A subtle error: idolatry in the camp of Protestants?

[Before I give my opinion on the topic of Evangelicalism vs Charismatism, I should give full disclosure of myself. (Full disclosure allows people to filter any biases that I have.) I invite you to read the full disclosure before or after my essay. It can be found at the end.]

I first joined an organisation with strong evangelical roots in 2000. I was a member of the Church of Christ at the time. Later in 2004 my wife joined with me, and we were evangelical Anglicans at the time.

The statement of faith of this particular organisation does something that many other evangelical bodies do. It lists its first item as:

WE BELIEVE that the Holy Scriptures, consisting of Old and New Testaments, were originally given by God, divinely inspired, without error, infallible, and are entirely trustworthy and the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice.

I have no problems with the wording of this item as such, but I do have a problem with it coming before the Triune God in the statement of faith. This distinction is subtle, but very important.

Evangelicalism was born in the age of the modernist enlightenment. In the context of atheists arguing with logic that God could not possibly exist, protestants began to formulate their logical arguments of response. Christianity descended to these quarters, from something of mystery (God's ways and thoughts are not our ways; the Spirit blows where it pleases (John 3); no mind has conceived of the mysteries of the gospel (1 Corinthians 2)... etc), to logical systematic theology, ending up with such simple notions of "four spiritual laws" and the sinner's prayer.

Modern evangelicalism sought to explain all matters of faith. It sought to build a logical framework that could not be disputed. Step by step, the bible was dissected into easily understood and irrefutable logic. A point was reached where modern evangelicals could easily explain all things about God, as they understood the Bible in entirety. There was no room left for the Spirit to blow where he pleases. In modern evangelicalism the Spirit is only allowed to blow according to the strict formulas that are logically understood by a mathematical deduction of theology. In short, God was caught in a box, he had been captured, never again to be released.

I have often wondered why Evangelicals are so afraid of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps it is because rampant pentecostalism has exploited the Holy Spirit for its own materialistic gains, and hyper abusive spirituality. Or perhaps that is just an excuse on the part of evangelicals. Perhaps they are afraid of the Holy Spirit, because they don't want God to escape from the box, where he can easily be controlled. Evangelicals often don't seem to believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, even though this is frequently evident in Acts. They claim that conversion (at the point of the sinner's prayer) brings the Holy Spirit. Even in Acts there were believers who had not yet received the Holy Spirit, such as Apollos. (See my earlier post.)

I have had my times to examine how the evangelical culture of my organisation operates. This has most often been in the context of international conferences. The first of these times was in Europe in 2007. A speaker attended the conference to educate people living in Europe on how to relate to post modernism. People were asking questions such as "how can we communicate the gospel to these post modernists", while I just sat there and thought "hello, I'm sitting right here, I am already a post modern Christian." At the end of the question and comment time a brave man stood up and said something that shocked the whole room at the conference. He said, "we need to go the God beyond the scriptures."  There was a collective gasp across the room. How dare he question the Evangelical God contained within scripture? (Sarcastic emphasis, my own.)  In reality this man was not for a moment saying that he did not believe scripture, he was just saying that God is bigger than scripture, and that God still has freedom to move outside of scripture. Evidently he had struck an evangelical sacred cow.

I sat there cheering this man along as he spoke. Later he was made to apologise before the conference for his errant statements. I participated in a discussion with him and some other leaders of the organisation after the session ended. The argument was made that we can only know who God is from scripture. I disagreed. I argued that we can know God in the following ways:

 1) Through the witness of God in creation.

For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (The Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans.)

I.e- not only is it possible to believe in God from looking at creation, it is also possible to recognise his eternal power and divine nature, and worship him accordingly. I would argue that this is the first witness that every human being receives, not scripture. As the Christian Astronomer Hugh Ross says "God's book of creation, and God's book of scripture will never disagree with one another."  But it is very important to acknowledge that God has another "book" apart from the scriptures.

In the ensuing discussion I threw forth the question- "which Bible did Abraham read when he came to faith?"  This is also a very important question. God taught Abraham how to have faith, and so forth he taught his descendants (of which we are a part).

I would argue that Abraham had God's book of creation, as well as the oral stories that make up the first 11 chapters of Genesis- the prehistory of the the Bible. This was indeed a lot. In fact we see from Genesis that Melchizidek had this same faith and so did Job who lived in the era of the patriarchs. But most of all Abraham had an active living relationship with the Living God. They related back and forth. Dare I say that he even had a relationship with the Holy Spirit.

