Territorial Bloggings

Some thoughts in the form of statements/theses…

1. Facts are objective
2. Human intellect observes & interprets facts
3. Facts were not corrupted at/by the Fall
4. Human intellect was corrupted at/by the Fall
5. Christianity is a fact-based religion
6. Biblical Faith is not an absence of facts
7. Biblical Faith is an active trust in facts
8. Sinful/Corrupt intellect can/does misinterpret objective facts
9. When in conflict, Biblical Faith trumps Intellectual observation & interpretation
10. This does not make Christianity a-factual, or faith something opposed to reality

-ghp

Now that I’ve finally finished watching & taking notes on all 15 talks in the ALPHA DVD set, the next step is processing those notes into a more cogent & thoughtful format for your consumption. As I continue to do that, I thought I’d put a little teaser out, particularly after I listened to the first hour of Issues, Etc. on 9/11 (Listener Email & Issues, Etc. Comment Line)

Starting at 38:04, emailer Joshua from Tuscon, AZ brought up a great point, related to an earlier discussion about Gospel Reductionism, that dovetailed amazingly well with something that I observed in ALPHA. He posited that, in Evangelical circles, Gospel Reductionism takes the form of “Relational” or “Relationship” Theology.

“Jesus wants to have a relationship with you, and that relationship is the first and most important need in people.” “This is a potent form of Gospel Reductionism.”

(Paraphrasing…) Further, under a “Gospel of Relationships,” the need to differentiate from others (key to the Puritan heritage of Evangelicalism) manifests itself in lifestyle – i.e., the desire to look and act like a Christian, complete with all the markers brought down from Puritanism (no drinking, no questioning authority, no condemnation of non-sanctioned things, etc…) so as to be able to tell who’s in & who’s out.

Recently, however, among 2nd Generation, “Relational” Evangelicals (Rick Warren, the Emergent/Emerging crowd, etc…) there is a tendency to rail against legalism, such that judgments & strong statements/stances (against, say, homosexual marriage/clergy, etc…) are no longer held in as much favor as differentiating markers. (End Paraphrasing)

The linkage to ALPHA is this: This type of “Relational Theology” and “Gospel of Relationships” is very much in line with ALPHA and what it teaches. IOW, ALPHA is quite consistent, both in how it confesses the “Relationship Gospel”, and how it applies & espouses it throughout the whole course.

More details will, of course, be forthcoming, but I can (perhaps too) succinctly summarize ALPHA in the following PRO & CON statements…

PRO: It is internally consistent in hewing to it’s core principles throughout the course.

CON: It is of a different spirit/gospel than Sacramental, Christocentric, Christianity.

-ghp

Some people might be wondering just what the big deal was/is about what the ELCA did at their Churchwide Assembly (CWA).

Is it that it was about homosexuality? Same-sex unions? Homosexual clergy?

While those are all sinful things, they are actually just symptoms, side issues if you will, of what the real problem is.

The real apostacy is this: ELCA has knowingly broken with Scripture (and secondarily with Confessions & Tradition) as the sole authoritative normative measure. IOW, God’s Word has been knowingly set aside.

Witness this quote from a write-up on the CWA, describing an amendment to the Social Statement on Human Sexuality that was adopted (both the amendment and then the amended Statement were adopted):

“The next amendment came from Bp. Kurt Kusserow, SW PA:

It must be noted that some, though not all, in this church and within the larger Christian community, conclude that marriage is also the appropriate term to use in describing similar benefits, protection, and support for same-gender couples entering into lifelong monogamous relationships. The proposed amendment would change this to Recognizing that this conclusion differs from the historic Christian tradition and the Lutheran Confessions, some people though not all, in this church and within the larger Christian community, conclude that marriage is also the appropriate term to use in describing similar benefits, protection, and support for same-gender couples entering into lifelong monogamous relationships.

On this there was no speaking other than that of Bp. Kusserow. The amendment was approved 677-276.”

The Assembly knew what it was doing. They wanted to do this, and nothing was going to stop them from doing it, so that sin could be called good. The Revisionist agenda was not to be denied, no matter the cost.

