Shane Rosenthal on Sunday Worship

We’ll feature two posts today from Shane Rosenthal’s article, “Abandoning Evangelicalism?” in Modern Reformation magazine.

This is highly recommended reading for our iMonk community. Rosenthal tells his story of being raised by a single mother who had left Methodism and adopted Judaism when she married. Shane converted to Christ at age 18 and began attending Calvary Chapel. Rosenthal’s descriptions of his time there shine a clear light on the evangelical megachurch experience. In particular, he became concerned about the lack of depth and “discipling” in the church community.

In the remainder of the post, Shane Rosenthal tells how he had a “second conversion” through participating in a Reformed Episcopal Church and has since settled in an Orthodox Presbyterian congregation. However, he and his wife decided to continue to visit other churches so that their children might be aware of other traditions and practices. The experiences of evangelical churches in particular points out an alarming lack of depth, reverence, Christ and gospel-centered worship and teaching, and pastoral contact.

In the first post this morning, I present a paragraph in which Rosenthal summarizes what they have learned about worship and what they seek when they gather with the church on Sundays. This is good material for meditation and discussion on this Lord’s Day.

In my own thinking, some put too much weight on the way they feel in worship. As for me and my family, we look for Christ and his story of redemption. We look for this story in both Word and Sacrament. We arrive each Sunday not to immerse ourselves in a transcendent experience here and now, but we long to be transported to an amazing event that happened then. There, at the cross, we’re confronted with our own sin and God’s astonishing rescue. Here we worship our Savior in a community of saints with mutual accountability, shepherded by a pastor who knows our names, prays for us, and delivers Christ to us week after week, month after month, year after year.

Talk about this, and this afternoon, we’ll look at another quote from Shane Rosenthal.

Leaving Revivalism Behind?

Are evangelicals moving away from revivalism? Gordon T. Smith thinks they may be. In a provocative article at Christianity Today, Smith suggests that evangelicals are moving toward a new perspective on conversion that is leading to changes in the way they do church.

“It is not be an overstatement to say that evangelicals are experiencing a “sea change”—a paradigm shift—in their understanding of conversion and redemption, a shift that includes the way in which they think about the salvation of God, the nature and mission of the church, and the character of religious experience. Although there is no one word to capture where evangelicals are going in this regard, there is a word that captures what they are leaving behind: revivalism.”

The “evangelicalism” we talk about here on Internet Monk is marked by “revivalism” — in fact, I often use the latter term in discussions to clarify what I mean by “evangelicalism,” because “evangelical” has become a somewhat amorphous term. As Smith explains in his article, revivalism has connections to the 17th and 18th century Puritan and renewal movements, but its true emergence happened in the 19th century with the Second Great Awakening, the influence of such people as Charles Finney, and the development of mass evangelism efforts under such preachers as D.L. Moody.

The key concept of that influenced the practices of revivalism is that of CONVERSION.

Conversion was viewed to be a punctiliar experience: persons could specify with confidence and assurance the time and place of their conversion, by reference, as often as not, to the moment when they prayed what was typically called “the sinner’s prayer.”

The focus of conversion was the afterlife: one sought salvation so that one could “go to heaven” after death, and the assumption was that “salvation” would lead to disengagement from the world. Once converted, the central focus of one’s life would be church or religious activities, particularly those that helped others come to this understanding of salvation that assured them of “eternal life” after death. Life in the world was thought to hold minimal significance. What counted was the afterlife. And if one had “received Christ,” one could be confident of one’s eternity with God. Conversion was isolated from the experience of the church. Indeed, it was generally assumed that a person would come to faith outside of the church and then be encouraged, after conversion, to join a church community.

Smith lists some other characteristics of this approach:

  • Evangelistic efforts toward making converts focuses on the presentation of a “plan of salvation” that is designed to persuade a potential convert, leading him to “make a decision” for Christ, usually through praying a prayer “accepting Christ as [one’s] personal Savior.”
  • Baptism is practiced subsequent to conversion, and is essentially optional.
  • The church is largely defined as being in the business of making converts, and success is measured in terms of “conversion growth,” i.e. the number of converts a church is able to make.
  • Conversion is sharply distinguished from “disciple-making.” The latter is viewed as something that comes after one experiences conversion, and it happens through different processes than evangelism.

But Smith asserts that the fundamental underpinnings of this way of practicing Christian faith are coming undone. Evangelicals are reaping the harvest of reading and appreciating authors like C.S. Lewis, J.I. Packer, John Stott, and others that come from non-revivalistic traditions. New developments in Biblical studies have enriched our understanding of soteriology and ecclesiology. Cross-pollination from other disciplines and other Christian traditions from liturgical to pentecostal has had an impact. Growing global awareness has been a factor, as has been a growing appreciation for Christian history. Smith mentions the name of Lesslie Newbigin as a prominent voice in the current discussion. Through these and other influences, he suggests that evangelicals are moderating their revivalist ethos.