2) Through the witness of the saints. This may be a bit scary for some evangelicals. It may even sound a bit Catholic or Orthodox. But think about it for a moment. Early believers in the Old Testament all talked about their belief in "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."  It was the witness of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, by which they believed, not by a huge body of scripture that we have today. Think about how you came to faith yourself. My guess is that you received the testimony of another believer. This testimony was then confirmed by the Holy Spirit speaking to you, prompting you and then convicting you of sin and righteousness. I know that I came to faith this way myself. It was only much later that I began to understand about the Bible, and how it is useful for teaching and discipleship (2 Timothy). Even Paul, in the context of saying that Christ's death and resurrection are spoken of in the scriptures (he is referring to Old Testament prophecies) goes on to list the testimony of 500 witnesses who saw the risen Christ. (1 Corinthians 15). This witness of the 500 is paramount in establishing his claim for the validity of the entire Christian faith. "Without the resurrection of Christ, we are all fools." So Paul argues that we can be sure that Christ rose because of the witness of the saints. And to add a little fuel to the fire the writer to the Hebrews lists the Heroes of the faith who are our "cloud of witnesses" in chapters 11 and 12.

3) The witness of scripture. In reality, scripture becomes a good way to underline and confirm the witness of creation and the witness of the saints. Also, scripture is a collection full of the testimony of the saints, recorded for all time. Just as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 13, words spoken without love are as a clashing cymbal; in the same way words on a page do not impact the lives of others without the embodiment of the love of Christ. The words of scripture are as often used to falsely condemn others as they are to point to Jesus' love. This does not mean the words of scripture are somehow bad, it just means that when people do not act in love they have a way of twisting the words of scripture to their own ends. Jesus exhorts us that the world would know that we are his disciples by our love for one another. So even when we use the words of scripture, the testimony of the saints remains imperative.

When it comes to the Bible and God, which came first? It is nonsense to say that we believe in God because the Bible tells us so. This is circular reasoning (and even according to an evangelical framework of logic, must fail the test). The Bible is God's word spoken to us, for sure, but it is like a photo negative that needs to have light come through it for people to see it. The words of scripture are understood under the illumination of the Holy Spirit. We believe in God because of his witness to us through his creation. Later we believe in the Bible because it came to us from God, via the testimony of his saints through the ages. The Bible is a sure and reliable testimony because of the the first two witnesses. God spoke through the prophets. The prophets wrote the words on to the page. Through out the ages, and even today God continues to work through the Holy Spirit and though people. I believe in the Bible because it comes from God. I don't believe in God because it comes from the Bible.

These ideas become controversial in evangelical circles. An evangelical is usually comfortable with the words on the page, but becomes uncomfortable when asked to trust the Holy Spirit while closing the book. But God will never contradict himself, so it is possible for the evangelical to come back to scripture at a later time and find out that the things the Holy Spirit has said remain in the same vain. But we need to learn to hear the voice of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said "my sheep know my voice." Sometimes we don't have time to open up the book, and we need to respond to the voice of the Holy Spirit immediately in our lives.

Another moment at an international conference came recently. Sadly the speaker said something classically evangelical, and classically in error. He wanted to encourage evangelicals to seek the Holy Spirit more. But as his talk unfolded, this was not what he did. He pulled out two scriptures as his proof texts, and then put them through an evangelical filter:

Colossians 3:15-16  Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts.

Ephesians 5:18-19 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another with psalms, hymns and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord.

The speaker then went on to explain that these two scriptures are so similar that they are essentially the same, and that therefore "the word of Christ" (which he explained is the Word of God; which is the Bible) fills us with the Holy Spirit in our lives. He used the texts to explain to us that reading the Bible more would fill us with the Holy Spirit. He went on to subtly twist these words and make people feel guilty for not having good enough "quiet times". Following his talk there were people in tears, repenting for not reading their Bibles enough. He had successfully condemned them through proof texting an evangelical maxim, that God can only be known through the Bible, and that if you are not reading it (as much as him) then you are not filled with the Holy Spirit. In my opinion his talk was nothing short of spiritual abuse. Pentecostals have been (rightly) accused of spiritual abuse. They have used their position of "touch not the Lord's anointed" to say what ever they please and exert power over people. But this was the evangelical equivalent of spiritual abuse. This man, because he was a "learned bible scholar" and speaking from the pulpit was not to be questioned. His interpretation of the Bible was the "correct" one, and with it he wielded great power. I was saddened and shocked. He had spent an entire sermon, with other proof texts too, telling people that the Bible is essentially the Holy Spirit. This fits into the evangelical trinity: Father, Son and Holy Book.

