Audacious Grace

HeartConnexion Seminars presents Paul Young, C. Baxter Kruger and Paul Fitzgerald sharing at The Shack Revisited Conference, May 21, 2011. Special thanks to Brad Hill, Dave Lingenfelter, Vanessa Kersting, Tee Walker, Jennifer Merriner, Dan McNight (pastor of Kaw Prairie Community Church), his staff and amazing volunteers.

All sessions are available as audio download or to listen online. You can subscribe to HeartConnexion Seminars on iTunes and get future updates automatically.

The Shack Revisited Conference Pt. 1- Paul Young:
Paul Young, author of The Shack, opens the conference with his personal story behind the book’s storyline. He also shares some of how the book moved from a simple project for his children to selling more than 12 million copies internationally.

The Shack Revisited Conference Pt. 2- Dr. C. Baxter Kruger:
Dr. C. Baxter Kruger shares the theological understanding of the Early Church (Nicene) Fathers about the Trinity and Incarnation and it’s parallel to the portrayal Paul Young built into The Shack. It’s more amazing grace then we’ve appreciated.

The Shack Revisited Conference Pt. 3- Dr. Paul Fitzgerald:
Dr. Paul shares the how internalized-shame often continues to complicate life even after we’ve found forgiveness for guilt. He shares a Compass of Shame Defenses that complicate healthy relationships and spirituality and suggests core elements for healing heart-wounds to live loved and love life.

The Shack Revisited Conference Pt. 4- Q & R:
Paul Young, Baxter Kruger and Paul Fitzgerald give responses (not answers to Conference participants questions.

A burned-out pastor was exploring a healthier way to “do church.” He heard about a growing house-church movement in another country and contacted the group to find out what was happening to cause the growth. Their model was for people to gather in someone’s home, bring a bowl of food to share and share time talking informally to others. Someone might start a song and there would be a brief prayer as a group.

The pastor wanted more details. “Who leads the study?” “What materials are used?” “What do people share?”

Frustrated, the house church leader repeated, “We gather, share food, share conversation, and pray for each other. People share what they’ve learned about walking with Father that week.”

The pastor’s pragmatic side came out, “What if they were so busy they don’t have anything to share that they’ve discovered?”

The house church leader replied, “Then we would suggest they consider using that time to spend time with Father. That’s more important than any single meeting together. If they come, they can take something from everyone’s bowl of learning about Father. You Westerners have a model of church where it’s one person’s job to fill up a big bowl of information and learning about Father and then gather with people whose bowls are empty. They go away with something in their bowl to consume and then bring their empty bowl back next week. Our model is that everyone brings a small bowl with something in it to share and everyone goes home with something. It does not all depend on one person having to prepare enough for everyone else to consume.”

Just saying … the size that gathers is not the issue but the dynamic of real, honest sharing does.

When I heard that story, it reminded me about an old image of heaven and hell. A person was shown hell where people were sitting before large bowls of rice with chopsticks that were more than an yard long. The food was there but they could not get it to their mouth. Then the image of heaven had the same picture of people sitting before rice bowls with long chopsticks, but in heaven they were feeding each other.

Interesting … I’ll take heaven, thank you very much.

Amazing that our “filters”through which we read books and Scripture that keep us from seeing what is in plain sight. I guess it’s just too audacious for us to take in so we don’t see it. How many times have I read C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity and not really seen this paragraph!

“What, then, is the difference which He has made to the whole human mass? It is just this; that the business of becoming a son of God, of being turned from a created thing into a begotten thing, of passing over from the temporary biological life into timeless ‘spiritual’ life, has been done for us. Humanity is already ‘saved’ in principle. We individuals have to appropriate that salvation. But the really tough work–the bit we could not have done for ourselves–has been done for us. We have not got to try to climb up into spiritual life by our own efforts; it has already come down into the human race. If we will only lay ourselves open to the one Man in whom it was fully present, and who, in spite of being God, is also a real man, He will do it in us and for us. Remember what I said about ‘good infection’ One of our own race has this new life: if we get close to Him we shall catch it from Him.” – Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis, pp. 156-157

“The problem of being in any profession is that you will get to see it’s dark side up close and personal.” That observation was shared with me a by a very wise man and it is just too true – no matter the profession. Sad to say, even the profession of ministry.

Behind the persona that the typical person-in-the-pew sees about church there are often stirrings and rumblings, turf wars and power struggles that may seem at best silly to the typical church attender or at worst appear to be the opposite of Jesus fundamental teaching about loving your enemy.