On each of these points, evangelicals are moving toward a thorough reenvisioning of the nature of conversion and redemption. Increasingly, there is appreciation that conversion is a complex experience by which a person is initiated into a common life with the people of God who together seek the in-breaking of the kingdom, both in this life and in the world to come. This experience is mediated by the church and thus necessarily includes baptism as a rite of initiation. The power or energy of this experience is one of immediate encounter with the risen Christ—rather than principles or laws—and this experience is choreographed by the Spirit rather than evangelistic techniques. Evangelicals are reappropriating the heritage of the Reformation with its emphasis on the means of grace, and thereby affirming the priority of the Spirit’s work in religious experience.

The fundamental categories and assumptions of revivalism are thus being questioned as never before.

Gordon T. Smith sees this as a “fork in the road” moment for evangelicalism. “The only question that remains, then, is whether evangelicals will trust these instincts and devote themselves to Christ-centered worship and kingdom-oriented mission.”

Saturday Ramblings 4.21.12

Greetings one and all! What a bright, lovely, springy day it is here at the iMonastery. I hope it is sunny where you are. If it isn’t, then please allow us to take you to our own little land of sunshine we like to call … Saturday Ramblings.

First of all, are there any iMonks who live in the Dayton/Cincinnati area who would like to meet for breakfast on Saturday, May 5? I will be in town briefly and would love to meet with any who 1) wants to see what your abbot looks like, and 2) loves a good breakfast. We would gather at The Breakfast Club on Broadway in Lebanon at, say, 9 a.m. If you’re interested, email me at the address to the right.

Robert Jeffress should be a politician, not a pastor. He has a way of flip-flopping that shows a real flair for politics, otherwise known as the art of compromise. First he says that Mormons aren’t Christians and Christians need to vote for Christians, or at least those Jeffress decides are Christian enough for him. Now he says that Christians should vote for a Mormon because the Mormon is more Christian than the Christian we really shouldn’t vote for. Does this make sense to you at all?

Meanwhile, the Mormon who isn’t a Christian is giving the commencement address at the evangelical Liberty University. I told you politics could be more fun than a barrel of televangelists.

Continue reading “Saturday Ramblings 4.21.12”

A Ban on “Biblical”

Pharisee and Publican Mosaic, Ravenna

I made a New Year’s resolution this year: I will try my best to avoid using the adjective “Biblical” to describe what I think “the Bible teaches.” The use of this word as a prescriptive adjective to promote positions and convictions is rampant among Christians. The problem is, it usually obscures more than it enlightens, hurts rather than helps, and stops discussion dead in its tracks rather than promoting good conversation.

There are legitimate uses of this word. For example, at the most basic level we can talk about the “Biblical” text to describe the writings of Scripture and what they say. One might speak of “Biblical” scholars — people who devote themselves to studying the Bible in one fashion or another. We can refer to “Biblical” times or characters or events. These and other such uses are benign and descriptive.

Ah, but we can use the word “Biblical” in a prescriptive sense, in a way that turns it into a weapon against those who disagree with us. It becomes a coup de grâce, the death blow that seals our argument with an unassailable point.

Continue reading “A Ban on “Biblical””

Christ and the Powers

Fridays in Ephesus (2)
Christ and the Powers

During Eastertide on Fridays, we are reflecting on insights from Timothy Gombis’s recent book, The Drama of Ephesians: Participating in the Triumph of God.

• • •

All is not as it appears. We who live in the wake of quantum physics have learned that there are entire worlds, invisible to us, that function by their own laws and yet provide insights for understanding our world of sight and sense. In a similar fashion, Timothy Gombis says, Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians calls us to think about our lives in terms of the heavenly realms.

Ephesians serves an apocalyptic function. “It gives us a heavenly interpretation of reality.” Like Elisha’s servant, whose eyes were opened to see a mountain “full of horses and chariots of fire all around” (2Kings 6:17), Paul prays that we will view our lives from the standpoint of Christ’s cosmic victory over the powers that threaten us in the drama of redemption.

Ephesians has a cosmic scope. “There are more actors on the cosmic stage than we typically imagine.” Paul maintained a perspective on life and reality that involved an “open heaven” — where earthly events had heavenly parallels. Heavenly actors have an intimate relationship to what happens in our lives in this world.

Ephesians tells us we live at the crossover of the ages. Jewish expectation looked for God’s dramatic intervention in history to save his people and establish his Kingdom. Paul insists that God has acted decisively in Christ to accomplish our salvation. The Kingdom has been inaugurated. However, it has not been consummated. We live in the tension between the already and the not yet. The rulers of this present evil age have been defeated but they have not yet been destroyed.