It is a subtle but grave error that evangelicals can often make. The Bible contains the words of God given to us via his saints. (Yes they are all true- I am not detracting from that for one moment.) But when the Holy Spirit is pushed aside and replaced by a book, this is nothing short of idolatry. This may be hard for people to see. But ask anyone- who is greater, God or the Bible?- the answer must surely be God.

Allow me to offer a different interpretation of the scriptures given. (Admittedly I also have my biases, but I surely hope that I am allowing the scriptures to speak instead of forcing them as my own proof texts.) At the time that Paul wrote his letters, the "scriptures" were what we now know as the Old Testament. When he exhorted believers to let the "word of Christ" dwell richly in them, what could he have meant? I would argue that he was not referring to words on the page. Many of those early believers would not have had words on the page. They would have had stories yes. But until Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote them down, they did not have access to many of those particular words of Christ. But they were not lost. They had the Holy Spirit! In fact, this was the whole point. Jesus told the disciples not to worry when he was leaving, because he would send the Holy Spirit to them who would lead them into all truth. Was this just for the disciples so they could then later write the stories down? No! It was for all believers, the Holy Spirit was abundantly made available to all flesh at Pentecost in Acts 2.

So this scripture is referring to the believers all getting together as priests, all sharing a word of wisdom with one another, all keeping one another accountable, all bringing songs to worship the King, all bringing words of prophecy to glorify the Lord and encourage one another. When they all did this together it brought a full, wholistic and broad body contextual representation of the body of Christ, with Jesus as their head. This was the actual Word of Christ. Just as John teaches us that Jesus is the Word made flesh, the full participation of all priests in the royal priesthood of all believers brings about the Word of Christ, Jesus incarnate, this time not as flesh walking but as the Spirit blowing amongst us. The Holy Spirit is the Word!  The Bible is not the Holy Spirit. It is all a question of priority and sequence.

To remove any confusion, it comes down to our definition of the phrase "the word of God."  The Word of God is a person. John teaches us this. The Word of God is not the  Bible. The Bible is the words of God, but not The Word, that must be reserved for Jesus and the Holy Spirit.


DISCLOSURE:

I was raised in the Lutheran church. The Lutheran church is a liturgical church that recites the Nicene creed every Sunday. One of the things I like about the Nicene creed is that it declares faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while only mentioning briefly the scriptures in the context of Jesus raising from the dead. It also mentions that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets (a reference to the scriptures). But the scriptures are never placed in priority before the Triune God.

My family flirted with charismatism and pentecostalism when I was a child. There was a charismatic renewal movement in the Lutheran church. This mostly happened outside of Sunday services in home groups and at retreat style camps. Over the years it did creep into some congregations. This happened more successfully in South Australia and Queensland. In Victoria the Lutheran church carried out a campaign against the charismatic renewal. Over a period of about 20 years they successfully "assassinated" all sources of what they believed to be heresy. This resulted in a lot of people being hurt and abused, including my parents. I left the Lutheran church at the age of 16 in this environment.

My teenage years included membership in a more rampant form of pentecostalism under the banner of the Assembly of God. I was actively involved in the youth group and Sunday evening services. It was in this time that I experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit and took on the concept of boldness for Jesus in my faith. In those years I erred on the side of boldness but lacked gentleness and respect. Over the years I learnt the importance of gentleness and respect for someone, when sharing the good news of Jesus Christ. Never in my experience though have I rejected my pentecostal experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is still very much a part of who I am. 

For some years I did subscribe to the notions of the prosperity gospel that are regularly preached in the pentecostal church, under the likes of Kenneth Copeland and many others. I now consider those doctrines to be in error.

In late teenage years I became involved with an independent charismatic church. It had a lot less hype than the Assembly of God. This church was on a devolving journey away from institutionalised religion. Over the years the pastor stopped calling himself a pastor, and simply became an elder, along with other elders in the fellowship. The building we met in evolved from hard chairs and rows, to couches and soft chairs in a circle. The style of worship evolved from one priest led to open participatory worship. People began reading books with titles such as "The Open Church".  As a fellowship we began relating to an itinerant Apostle.