Roger Olsen is a truth-speaking theologian who does not mind raising the curtain to expose the dark side that is happening in the world called Evangelical. He keeps breaking the rules that keep families and organizations dysfunction and there is a price to pay for it.

If you don’t want to know or could care less about what’s happening behind the curtain called Evangelical then don’t read any more than the small portion of Roger’s post below. If you are ready to break some of those dysfunctional rules then read on.

From my perspective, SOME conservative evangelical theologians, denominational leaders, biblical scholars, etc., have DE FACTO already declared, by their behavior, the division between them and postconservative, progressive evangelicals who, generally speaking, believe in the same basic doctrines they believe in.  (To his dying day Stan Grenz affirmed biblical inerrancy, but some of his critics insisted he didn’t mean it because in Theology for the Community of God he placed the doctrine of Scripture within the doctrine of the Holy Spirit!)

There comes a point when one has to give up and say “Okay, have it your way.  We’re not part of the same movement anymore.”  I am saying that.  They may go their way and I and mine will go our way.  We both use the label “evangelical,” but it is too general to cover all of us without qualification.  To me, they are behaving like fundamentalists, so that’s what I’ll call them with “neo-” in front to distinguish them from Carl McIntire and the older, separatistic fundamentalist movement (that still exists but does not participate in evangelical endeavors).

Read Roger’s Post “Division in the evangelical house.”

Roger quotes a great response to this “dark side” bickering over the “truth” that calls Evangelicals to remember that discussing serious issues about Christ’s Truth must be done Christ’s Way if it is not to become destructive to Christ’s followers. Read here Great Comment re: evangelicals behaving badly

PS The cartoon is unashamedly lifted from David Hayward’s wonderful blog nakedpastor

Recently, Jennifer Hunt share about her journey into greater contentment in the midst of all the things that can happen to make life less than pleasant – from minor irritations to major problems. She tagged me into her note and I shared a response from my experience with her that I’m posting her to pass on to others. Just one person’s shifting positions that allows me to see more clearly the choices I have in living loved and loving life.

Jenn:

I began practicing and teaching a simply-hard tool and a point-of-view shift that helps me keep perspective on the sort of things you mentioned. The tool is simply the intentional practice of gratitude about everything and everyone. It’s not as easy as it seems to some to be grateful for every situation and every person we encounter. Some people are easy but I find it most helpful to discover something for which I am grateful for the more “challenging” situations with people.

I’m making it a daily practice as I go to bed to review my day and find something to be grateful for in each and every encounter. If you want to keep your heart open, intentionally practicing gratitude is a key.

The point-of-view shift is about a conscious awareness of Trinitarian inclusion. Most of us think about God being “out there somewhere” and our task is to get from where we are to where He is. Frankly, most of us Evangelicals (and Christians generally) are not practicing Trinitarians and at best Tri-theists (we know there are three but have no idea the difference it makes in everyday living).

If our image of God is “out there” and our task is to “get closer” we will work at practices that we think are needed (repent, believe, have faith, tithe, worship, etc.). Of course our conscience often reminds us that we haven’t done any of these things consistently “enough.” or “these difficult things wouldn’t be happening.” So we go back square one and try to do them “more right” – and, of course, want others to do it right too!

That image is a total contradiction to what Paul declares as part of the mystery of our adoption [Eph 1] revealed in Christ’s Incarnation, Resurrection and Ascension – “For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.” [Col 1:16-17]. If “all things” means “all things” and we are part of “all things” then God is not “out there but we are “included on the inside the life of the Trinity.” The task is not to “get there” but to “wake up” to what Christ has done for all humanity.

We can be inside and as blind to it as the elder brother was to his inclusion. He had only to accept that he was already included and that his father’s choice to include his brother was not his to worry about. All either brother had to do was to “accept the acceptance” that was already available.

In the Incarnation, the Son came to bring us [here and now] into the presence of Father and Spirit with all of our crap. In the Ascension the Son continues in his resurrected flesh to intercede and explain our mumblings and groaning in our flesh to his Father as one who knows what it’s like to be us.

I’ve also been praying a short sentence that may make sense to you and that’s been helpful for me and my contentment:” Father, what don’t I understand about you, that if I did, I’d be less anxious.”

Blessings
Dr. Paul

Slowly, surely and painfully I’ve come to recognize that my theology has for the most of my life been off-center. That is, it has been more experience-centered than grounded on a Trinitarian understanding of grace. I consider myself well read and theologically astute but obviously the lens through which I have  read, studied and even researched has made a significant impact on what what I’ve seen and believed. Removing the lens feels at times like I’ve been blind and deaf the whole time. By “repenting” I mean what the word means – a change of thinking that is deep enough that it requires a shift in the direction of one’s life and choices. Yes, there are strong feelings involved but the feelings are not as important as the changes in direction of thinking and choosing.