Ephesians is driven by the polemic of divine warfare. As in such OT victory songs as Exodus 15 and many of the Psalms, in Ephesians “Paul asserts the triumph of Christ over the powers that rule the present evil age and explains the manner in which the people of God are to inhabit this victorious drama, letting it orient and shape their lives together as a community.” It is through his redeemed people in Christ that God aims to assert, defend, and display his victory over the forces that threaten his creation.

Continue reading “Christ and the Powers”

Difficult Scriptures: John 1:35-38

The next day again John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as he walked by and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God!” The two disciples heard him say this, and they followed Jesus. Jesus turned and saw them following and said to them,“What are you seeking?” And they said to him, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?” (John 1:35-38, ESV)

Jesus’ first words to his first disciples were a question: “What are you seeking?” I read this for the bazillionth time this week, and for the first time those words jumped out at me. They punched me in the gut and sent me reeling. I’ve been reeling all week. “What are you seeking?”

At first, several things came to mind.

I’m seeking answers to piercing questions in front of me right now.

I’m seeking a way to earn more money without taking on a job that overwhelms me with stress. (Please don’t ask me to do any more ghostwriting projects for a while.)

I’m seeking peace, and joy, and, yes, love. These are all good things to seek after, right?

I heard those words deep within once again. “What are you really seeking?”

So I thought I would swing far away from me and my wants and desires. “Jesus!” I said. “I am seeking Jesus!” Yet somehow that felt hollow, smacking of even the slightest hint of insincerity. Yes, I want Jesus and more of Jesus. But is that what I’m really seeking? I was about to put this question back on the shelf when I had a chat with the Synonymous Rambler about it.

SR: What do you think Jesus wants you to be seeking?

Me: Well, I thought it would be to seek him.

SR: Let’s go to Scripture. (SR really likes Scripture.) What does Jesus say there?

So we went to the Scripture.

But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Oh, of course. Now, how do I do that? How do I seek his kingdom? How do I seek after God’s righteousness? And in doing so, can I really trust him to give me all else that I need? Really—not just in a nice religious way, but can I really, really trust him?

What about my desires for meaningful work that will pay the bills and for better health and for more time to read and think and for my Reds to start playing above the AAA level? Can what I seek be fit entirely into Matthew 6:33? A close reading of that verse reveals that we are to continually be seeking after God’s kingdom and his righteousness, that it is not a one-time search. That seems to indicate that we are not going to find what we are seeking in this world. Did Jesus have this in mind when he asked his first disciples that prying question, “What are you seeking?”

What do you think, iMonks? What answer was Jesus looking for? What answer is he looking for from me—and from you—today? Is Matthew 6:33 sufficient, or is there more in Scripture we should be considering? Now is your time to wade in with your insights. Remember, as we wrestle through this together, no eye gouging, and no biting. Play nice, iMonks.

Bad Religion: A Prelude

Last week I wrote about heresy in a way that upset many of you. First of all, I used a baseball manager (Ozzie Guillen) as an example of a heretic—though not a religious one—and then said clearly that we should not be on a witch hunt for heretics, which prompted some of you to tell me not to be on a witch hunt for heretics.

Sigh …

Sometimes, iMonks, you really need to read an essay several times through before jumping straight to sharing your thoughts. But that is a conversation for another day.

Today I want to give a brief preview of a book we will be reviewing shortly here, Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics by Ross Douthat. Douthat is a New York Times op/ed columnist and conservative Christian. His words will be well worth a close examination. Until we can do a complete review of this book, here is a brief nougat for you to chew on.

The United States Remains a deeply religious country, and most Americans are still drawing water from the Christian well. But a growing number are inventing their own versions of what Christianity means, abandoning the nuances of traditional theology in favor of religions that stroke their egos and indulge or even celebrate their worst impulses. These faiths speak from many pulpits—conservative and liberal, political and pop-cultural, traditionally religious and fashionable “spiritual”—and many of their preachers call themselves Christian or claim a Christian warrant. But they are increasingly offering distortions of traditional Christianity, not the real thing …

This is the real story of religion in America. For all its piety and fervor, today’s United States needs to be recognized for what it really is: not a Christian country, but a nation of heretics.

Anyone interested in what else Douthat has to say?

iMonk Classic: God doesn’t offer explanations

Starry Night over the Rhone, Van Gogh

Classic iMonk Post
by Michael Spencer
from October 2008

Note from CM: This was posted on another blog Michael started, called “Jesus-Shaped Spirituality”.

• • •

The problem with theological types- like yours truly- is they think that God has explained himself. In the Bible. In Jonathan Edwards. In the Lutheran Confessions. In the CRCC. In the latest Piper book. In the ESV Study Bible notes. Somewhere.

The fact is God doesn’t explain himself.