I pray for the faithful remnant that is left in ELCA, that God may comfort them and strengthen them during this time, leading them to a place where they can once again rest in his Word purely preached and his Sacrament rightly administered, where the fellowship is not perverted. I also pray that those who have done this are brought to repentance, so that they might be led to that very same place of rest.

-ghp

If you’ve ever read The Hammer of God, then you’re familiar with conventicles (and if you haven’t read it, then go right out, get it and read it — do it NOW!!!).

Simply defined, a conventicle is a small, unofficial and unofficiated meeting of laypeople, to discuss religious issues. In Lutheranism and Anglicanism there is a history of conventicles being a source of subversive sectarianism. [sources: Wikipedia & Christian Cyclopedia]

Reading through Hammer, as I am wont to do on a semi-annual basis, my thoughts drifted from the conventicles it describes, to the various machinations that I’ve observed in use over the years by various mega-churches, church-growthers, & proponents thereof. I thought of: Cell Groups; Small Groups; Every Member a Minister; and just about every flavor of targeted/market-segmented “ministry” that you could think of (age, sex, marital status, vocation, etc…).

All of these things struck me as being officially co-opted variants of Jakob Spener’s unsanctioned pots of Pietism — Formalized Conventicles.

Over the past 30 years, the contemporary congregation has embraced the Formalized Conventicle, such that it has become an article of faith and best practice. A main operating principle has been that “Bigger is better!” and that mega-churches are the best churches, thanks to the incessant drumbeat of the Church-Growth glitterati. While those at the forefront of that movement are now seeing its shortcomings after 30 years, many are still traversing the adoption curve, and have some lessons to learn.

That said, one thing that has become clear in hindsight is that bigger is not always better, from a spiritual welfare and oversight standpoint. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have seen the rise of Formalized Conventicles. All of these programs & initiatives arose out of the implicit recognition that huge numbers yielded an impersonal atmosphere, one that I would posit was especially deadly when paired with the lightweight theology found in so many “seeker-sensitive” environs.

The huge numbers themselves couldn’t be discounted or dismissed (’cause growth was “good”, natch, and a sign that God was “blessing” things), so an alternative had to be found. The formerly subversive idea of “cell groups” had to be co-opted and rebranded into something “good” and officially approved, so that the huge overall numbers could be maintained. And, so it was.

Implicitly, the “mega-growthers” had acknowledged that which was true all along: for proper spiritual care & shepherding, smaller is better. Unfortunately, they went about it in entirely the wrong fashion. Rather than changing the model & going with smaller congregations, where the sheep can be tended to by rightly Called undershepherds, they veered off in Spener’s direction, giving Formalized Conventicles a whirl. Only to be met (as has been seen with recent studies by Willow Creek & the like) with the reality that such efforts are shallow, unfulfilling, and nothing more than turning the sheep loose to fend for themselves in a world full of wolves.

And here’s the part that really grinds me: just as the American Evangelicals at the front edge of the curve are openly acknowledging the pitfalls & flaws, we in the LCMS are having to deal with “leadership” that is firmly entrenched in that very same discredited methodology, touting is as the latest wonder elixir that will help us revitalize the church!

It needn’t be complex, it needn’t be complicated. It’s been given to us to be faithful, to hew to the faith once given unto the saints. I was tempted to say that it needn’t be difficult, but that would be wrong, wouldn’t it? Of course it will be difficult, for we are always under assault. Always being tempted to think that it’s complicated and in need of an extra bit of “sweetening” from us. But it isn’t. Word and Sacrament. Law and Gospel. Christ and the Cross. Preaching and teaching. Vocation and mercy.

May God spare us from the subversive temptations of Formalized Conventicles.

-ghp

Does anyone out there have any strong thoughts on ALPHA, from a Lutheran p.o.v.?

Any links to resources that break ALPHA down, and examine it by holding it up against orthodox Lutheranism?

Any ideas on why it’s so appealing to Lutherans?

Any thoughts on why CPH hasn’t developed a Lutheran alternative? (I have a question in to Paul McCain on this, but I have yet to hear anything back from him on this…)

I know that there’s been much discussion on/about ALPHA over at LQ, as well as over at BJS, and while those are/have been useful, they’ve also been somewhat highly charged (LQ more than BJS, to be fair) with more heat than light, and I’m looking in a slightly more objective direction at this point.

