has learned that I need to hear more than “it was good” but some specific points of feedback, as well as bouncing ideas to have confirmation or correction in terms of what I am thinking. And as she pointed out, for as much as I don’t like hearing after the message “Thank you, I appreciated that, it was good, etc.,” when I don’t get that I feel like I did a bad job! And since this was a different sort of makeup from my other preaching opportuntiies, the fact that I did not get this might reveal something about the culture of the church, not the effectiveness of my preaching. I learned about my own need for affirmation from this comment, how I both do not appreciate it and I do appreciate it. My “Mondays” are a lot better with her, so I thank God for her!
I can’t even imagine what it would be like to candidate at a church…but perhaps that is what this experience is helping me to do.
Who Wrote the Bible? June 16, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Books, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
I just finished reading a book by Richard Elliott Friedman called “Who Wrote the Bible?” It essentially, at least according to one of my professors, is the best representation on current critical scholarship on the origins of the Pentatuech (first five books of the Bible, commonly called the Books of Moses). It defends the well known Wellhausen’s thesis of four different documents (J,E,D,P) being put together to form one document, what we know as these five books and makes the following claims. These documents sprung up not during the time of Moses but much later, during the time of the divided monarchy, and the reigns of Josiah and Hezekiah. They do not have four similar views on things, but in some ways were written to counter each other; the great irony is that these documents that were opposing each other were later combined and four almost two thousand years, accepted as one continuous (though notoriously difficult) account. The juxtposition of these accounts (and remember that within one story different documents have been weaved together) adds more literary quality to this work.
What do I think of this? In some ways, Friedman writes a compelling case, provided one have certain assumptions. He seems to assume that these books do not reflect a tradition that has been passed down from Moses; he gives much more creative liberty to the author(s) than historical faithfulness. Why was there a golden calf? Instead of saying that there was actually one, he would explain it as a polemic against Aaron and against Jeroboam’s idols at Dan and Bethel. Why must this be the assumption? Are there signs that this is drawing upon actual events, though one might note that elements have been included (as opposed to created) because of the way that it would affect the life of the church. This is similar to the way that the gospels were composed, as they do not include every detail but, presumably, draw upon ideas that would have impact on later communities. Therefore, his writing sways you if you buy into this assumption. Furthermore, he makes it sound like there is no possibility of the document being a unified whole, while some might argue that the story makes more sense when all of it is included; that you actually cannot separate them into different documents. It is also interesting that we can see such great creative work by the redactor (Ezra?) when we think so many of their perspectives of the world is so primitive. Reading a book like On the Reliabilty of the OT by Kitchen alongside or after (which I am doing) makes you see that many of these questions can be answered differently.
Perhaps what Friedman does that makes me ponder a bit is open up the possibilty that these works, while drawing upon ancient testimony, traditions, and historical ideas, were composed/edited later and that the composition might reflect the time of such the redaction. Does one have to say that Moses wrote the form of these that we have to affirm inerrancy? When Jesus attributes things to Moses, is he saying that Moses wrote the form that we find these commandments in or that Moses said through the law these things? This is an idea to consider while one is still within the bounds and perspective of inerrancy. Could later prophets have cultivated the final form, drawing upon true history (similar to Luke the Evangelist)? Could these traditions be preserved in different sources, perhaps not J,E,D,P but in sources arising from different regions and time? Is inerrancy more tied to historicity than Mosaic authorship?
There might be some interesting thoughts and questions (remember, we do not know who wrote most of the OT as the books are anoymous), but one must ultimatley boil the question down to whether this is an authoriative text given by God or a text written by humans. I favor the former, but I might be a fuddy-duddy.
What would we be missing? May 5, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
This past week, I taught on the book of Philemon in our Sunday School class. The overarching question I pondered and posed was, “What would we be missing if we did not have this book?” We consider every book of the Bible to be inspired. We know what we would be missing if we lost the book of Romans or 1 Corinthians. But what about Philemon? It was a fun question to consider and ponder–to challenge us when we read a book to see what God teaches us through it as He does in no other place. I poised the same question to myself this morning, reading through 2 John (which my co-laborer in Christ Dave V. will teach on and I hope to sit back and enjoy). I know the themes of 2 John to walk in the truth and to not accepted into fellowship those that deny the truth. I know that it does not mean that we do not treat them nicely but that we do not consider them to be in fellowship with us. Its a good reminder to continue to abide and that the truth is the mark of our fellowship. In an age where, “Anything goes,” it reminds us that beliefs do form a basis for fellowship. What does this look like? It means that we do well in noting those teachings and teachers we share ideas with and those that we diverge from greatly. In some ways, it reminds us that “truthful” living is honest–that we articulate when we diverge in belief as opposed to simply accepting blindly whatever comes our way. My thoughts aren’t crystallizing totally at this early time in the morning, but I feel like I am moving beyond fascination with the text to seeing how to live it out.
