Some Kind of Zombie

My husband has just finished reading Surprised By Hope by N. T. Wright. I have just finished the introduction so far, but am intrigued by what his premise is, as well as the discussions my husband and I have had about it.

N. T. Wright claims that modern Christians have deviated quite drastically from the early Christian belief in the "resurrection of the body". Back then, it was something accepted, that when we are resurrected, it will be in full bodily form. Modern Christians seems to have slackened, and now don't really know what we believe. I think Wright is right (horrible pun, I'm sorry) in this instance. It's common to hear about "going to heaven", or "living forever with Jesus", or even about how death is not the end for us. But what exactly is the life after death? Many Christians will waffle on this point. Is it fluffy white clouds? Indiscriminate beings of energy eternally worshipping God?

Wright claims that the early Christians (read: Church Fathers) believed in the full bodily resurrection. Meaning that we will be resurrected with the exact same body we have now, just perhaps . . . completed? Perfected? Fulfilled?

For instance, consider Jesus. He was resurrected with the same body He died in. The tomb was empty. His hands still bore the nail scars. His side still bore the spear wound. He was "himself" enough to pass as a regular human. So much human, that they didn't recognize him at first -- they thought he was the gardener! And yet, He could walk through walls (or at least get into a locked room). His physical body, that only three days ago was as limited as the rest of us, suddenly seemed better. It's a common line in theology that Christ is the most authentic human. If that is true, then is His resurrected body what the human form should be? What it was meant to be?

But that also brings up logical questions. Wright seems to believe that God will actually remake us with the same "stuff" that made up our body. But it's impossible to reclaim the exact physical make up of our postmortem bodies. Bodies take only a few months to decay. Once they start that, their chemical properties are changed. Our bodies are no longer what they were. And what of cremation? Or those who were martyred at the stake? They don't even have a body left to be remade.

On the other hand, that is linear human thinking. We need to think vertically. We need to think like God. I have heard (though I'm not sure of the veracity of it) that our body chemically changes and sloughs skin off and such so much that every ten years, it's like we have a whole new body. So maybe the important thing in the resurrection is that we are more than physical. It's the age old question: where does the soul reside? The brain? The heart? As some societies thought, the spleen or kidneys? It is clear that there is something more going on here.

The difference is, then, that there is not a man, but a God behind this curtain. And we certainly need to pay attention to Him! He is the crux. He is the defining rod that make us more than animals. He is omnipotent, omniscient, and irresistible. No matter what you think of the resurrection (be it bodily or not), we need to trust that whatever happens to us in this life, our God knows us beyond a shadow of a doubt. He can separate every single one of our molecules out from every other molecule on earth. And, I suppose, after I disintegrate into my grave, I suppose He, above all, would be able to tell me from the dirt. Maybe it's a bit morbid, but that is certainly a comforting thought. For me, at least.

Thanks for Your Patience!

Well, as I'm entering my second trimester of pregnancy, I'm finding a little bit more energy lying around, so I'm going to be obedient and try to post more often. I am sorry for the short haitus while I napped. I'll be back later this week with a post. I solemnly swear.

---

The Emerging Church: Part 2

And now continued:

However, this essay would be incomplete if the common criticisms of the emerging church were not voiced here. This is not a polemic; it is an education. There are a few criticisms that seemingly occur constantly. The first and most obvious is the claim of postmodernism to the point where they deny the certitude of truth. It all sounds nice and lovely until an emergent denies the inerrancy of scripture; or that Truth can be objectified. An emergent would counter (since I’m being fair) that we live in a postmodern world; thus, it takes a different form of evangelism. Scot McKnight calls this critical realism , or the understanding that this is the world we live in and traditional forms of evangelism might not be enough.

Others say that the emergents are too syncretistic in their spirituality. In their unrelenting iconoclasm of classic Christianity, some would say that the emergents go too far; God cares about sacred spaces and tradition too. In their emphasis on interdenominational and interfaith dialogue, some claim that the emergents are too lax and ignore the cost and consequence of sin. Emergents would likely counter that in the context of understanding, once someone knows where you stand, it would be better to let them make their own decisions and continue the friendship than continue harping and lose any contact with them. In theology, this is called adiaphora; to agree to disagree.