J. B. Torrence describes well the problem of coming from an experiential-theological point of view in contrast to a Trinitarian theological view. It’s like that arrow in the FedEx logo – once I could not see it and now I can’t see anything else:

“Although it stresses the God-humanward movement in Christ, the human-Godward movement is still ours! It emphasizes our faith, our decision, our response in an event theology which short-circuit’s the vicarious humanity of Christ and belittles union with Christ.… it fails to see the place of the high priesthood of Jesus Christ…” who is present here and now through the Spirit and) ‘leads our worship, bears our sorrows on his heart and intercedes for us, presenting us to the Father in himself as God’s dear children, and uniting us with himself in his life in the Spirit.… It ignores the fact that God has already provided for us that response which is alone acceptable to him––the offering made for the whole human race in the life, obedience and passion of Jesus Christ.… Whatever else our faith is, it is a response to a response already made for us and continually being made for us in Christ, the pioneer of our faith.… At the center of the New Testament stands not a religious experience, not our faith or repentance or decision, however important these are, but a unique relationship between Jesus and the Father.”Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace
Page 29–30.

Who knows, maybe it will lead you to repent too.

Blessings in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

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

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

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

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

In a recent conversation with Andre Oosthuizen on Facebook, I shared some of my journey to see internalized-shame as the significant barrier to internalizing grace. Andre lives in Amanzimtoti, KwaZulu-Natal and has a wide-ranging ministry that is built on a “new paradigm” understanding about grace. The paradox is that this “new paradigm” is really the “old paradigm” of many Early Church Fathers that is now being recovered as the really “good news” about grace for guilt and shame.

Just thought I’d post my comments back to Andre for those interested in the larger “conversations” that are happening outside the BT Community. Continue reading Thoughts on Shame and Grace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“what Paul is actually doing in 1.18-3.20 is presenting the core of the “false gospel”–a rant against pagan immorality using the principle of desert–and then applying that same criterion (i.e., desert) to the Judaizing teachers themselves. When Paul is finished with this diatribe we see that the “false gospel” isn’t good news at all. There is no ethical or eschatological advantage to being a Jew. …

Paul isn’t presenting his gospel in Romans 1-4. So where is Paul’s gospel? Paul’s gospel is in Romans 5-8. Thus, 3.21-31 is kind of a rest stop on the way to Romans 5-8. A teaser or preview if you will. This helps explains the brevity of this gospel presentation in relation to the condemnation offered in 1.18-3.20.

What this means is that 3.21-31 shouldn’t be read backward into 1.18-3.20, as the “solution” to that “problem.” Rather, 3.21-31 should be read forward as an anticipation of Romans 5-8. Having dismantled the “false gospel” by the end of 3.20 Paul pauses to give us a sketch of what is to come shortl” (Beck, Part 10)

Translations of the Bible are always influenced by the translators theology – consciously or unconsciously. One of the translation decisions critical to support the Justification Theory is in Romans 3:26. Here is how two different translations differ in significant ways:

Rom 3:22, 26 NIV This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. … to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Rom 3:22, 26 Net Bible – This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. This was also to demonstrate  his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus’ faithfulness.

Here is how Beck sums up the difference this translation makes:

What we know for sure is that Pistis means “faith” in Greek and that “Christou” means “Christ.” So far so good. But in the Greek there is some genitive ambiguity concerning how the two noun’s–faith and Christ–are to relate to each other. Martin Luther, and those who followed him, translated Pistis Christou as “faith in Christ.” But a growing number of scholars (e.g., Richard Hays, N.T. Wright) have argued that the proper translation of Pistis Christou should be “faith of Christ.” Wow, so much hanging on the switch from “in” to “of”! But it really is a huge change. Specifically, the change moves us from an anthropocentric view of salvation to a Christocentric view. In the former, the human person is the locus of salvation. I, Richard Beck, must have faith in Jesus Christ. My act of faith functions as the key to unlock salvation. In the latter view, it is the faithfulness of Jesus that unlocks salvation. Christ’s faithfulness saves me.

Campbell’s book is certainly audacious!  Yet, it certainly makes sense to me. I have not tackled Campbell’s book yet (if anyone wants to purchase it for me, I’ll gladly read it) but I have been following Beck’s review. Why don’t you join me in reading Beck’s review. In fact, why not check out his blog and consider reading it consistently.
Dr. Paul