Romans isn’t God explaining himself in your life. There’s some “big picture” stuff there, and you’ll do much better if you realize that “big picture” explanations are what God is interested in. But if you want explanations for why you have no friends, or why you seem to fail the harder you work or why your daughter became a Hindu, you aren’t going to get those explanations.

And you must especially beware of people who pretend to have explanations for you. Churches are full of these people, usually at the pulpit end or in the academic section. They have a favorite book or a DVD presentation that gets right to the explanation for your family’s troubles or your business failure, and what you should do now.

Continue reading “iMonk Classic: God doesn’t offer explanations”

Sad of Heart

The Emmaus Road, Mike Moyers

Journey into New Life, part two
Sad of Heart (Luke 24)

Our Gospel text for this Easter season is Luke 24:13-35, the story of the risen Lord’s encounter with his disciples on the road to Emmaus. This passage sets forth a Lukan paradigm of what it means to walk with the living Lord Jesus Christ. It is more than a story of something that happened back then. It represents what newness of life is all about, how it works, and what it is like to experience the new creation. We are the disciples on the road, and Jesus comes to walk with us.

• • •

“They stopped, their faces drawn with misery…” (Luke 24:18).

When we meet our friends on the road to Emmaus, we can see that they are sad of heart. Their faces are downcast, their voices hushed, their shoulders slumped. The two are absorbed in a serious conversation punctuated by sighs and shaking heads.

Sad. So sad. Indeed, so sad their sorrow keeps them from seeing Jesus when he comes alongside them.

So sad they can’t believe there’s a person alive who doesn’t know about the events that made their world collapse.

So sad they are sure all their hopes had been dashed.

So sad they can’t stop talking about their painful experience, can’t stop obsessing about it, can’t make sense of any of it.

And when strange news came from women who went to the tomb and found his body missing — well, that was just crazy talk! Insult added to injury. Grief now irritated by impossible, incredible tales.

So sad.

Continue reading “Sad of Heart”

Top-Down Authority? or Bottom-Up Faith? or Both?

I hope soon to read and review Diana Butler Bass’s new book, Christianity After Religion: The End of Church and the Birth of a New Spiritual Awakening (actually I’m waiting for Kindle ebook prices to come down). I’ve heard some interviews with her and have read a few articles, and she has some good insights about the changing landscape we are seeing in the 21st century with regard to the practice of Christian faith.

As an example, I point you to a commentary she wrote for Religion News Service called, “When religion and spirituality collide”.

Citing the example of Rowan Williams’s resignation from his position as Archbishop of Canterbury and a subsequent rejection by the Anglican Church of a worldwide unity plan he backed, Bass suggests we are witnessing a significant shift in what has actually come to divide us in many contemporary religious conflicts:

“The Anglican fight over gay clergy is usually framed as a left and right conflict, part of the larger saga of political division. But this narrative obscures a more significant tension in Western societies: the increasing gap between spirituality and religion, and the failure of traditional religious institutions to learn from the divide.”

Bass sees a burgeoning democratization in the Church that has been coming for awhile but is now accelerating and bringing real change within long-standing institutions.

All institutions are being torn apart by tension between two groups: those who want to reassert familiar and tested leadership patterns — including top-down control, uniformity and bureaucracy; and those who want to welcome untested but promising patterns of the emerging era — grass-roots empowerment, diversity and relational networks. It is not a divide between conservatives and liberals; rather, it is a divide between institution and spirit.

This is a key component of the “Christianity after religion” Bass observes, and it mirrors similar trends in spheres like business, politics, and education. In contrast to hierarchical structures of authority where spiritual power flows from the top down, people are now more and more asserting that, “spirituality is a grass-roots adventure of seeking God, a journey of insight and inspiration involving authenticity and purpose that might or might not happen in a church, synagogue or mosque. Spirituality is an expression of bottom-up faith and does not always fit into accepted patterns of theology or practice.”

This is an obvious threat to those invested in the institutions. Some become fixated on defending traditional structures and practices. Other newer forms of authoritarianism arise and attempt to assert control lest chaos reign. Power plays and schisms become more prevalent as boundary markers are set up, defended, and enforced. Power structures won’t go down easily or quietly.

Bass seems to be a cheerleader as well as observer of these transitions and new directions.

In our times, spiritual renewal is taking place among friends, in conversation, with trust and through mutual learning. A new thing is happening on the streets, in coffeehouses, in local faith communities, and in movements of justice and social change. Far from demands of institutional religion, Rowan Williams will find a new kind of faith is being born.

She also calls upon leaders of traditional institutions to recognize what is happening and adapt. “Only leaders who can bridge this gap and transform their institutions will succeed in this emerging cultural economy.” I’m not sure what that means or what it might look like for churches in the years and decades to come.

What do you think?