So what are you to take from this? Remember that the emerging church is not a single denomination; it is individuals along a spectrum of beliefs. While the more radical voices (of the Emergent Village and New Monasticism et al) tend to be the loudest, emergents as a rule refuse to be herded into a single label. I would go so far as to say that every Christian has some amount of emergent in them, for their causes and beliefs are essential to Christianity. We should all be concerned with our actions and how to live out Christ to the world; we should all be concerned about whole people and whole societies; we all need to recognize our underlying unity as people of a fallen race, all with a Common Story (of sin and redemption and sanctification).

The Christian Church, as an institution, has made some pretty poor decisions in the past. Individuals in the Church have hurt a lot of people. Emergents (listen up, mainstream Christians) attempt to bridge the gap and heal the wounds that the church created. No longer are unbelievers simply “unchurched”; people know quite well the message of Christianity in America – When abortion clinics are bombed, they hear you are evil. When homosexual rallies are protested with hate posters, they hear you are not worthy. When they think of Christians, they hear you will never be like us. Emergents understand something essential to being human; that having someone love you as you are is fundamental to life. We, as Christians, should also take that stance because we have a God who loves us as we are. The world needs a God that will love them (yes, even in their sin), and it is our job to show that God to them.

The Emergent Church

So I'm going to join everybody else and post a little bit about how I see the emergent church and try to be as neutral (and journalistic) as possible. Let me know how I did, especially if any of you are emergent.

There is a new brand of Christianity on the rise; it’s called the Emerging Church. As with any- thing, the extreme version (the Emergent Village) gets the most publicity – not all of it good. This article will attempt to explain the beliefs that drive the emerging church, the popular criticisms about it, and what it means for the next generation of Christians.

At the core of the Emergents’ beliefs is the certainty that we all have a stake in one another. Emergents are strong supporters of ecumenism. As younger generations, they were raised in an increasingly diverse world, and as such, they revel in the diversity of Christendom. They appreciate the mystery of the Orthodox; they embrace the traditions of the Reformed; and they even encourage interfaith dialogue. The popular founder of the Emergent Village, Brian McLaren, calls it a “generous orthodoxy”. Emergents are most concerned with relational Christianity. They believe that the message of Christ is most effective when it’s conveyed within the context of an understanding conversation. They would prefer to sit down with you (perhaps over coffee) and say, “this is what I believe, but I may be wrong. What do you think? Let’s talk.” They believe that the most effective evangelism comes within the context of a trusting friendship; as such, they are more likely to be pacifists and peacemakers.

Another aspect of the emerging church is their acceptance of a Christian’s role as “earthkeeper”. They believe that God’s creation is blessed, and so try to promote healing for the earth as a whole. They believe not only in whole people, but also whole societies. It is for this reason that many emergents are activists of some type. The whole of creation (not just the welfare of unbelievers) was given to us to care for, and emergents often see the ills of the world (both social and environmental) as the disparity between what is, and what God intended.

As a part of what God intended, emergents are committed to living out the life and mission of Christ to the world. They call this “missional living”; it’s an emphasis on praxis, or acts. This term is taken from the Greek New Testament book of Praxis Apostolon, or the Acts of the Apostles (more commonly known as simply, “Acts”). They believe that the way we live out our faith (or our acts) will often be more of a witness than mere words. This is why a conversation among friends can be so powerful; they understand the importance of living Christ out to the world.

A final hallmark of the emerging church is their creative spirituality and re-interpretation of ancient liturgical rites for the modern day. It’s not uncommon for emergents to discuss the pros and cons of using the lectio divina, the Ignatius Examen, or even Orthodox liturgy. This is their focus on new ways of “doing church” and combining the differing elements from all traditions.

Now, I've gone over what I view as the main tenets of the emerging church. This is the first post. To be fair, next week, I will address some of the main criticisms of the Emerging church and how, possibly and hypothetically (as I am an observer), how the emergents might respond to those criticisms. 