I was eclectic in my worship experience. For all the years that I went to the devolving open fellowship, I also continued to associate with hard core pentecostals at a church my sister attended. In those years I also experienced the "laughter phenomenon" that came from the Holy Spirit via the Toronto Blessing. While such experiences have not been normative in my journey- they continue to line up with my relationship with the Holy Spirit as a person who is gentle and loving, yet also extraordinarily powerful.

In my early twenties I left behind both the hard core pentecostal circles and the open church circles, and landed in an extremely post modern embryonic emmergent church. It was called South Melbourne Restoration Community, and was a member of the Australian Churches of Christ (a protestant denomination- not the Boston movement). This fellowship was led by the now famous Alan Hirsch and his wife Debra Hirsch, along with other leaders who are no where near famous, but desired after the heart of God also. My six years in that context led me through a lot of post modern questioning that has been very helpful in my faith. It enabled me to find synergy in all of my previous Christian experiences.

I still look back fondly on my years in South Melbourne Restoration Community. I consider them to be formative, but not conclusive in who I am as a Christian. Alan Hirsch used to talk about "simplicity before complexity" and "simplicity after complexity."  We were all exhorted to wrestle with our faith, to go through the complexity and come out the other side into a deeper and purer simplicity. That is, a simplicity that is grounded in the Eternal God and an active relationship- having tested the truth, but not a naive simplicity that is founded in dogmatism- i.e accepting something as true just because other people say it is, and should never be argued with.

After my time in the post modern emmergent church, I moved to live in Saskatchewan, Canada, where I married my wife. At the time there were no such concepts in Saskatchewan. I sought out a Vineyard fellowship, which advertise themselves as holding the tension of the "radical middle." The Vineyard of course are far from perfect, still being an institutional church. We even currently attend a Vineyard fellowship in our city of residence. It often disappoints for its shallowness.

During this season in the Vineyard in Canada the actual fellowship began to implode under crises of personality in leadership. (A problem that should not exist if everyone is allowed to participate in ministering- but often exists when personalities compete for leadership.) My wife and I again became eclectic, attending the Vineyard sometimes and also the childhood church of my wife, the Anglican church. At first I resisted the Anglican church, because I had come to dislike the stuffiness of a liturgical church. But at such a small country side fellowship it became easier to slot in and appreciate the good things.

Upon returning to Australia, my wife and I sought out an Evangelical style Anglican church in Melbourne. This is the closest that I have come to being Evangelical. Many of the attitudes of people are quite evangelical, but not the same as the Baptist evangelicalism of America. The Anglican church in Australia is still a liturgical church, that recites the Nicene creed (even if the evangelical variety no longer do this every service).

Global financial crisis- where has all the money gone?

The global financial crisis has got many thinking. In fact it has many worrying quite a lot. It has got me thinking, but thankfully not worrying. Where did all the money go?
There have been great losses on share markets across the world. This apparently was brought about my financial institutions collapsing due to bad losses on credit. Simply put they lent out too much money, or more accurately lent out money to people who could not repay the loans. These bad debts have triggered the crisis. There is no doubt that the greed of many banks in the US is to blame.

I have always thought of money as a finite resource. I am sure that many have thought the same. But I am coming to change the way I understand that concept. It used to be that a nation would only print as much money as represented the gold that they had in reserve. Back in those times, money was a finite concept. To go even further back in history, people had gold and silver coins, and there were no banks. Of course they could always find more gold in the ground. How things have changed in todays world.

Money is now a relative concept, not finite. It is fitting that such a concept has come about in a post modern world. The house of cards that is the US economy is crashing down. The rest of the world have been attaching our own economies to the US economy, and now the whole thing seems to be crashing down. Recent news reports have said that the global economy has now come to a complete stand still. This means that there is no net economic growth in the world, in fact there are losses, and this is what economic recession is.

But what is economic growth anyway? Well it represents productivity in a society, be that national or global. So there are some tangible things to attach the concept to. On a tangible level we have seen factories closing all over Russia and China. They are no longer productive. (India is still productive and I believe Canada is too.) If there is no product then there is no money. It's a little like if there is no wheat then there is no food for us to eat. Just like there can be a bumper crop of wheat some years, there can also be a bumper crop of money.