That is another guiding question I am discussing when it comes to Bible study. It will be a good way to remind me that studying the text should lead to purposeful living. Other questions I recently considered, “What does this say?” “Why does it speak to our hearts today?” “How does this look like in real life today?” really variations on the usual meaning, principle, application sort of questions, but ones that remind me to move to application and the authority of Scripture.
What stands out on a big and bittersweet day…. May 4, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
Yesterday was an extra big Sunday–all Sundays are big but this one seemed a bit different. There was the element that I was teaching Sunday School for what will probably be the last time I formally get a chance to teach as a staff member at NPC. There was the celebration service, looking at what God has done over the past 25 years at NPC and what He has done in my life over the past 5 years there as well. There were opportunities to connect more with some old friends as well as to meet some new friends…wondering if it is just a one-time deal. But the thing that probably stood out the most was….something I read from 1 Thessalonians 4 in the morning.
1 Thessalonians 4 is an interesting passage and I realized why it is so interesting to me; it speaks against both the ethical and philosophical ethos of our days. It speaks about sexual morality and the need to have sexuality be holy and honorable, not in lust. That is so countercultural. In addition, it speaks about the fact that those who die will raise–that we have a hope different from the world. There is an afterlife…which is somewhat counter cultural (like Dr. House), but there is also punishment on sin, which is also countercultural (we don’t all go to a better place). And as I reflected on the ministry of NPC and what God has been showing me lately, I realized how afraid I can be to speak truth into the lives of friends, families, and those whom I encounter. This are issues that are discussed but I shy away from. Well, the way that lives are changed is by actually talking about things…not just hoping that they will come up. How I want to have boldness in communication with others…which means that I need His grace and His help to do it.
Now, back to finishing up that blasted paper!
What I appreciate about TEDS…. March 26, 2009
Posted by bdennert in School, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
When people find out I went/go to Trinity Evangelical Divinity, they ask one of two questions: 1) (if they know the theological and Christian world), have you had a chance to study with Dr. Carson and 2) (if they do not know church culture) what the heck is a divinity school? I like both questions. However, as I have told people, what I appreciate about TEDS scholars like Dr. Carson is not the work that they produce but the way that they are. This is true of Dr. Carson, but also true of most of the faculty. This occurred to me again this week.
In the midst of our discussion of verbal aspect in Greek (I know, it is exciting) and critiques of my pronounication (which I appreciated), Dr. Carson busts into tangents–true pastoral tangents. He talks about the difference between Keller and Piper’s preaching styles tied to their approachs (noting that we need both of them), we discuss the power of Thomas’ confession of Christ in John 20:28 as well as the nature of true faith, we talk about how to use the things that we are learning to teach and preach. TEDS is committed to scholarship, but also to engaging our hearts and engaging the world. Dr. Monson has continually tried to relate knowledge of the Dead Sea Scrolls to our world today as well as understanding Jesus’ world; in Qumran Scrolls class, we went on a tangent in regards to the way that we can avoid over-specialization in scholarship as well as watering down the gospel. We discussed pastoral issues, not just the scrolls.
TEDS, thank you for keeping me grounded. I have grown to appreciate this and hope to keep it in focus as I move on in studies, remember that it is for the glory of God and for His people.
Rejection March 16, 2009
Posted by bdennert in Ministry, Spirituality, Theology and Ministry.add a comment
Maybe I am more in tune with the idea of rejection and how it is a necessary part of life from circumstances, or maybe I am just doing more study of the New Testament lately, but I was thinking about Acts 13 and Acts 17 and the way that Paul is rejected by both audiences. In Acts 13, Paul reasons from Jewish Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. In Acts 17, Paul moves from the religiosity of Athens to talk about the unknown God–the God of Jesus Christ. In both of these, the groups reject him, but for very different reasons. In Acts 13, the rejection comes when Paul begins to turn to the Gentiles, an idea that was very controversial among the Jews of his time (probably a very new idea!). Meanwhile, in Athens he is rejected for talking about the resurrection of the dead, but that is a very silly idea according to their minds. Both the insiders and the outsiders reject the gospel because it does not mesh with the ideas that they already have and think are so cherished.
Maybe I am moving too soon to application, but it is a reminder for us in ministry that we will be rejected by those inside and outside the church. Our ideas should be somewhat controversial and pushing both sectors. For the non-Christian, the gospel does not fit their worldview. Whether it is tied to the appalling idea that they are a sinner or that God has a will and a plan in the world, the gospel threatens our world order. On the other side, the gospel also threatens the church in that it calls us out of our comfort zones, calls us to consider ways to be more inclusive and more missional minded–to have the heart of God as opposed to our hearts.
We need to learn to be rejected and to use rejection to further the gospel message. Many of us are prone to try to avoid rejection and to avoid failure. However, rejection and failure “should be an option” when one is faithful and content in their mission from God. Ultimately, then, failure is not really failure!