Procreation, Forgiveness, and Fear

As a side note, I apologize for taking so long to blog. I'm going to ask your forbearance for the next nine months, though, as this pregnancy exhaustion is hitting me hard early on. I'll try to stay constant, but be aware that my health is (obviously) foremost.

---

I was meditating on the forgiveness of God, and this verse caught me as something odd at first.

"But with you there is forgiveness,
Therefore you are feared." Psalm 130:4

It brought me up short. The initial question is why should forgiveness be feared? Shouldn't forgiveness be sought? Be wanted? Shouldn't we be grateful for God's forgiveness? Forgiveness might be feared because:

It offends our pride?
It humbles us?
It's hard to accept?
We feel we need to pay it back?
In accepting forgiveness, we grant God power over us?
We don't like to rely on another?

And then we're back to the pride issue. Maybe forgiveness from God should be feared because it offends our flesh. Any encounter with God naturally humbles us and completely smashes our sense of self and importance. And when we receive God's forgiveness, it's even more so humbling because we know we don't deserve it.

So let's be thankful that we have a God who forgives, even if it humbles us.

The Authentic Human

Everyone has some sort of a mentor or hero, be it spiritual or worldly. I know that I tend to admire (and envy, if I'm being honest) the intellectuals out there. What is interesting is that Christians may talk all the time about trying to be like Jesus, but when it comes down to pure honesty, I doubt very many Christians would say that Jesus is their hero.

Why is that? Jesus was the only true human ever. He was the only authentic man. By living his perfect life, walking with the Father, Jesus set the bar as to what it means to be human. In Jesus, God's design for mankind came to completion because he was sinless. That is how God created humans to be; not this fallen thing of unconquerable cravings and irredeemable vices. Humans were created for something far greater than we can imagine in our fallen state.

Originally, the word "Christian" was a derogatory term, an epithet, hurled at the first followers of Jesus. It is a diminuative of "Christ", or hence, "little-Christ". Afer a while, Christians began to accept the term and use it to identify themselves; and, I think, what better term could possibly define us, but the One who is our standard and measure of what it means to be human?

This was a bit of a thought experiment for me yesterday; I was meditating on the life of Christ and how he was our propitiation and the perfect sacrifice, and I thought about how we are all supposed to strive to be like Him. Can you image what the world would be like, if it was full of "little Christs"?

If people were sinless, there would be no crime, no hurt, no brokenness. There would be no need for a government, even. Sound familiar?? Doesn't that sound a lot like visions of Heaven, or the Kingdom of God?

So while we know that this is an impossibility here on earth, that does not mean that we should stop trying to be like Christ; that is our duty. Our calling, therefore, is to live our lives in such a way that we might possibly bring a little bit of God's Kingdom here on earth.

... On the Bedpost Overnight?

This is the second post entitled, "Does your chewing gum lose its flavor on the bedpost overnight", dealing with ministry burnout.

The initial epiphany of ministry burnout (namely, that we should still do it even if it seems like no one cares) is followed by the subsequent, but no less powerful, revelation that we need to let God be God.

We need to pause in our planning and agendas and work schedules and endless strategies and give God room to work. If we are getting burned out, it might mean to we have come to rely too heavily on our power. It means that we came to believe that we are solely responsible for the success (or failure) of our ministry.

That is a lie. The true thrust of ministry is that we allow God to work. Sure, He uses people and the unique gifts He gave us; but ultimately, God is the one who works through us to will and to move according to His good pleasure (Philippians 2:12-13).

That was a huge weight off my chest, once I realized that all I am responsible for is my calling. Anything beyond that (like reaching the youth and saving them) will be God's work. I simply just need to be obedient and God will be able to work through me to complete His purpose.

What greater comfort is there? So, the next time ministry burnout strikes, stay obedient, but relax. Pray, study, contemplate, worship, whatever you want to do; just remember that it is God who works through you. As a matter of fact, let the ministry sit on the bedpost overnight, for once, and see what God does now that He has room to move. You might be surprised.