ALPHA concerns me greatly, in that I’m perplexed as to why orthodox, Confessional Lutherans would be tempted to use it, thinking that they could somehow follow the “eat the meat & spit out the bones” approach. It strikes me as a dangerous game. And I’m almost equally as perplexed that there hasn’t been an alternative developed, tested, vetted, and promoted so that good, Lutheran theology isn’t viewed as something that isn’t “friendly” to newbies. (by the same token, I should say that I do somewhat dispute the premise that doctrine must somehow be “watered down” in order to not “scare away” those newbies; this is a premise upon which ALPHA seems to be built…)

Any thoughts/ideas/tips that y’all might have will be gratefully received, discussed, etc…

-ghp

Obama's pastor outrage

I’m a fan of neither Obama nor Warren, but this is a great editorial cartoon…

-ghp

[HT: Worldmagblog]

From the Oct 25, 2008 Belief Watch column in Newsweek:

“With a scrap of bagel and a sip of Crystal Light, Beth McDonald gave communion to her husband. Then, after a blessing, he gave communion to her. Music played as the celebrant intoned the ancient words, “Do this in remembrance of me.” The experience was among the most spiritually powerful of her life. “I had my eyes closed,” McDonald told me. “We were praying … I got really choked up.”

McDonald was not in church; she was in her living room in Minnesota. The celebrant was not at church; he was at home, in Santa Fe, N.M. Other participants logged on from Sri Lanka, Australia and the Netherlands. Through streaming video and the Internet, all were joined in holy communion.

As technology reshapes our world, as our “friends” become the people we know on Facebook as well as the ones we invite home for dinner, the definition of community is taking on radically new meanings. Nowhere is the concept of community more crucial than in religion. In the West, people traditionally worship together, in a group, in one room; that togetherness has theological import. In Christianity, the sacrament of communion underscores the unity of the faithful; consuming the consecrated bread and wine binds Christians with each other, with the saints in heaven and with the Lord. Now, at the farthest corners of the Christian world, a few people are applying new-tech concepts of community to this ancient rite. The example above is among the most avant-garde. The celebrant, Zeph Daniel, is a musician who preaches online to a group of Christians disconnected from the traditional church. One of his slogans is “Leave religion and find God.”"

This is neither Holy, nor Communion. Discuss…

-ghp

One of my pet peeves is when folks trot out the old chestnut of, “Well, I’m not a theologian, I’m just a simple layman…” Sometimes, they even mean it in a truly self-effacing way. Usually, however, I’ve found that it’s meant in a way that’s calculated to cut off any negative reaction, or correction, to whatever follows that declarative statement.

I would contend that it is actually more accurate for folks to say that they are not dogmatist/theoretician.

Let me explain…

Theology: The field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God’s attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

Theologian: a person versed in theology, esp. Christian theology

In short, theology is the relationship of God to the universe, and thus a theologian is someone who is interested in that relationship. Pretty simple.

I’ve said it in the past, and I’ll say it again here: We are all theologians.

What we might not all care to be, however, are dogmatists.

Dogma:

1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

Dogmatist: One who dogmatizes; one who speaks dogmatically; a bold and arrogant advancer of principles. Another good word for describing what I’m after here is theoretician.

In other words, what I’m contending is that when folks say “I’m not a theologian…” what they really mean is that they’re not a policy wonk – i.e., someone who gets off on the minutiae of delving into the theological DNA of doctrinal issues. Most folks want to feel comfortable that they have a good grasp of the ‘big picture’ stuff.

The thing is, understanding the big picture framework is easy enough if you let yourself be open to what I’ve outlined above. That’s the easy part. Once you’ve accepted it, that’s when the hard part begins. Because no matter which direction you go in, theoretician or non-, you have to constantly work to keep up to speed, lest Satan overtake you & lure you off the narrow path.