A bumper crop of money is when banks reap big dividends. People pay back their loans. Companies post big profits and their value soars. Essentially this means there is more money around to work with. Yes it is true that banks fictitiously create money, but this is only a part of the picture. In today's global economy money needs to be circulated. None of us need to hold on to the money all the time, so it is circulated around for some one else to use. It's a bit like a game of musical chairs. And just recently a whole bunch of chairs have been taken away.

Where did all the money go? Not into the hands of some other person. The money simply disappeared, burned in a fire, got washed away out to sea. Since there is less money to circulate, companies can not afford to pay their staff. This means that productivity goes down. Since there is less money to circulate, people become afraid to spend and then consumer demand drops, so productivity is in essence no longer needed.

Three quarters of Australia's economy depends on consumer spending. I am confident that many other western economies are built on similar principles. If we all spend our money happily then it will circulate and demand for productivity will go up.

Recently Kevin Rudd (Australian prime minister) thinks he knows the solution. He says that it is time to bring an end to traditional capitalism, and that a new age of social capitalism needs to begin. It sounds like a big experiment to me. Somehow I think the SRC School president does not know what he is talking about. Australia's economy is headed for a major deficit and a deep recession. The word depression is not on people's lips yet. But I think that is now a possibility.

Spend your money happily. It may be worth nothing tomorrow anyway.

Organic Church

When I was younger I used to preach, "you say you want a revival, well good, God is not looking for a revival, he is looking for a revolution, a revolution of the heart and mind." It was like a prophecy. A prophecy that I did not fully understand. Over the years at different times I have thought that I understood what these words meant, and then, it slipped away again.

I was part of the embryonic forms of the emerging church movement back in Australia. I sat under the tutelage of Alan Hirsch for 6 years. I now think that many of the ideas people were throwing around in our community were a yearning. A yearning for what church is supposed to be. We all knew something was wrong with the church. The western church is gasping for air.

We knew that church was supposed to be about community. But some how, we inadvertently missed how much it is supposed to be about Jesus. It was like it was "on the tip of our tongues" but just not articulated well enough. As a community a church plant was attempted in the form of a restaurant. Sadly that went bust. But that is ok, I don't think God wanted people to come to that restaurant anyway.

I was also involved in a different church plant during those years. It lasted about 18 months in total, and then failed. We were trying to aim at community too, but some how we were still using old paradigms to attempt this.

I have just picked up a book called "Organic Church" by Neil Cole. Four chapeters into the book I already find myself saying "I want what they have, that is they way church is supposed to be." I don't want to go back to what I know church to be either.

Let me just throw out a few of my thoughts so far. These are not all well articulated yet as I am still reading the book and my thoughts are in process. But this is a MUST READ I can tell you. Please pick it up and tell me what you think.

Here are my thoughts and some quotes from the book (the quotes are from my head and so could be a bit paraphrased), these come from a Skype chat I was having earlier today:

me:
i am reading a very radical book at the moment and LOVING it
it is called "the organic church" by Neil Cole
in six years their movement have planted over 700 churches in 23 states and 31 countries

reply:
sounds good

me:
their church sounds so attractive, i want what they have, and a hole in my mind has been revealed about what i always thought was wrong with the church
i used to say to people "God does not want a revival, he wants a revolution"

reply:
that is?

me:
i always wanted to know exactly what that meant, and some times i have thought i knew, but i think this is the revolution God wants

reply:
God wants peoples hearts

me:
first: Jesus is not first in the church
people are playing church, building their own kingdoms and physical buildings

a few quotes:
"we lowered the bar on church and raised the bar on discipleship"
"delay your building project for 300 years"
"lives transformed and conversions are part of our ongoing experience on a weekly basis"
"i bumped into someone in the next street who had just started a new church, which happens to be in our same movement"
"he was converted before we even got to the "message" but then intimate fellowship with God and each other IS the message right?"

they have churches in parking lots, pubs, and even one started up in a strip club for the women who were working there, even though it would eventually move out of that location
churches are usually not larger than 15 or 20 people, not because there is a limit or anything, but because they are constantly reproducing
and it has naturally spread overseas
they wanted to start a coffee shop, when God spoke to him and said no, just go and spend time at the local coffee shop
they went there many evenings with their small team
played chess, checkers and dominoes with the regulars
just shared their lives and prayed for their new friends in their difficulties
then at home they would fervently pray for those new people they had met
their early meetings were almost entirely singing and prayer
someone asked, "when new people keep coming will they be uncomfortable if we keep praying for them?" they decided not to stop and people were convicted by the Holy Spirit

it just kept growing

i have long thought home church is the way to go, but he points out the essentials of how it should work, and does not say it HAS to be in the home, it can be anywhere

response:
but I think it sounds like what christianity is supposed to look like and what was
looked inviting
at early church

me:
but there are no real rules
just jesus, really

response:
isnt that it all of it

More later.