As Luther himself observed, there’s a ditch on either side of the road, and you’re in equally bad shape (i.e., IN THE DITCH!) if you stray from the path. Meaning, if you get lost in the minutiae of the DNA, like so many dogmatists who end up down rabbit holes, your faith is in just as much danger as the “plain old pewsitting layman” who is led astray by that “nice man” Joel Osteen who preaches his false gospel of feel-good prosperity, or by Oprah with her new-agey paganism.

We are all theologians, my friends, and it is my fervent prayer that the Holy Ghost will strengthen and preserve us such that we will all be Theologians of the Cross!

-ghp

Something of note, from a bright, sunny Saturday in Valparaiso…

We got a visit from some wandering Watchtower folks this afternoon. A nice enough lady, and what looked to be her tween-age daughter. Now, I’m not a huge fan of these visits from the non-Christian sects, largely because I really don’t like the adrenaline jolt I get from the confrontation of beliefs. I’ve read the CPH How To Respond books, and read the reports from other Lutheran folks about how they’ve dealt with similar visits. But that pesky adrenaline jolt tends to cloud my mind & tie my tongue.

The Watchtower lady led off with a question about if I thought we might be in the end times, as described in the Bible. I responded by stating that we’ve been in the ‘end times’ ever since Jesus ascended into heaven after dying on the cross for our sins & rising from the dead. This didn’t seem to throw her, as she then moved into some of the Watchtower tract offerings.

I stopped her, having recalled a tactic that others have reported using, and said that I didn’t have time to continue the conversation, but that I’d be glad to schedule a time for another discussion, and that I’d like to have my Pastor there to participate in the discussion. This threw her a bit. She responded by saying that they’d love to come back, but that she didn’t see any reason why my Pastor needed to be there – that they’d prefer to discuss things solely with me, and not bother having someone like a Pastor there who would not be open to their message. And, oh by the way, just why did I think my Pastor needed to be there?

Well, I responded by stating that my Pastor has been charged with my spiritual well being. He is the undershepherd to whom I have been entrusted. Thus, I would not be comfortable engaging in this type of discussion without him there to help the discussion stay productive & beneficial.

At this point, she quickly began disengaging from the sales pitch, asking if I’d be interested in taking any of the Watchtower tracts for further reading. I declined.

What I found most interesting in this whole exchange was the bold, and bald-faced, way in which this friendly, but sadly & horrifically misguided, woman was attempting to steal me away for her non-Christian sect (dare I say, cult), and how she wanted no part of a more open discussion, when such a discussion involved a Christian Pastor. Nope, she wanted the beginnings of a brainwashing process, by which a sheep is taken away by a wolf. Shameless.

I thank God that He protected me, and gave me the words and awareness by which I could fend off Satan’s attack.

-ghp

The abrupt cancellation of the LCMS radio station KFUO’s flagship program, as well as the firing of its host & producer, last Tuesday was bizarre, inexplicable, troubling, and hurtful. But the lack of explanation re: the reasons & rationale, indeed the appearance of corporate stonewalling & information embargo along with an almost Stalin-esqe purge (even now, the once-again-available archives are looking to be bandwidth-throttled), is what is perhaps the most troubling & difficult to fathom. It’s really hard to put a proper 8th Commandment best construction on such acts.

Chris Rosebrough, a fairly regular guest on Issues, Etc., and a dedicated & effective apologist for orthodox Christianity (and thus, Lutheranism) re: American Evangelicalism & the Emergent Church Movement, has put forth what looks to be a very reasonable & well thought out explanation about what might be (and probably is) behind this whole Issues, Etc. debacle.

Is the LCMS Being “Transitioned” into a Seeker-Sensitive Denomination?

At first glance, this might look to be alarmist — a conspiracy theory even — to the point of not being charitable. However, I would offer this analysis: Such an explanation is not necessarily pejorative, in that this type of “transitional” strategy has been viewed by many as good, right, and proper. I, and many others, would disagree vehemently with that assessment; however, disagreeing with a strategy & set of tactics is not unkind or sinful in and of itself.

It is recognizing something for what it is.

Such recognition is good.

And it certainly helps bring some of the strangeness of the past week (and beyond) in to a little more understandable focus.

-ghp