What is evangelicalism?

The problem we face today comes from contemporary definitions of words (noticed how I strayed away from "modern" as in modernsim?).

The correct etymological definition of evangelical is someone who believes in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. By that definition, I am an evangelical. Evangelion is the Greek word, which means gospel, the good news.

My problems arise with the culture of many churches within modern evangelicalism. But I am struggling to find a word that clearly defines this culture. I suppose it can only be best described through common experience. Those who have that experience will know what I am talking about, the rest will be completely confused.

Suffice it to say, many evangelicals have strayed from the roots of the reformation. So, then I would have to say, yes I am a neo-evangelical according to this wikipedia definition. On the same note I am also a post evangelical.

For those who are worried let me reconfirm that I am an evangelical, but that much of the sheltered culture annoys me.

I'll have some of the mystery thanks

Mystery. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? As we embark upon a postmodern age, it is not only a good thing, but an essential in the make up of our spiritual experiences. I do not wish to give a systematic outline of why mystery is a good thing, that would defeat my purpose. Let me satisfy the evangelical urge of some and quote some scripture so that I can prove that I am on the right path. (Isn't it wonderful how we can "prove" so many things with scripture.)

Isaiah prophesied: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him." St. Paul goes on to explain that the Spirit of God has revealed these things to us, but that we can not understand these things with out the Spirit of God. St. Paul often talks about the "mystery" of the gospel.

No doubt throughout the ages there have been many who have been guilty of dogmatism and who have exploited Christianity for their own power quests. Due to in most parts, the separation of church and state, the quest for power is not as great as it once was through Christianity, and so the dogmatism is not as strong as it has been in history. Although, it must be said that dogmatism certainly exists today, and people still use Christianity as a means to their power quest. Jesus told us that we must serve one another. Therefore any leader must be a servant not a power monger. What a shame it is that there are so many power mongers. "You must speak in tongues," "why were you not at church on Sunday?," "It is a sin to smoke or drink," are just a few of the modern day dogmatic requirements that exist within conservative churches. For someone to maintain their grip on power then the rules must be clear, so that they can outcast people for stepping outside the neatly defined boundaries.

Modernism brought with it a thirst for discovery and a thirst for knowledge. Embedded in this thirst for knowledge was the world view that man is capable of understanding all things and explaining all things. Science in itself is a wonderful thing, it can actually be used as a tool to expand our appreciation of the mystery. But it was the modernist approach to Science that was so dangerous. Modernists started to come out with "logical" arguments against the existence of God. Logic is a funny creature. A rather intelligent Science teacher that I know in Saskatchewan can "logically" prove that the earth is flat. Logic can be used to argue many things. I think logic works best within confined parameters. So due to the rise in the logic of modernism, a new expression of Christianity arose: Evangelicalism. The evangelical church felt compelled to explain everything in the Bible and to have a logical answer to every question that the Darwinists and Atheists came up with. Evangelicalism reduced Christianity into a science. Systematic theologies were written and the gospel was watered down into four "spiritual laws."

Recently I read a very refreshing book called "Searching for God knows what" by Donald Miller. His thesis is very simple: God created us for relationship, that relationship was lost and now he invites us back into relationship with him again. Donald Miller takes the time to describe the kind of relationship he thinks Adam and Eve would have had with God in the garden, and how desperate it was for them when this relationship was lost. Now, humans try to seek all of their approval from others and do ridiculous things to gain the approval of others. God is simply wanting to give us this approval himself. (Yes, you are right, this in itself is not particularly mysterious at all.) Everyone in life seems to be stuck in a big high school popularity contest. Donald Miller also takes the time to explain how harmful it is to reduce Christianity to a series of bullet points. He very clearly points out that someone can believe all the bullet points to be true, but never have received God's invitation for relationship.

Modernist Evangelicalism has reduced the gospel into bullet points and removed all of the mystery, that St. Paul talked about. The means to becoming a follower of Jesus are very neatly mapped out within evangelicalism. This is sad and has put God into a box. It has also created many other dangerous trends. There are many cliched pat answers to so many of life's most perplexing questions. One of the things I like about post modernism is that there is no pressure to find the answer to all the questions. I personally have the faith that God holds all the answers, but whether I need to know them all or not, is less important. I am content with some mystery in my life.

There are many people today who are on a quest for mystery in their spiritual search. Some of them were even once Christian believers, who found the trite cliched answers too much to stomach and sadly have been turned off by Christianity. To remove the mystery from Christianity is to send people away to find mystery within other religions, be it Islam, Buddhism or new age spiritualities.

God is an awesome and mysterious being. Yes, he became accessible to us as Jesus, and communicated to us the simplicity of faith that is all we need. He spent a lot of time telling us that he wanted us to "know" the father, and that he would leave the Holy Spirit with us to help us to know the father. But do we really want to know the kind of father that we can understand in 5 years at theological college, or wouldn't it be better to have a relationship with a heavenly father that will continue to reveal mystery after mystery to us throughout our own individual lives and the ages?

Religion is a sin. It panders to the human desire that we can achieve our own spiritual fulfillment and salvation. There can be a lot of false religious mystery that can be very attractive to people. This also explains why people wander into different spiritualities in a post Christian world.

God invites me into a relationship with him. In embarking on this relationship, I do not think that I will ever fully understand God. "Is God dangerous? Yes but he is good." (To quote C.S Lewis.) I find it comforting and refreshing that I am still at the very beginning of my relationship with God, that there is still an endless horizon of mystery and adventure in front of me, and that I am untangling myself from some of the dogmatism that has surrounded me in my life.

I hope God is a mystery to you. He is supposed to be. if he isn't then have another look.

More reasons to believe

Just recently I was in a seminar given on post modernism. This was slightly tedious for me. The presenter was German. I am not sure if his particular style was due to his precise cultural make up, or whether is he new to the concepts of post modernism. I suspect it is a little of both. He was extraordinarily modern in the way he presented the concept of post modernism. Then again, many of the people in the room were also quite modernist in their approach.
Many of the people in the room made a number of comments that really pressed my buttons. "How do we relate to 'them'?" "Aren't post modernists just selfish, always thinking of me and what feels good?"

Hello, I'm sitting in the same room as you.

Towards the end of the seminar some one made some very radical comments. There was a deadly silence that filled the room as he spoke. I was the only one that clapped him when he finished, and I am sure some people were ready for some blood letting.

This (now friend) said that we need to go "beyond scripture." This made a lot of people cringe. But there is a serious question to be asked of evangelicals. I prefer to refer to myself as a neo-evangelical. Evangelicals often (not always) hold the bible up as an idol. It is as if truth can only be found with in the pages of the bible. This is a dangerous concept.

How does John refer to Jesus? Jesus IS the Word. The bible is the word of God, but the Bible is not God. It has been said at a different time during this conference that God is Love, but Love is not God. I agree. A pantheist could easily say that Love is God, and an evangelical often portrays the Bible as God.

After the main seminar a few of us had a debate. I started out by saying "When Abraham read the scriptures..... oh no, wait a minute Abraham didn't have the scriptures." Abraham had a relationship with the Living God. For sure God spoke to him in very clear and audible ways, even appearing in person to him. But Abraham learnt about God and grew to know God through relationship with God. God taught Abraham to have faith, then Abraham taught it to Isaac who taught it Joseph and his brothers, who taught it to their descendants, who taught it to the Gentiles, who taught it to us. There was a testimony of faith that carried down through the ages. The scriptures became a record of these testimonies of faith. But the scriptures are records of encounters with the living God. To read the bible alone, does not equate as an encounter with the Living God. There needs to be a witness. That witness needs to come from the Holy Spirit, and it also often comes from others who have had an encounter with the Living God as well.

Secondly, "when the early church read the scriptures about Jesus death and resurrection.... oh no, wait a minute the first gospel (Mark) wasn't written until 55 AD, so the early believers had to believe for another reason." Paul tells us in Corinthians that over 500 saw the risen Christ, and that he also had a vision of the risen Christ. John tells us that they touched the flesh of the risen Christ. They believed because of the testimony of the believers. The new testament becomes a record of these testimonies.

I have had the scales removed from my eyes and I have seen the risen Christ too. So therefore I believe because of the testimony of the Holy Spirit to me and the testimony of others. It is very important to remember that God revealed himself to us through progressive revelation. The witness of creation is a powerful one. Paul argues that no one is without excuse to believe in God, due to the witness of creation. The witness of the Holy Spirit is also vital. Many have come to faith in Jesus with these two alone, before ever putting their hands on a bible. The witness of believers is the next most important thing. It shows that the faith is alive. The testimony of scripture confirms all of these things. Scripture is indeed God's word, but unless it is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit, then it is just words on a page, that liberal scholars love to have fun picking apart.

I too hold the bible in high esteem and believe it to be the full authoritative word of God. But I am leary of the evangelical line that holds it in a place above God at times, even when they do not see it.

Post modernism: a definition

A friend asked me to define post modernism for him. So I wrote him a lengthy email. This is just my definition. Nevertheless I would appreciate anyone who is willing to critique it.

First I would take a quick review of history.

Early church: world view of Europe at the time was very pagan. The early church were in direct opposition to the European world view.

Christendom: The church became the seat of power in European society. Dogmatism arose which opposed all other world views.

Middle Ages: People within Christendom were unaware of the teachings of the Bible and had no way of arguing against dogmatism. Superstition took deep roots in society. Science was seen as belonging to the realm of magic and therefore evil.

Renaissance: (1400s-1600s) A parallel and overlapping movement connected with the protestant reformation. As people were able to challenge dogma and understand doctrine for themselves, science gained some freedom within the European world view. Science was explored within the world view of monotheism.

Enlightenment: Science had experienced two centuries of relative freedom during the renaissance, but still experienced some opposition from the Catholic church. In the period of the enlightenment science threw off the "shackles of the church." This does not mean that there were not many in the Enlightenment who did not hold to the monotheist world view. However, it seems that logic was considered a very high value in the world view of the Enlightenment. Logic was very connected to the birth of modernism. Science saw that the universe was ordered and sought to apply logic to everything. The church was greatly influenced by this modernist world view and began to use logic based arguments to counteract anti Christian logic based arguments. Atheism was born as a world view during the time of the enlightenment. Logic can not provide the answers to all questions, in fact logic can even be used to prove completely false realities and is thus left exposed as inadequate. Much of modern evangelicalism is birthed in the modernist world view. Modern evangelicalism is different to that of early protestantism.

Post modernism: Post modernism has its seeds in the world wars. In many ways as brutal as world war 1 was, it did not challenge modernism. The result of the war was seen as a victory by the western allies; Germany was told to stay in its place and Europe was remapped. But world war 2 shattered the notions of modernism working. The modernist solutions to world war 1 had not worked and Hitler was able to rise up with his ultra modernist world view (order and perfection, the Aryan way). In the aftermath of world war 2, there were many questions in western society over the next two decades. Modernism had given birth to the nuclear bomb, a triumph of science. Ironically it was one of the great scientists of modernism, Albert Einstein that gave rise to a post modern concept: relativism.

World War 2 changed everything in the world. European politics shifted away from an aggressive approach, their previous attempts at international relations had failed greatly. America rose as a super power as a result of world war 2. The baby boom came as a result of world war 2. It was the 1960s that were the beginning of post modernism being voiced. World war 2 and relativism sowed the seeds of dissent. The Cuban missile crisis and the Vietnam war were instrumental in causing many young westerners to seriously question the modernist world view of their politicians. Surely war had proven to not work. Surely the stubborn approach of politicians needed to be corrected. "Make love not war" became the catch cry of the hippy movement. A serious questioning of everything in society began.

The church was seen as part of the problem. Sadly there is a lot of truth in this,. The church saw questioning as bad. Their modernist world view said that they had the answers for everything. They understood everything in the Bible. All doctrine was formed. To question any doctrine or method or form was seen as a sin. Many hippies were completely rejected from the mainstream church. So they started their own churches. As much as secular society remembers the sexual revolution as a pillar of the 60s, the Jesus Revolution of the hippies in the 70s was the hippy response to the church.

Post modernism was only very embryonic in the 60s and 70s. Economics maintained a modernist hardline throughout the 70s and into the 80s. Many countries only began to float their currencies in the 80s. World views in societies do not change over night. They also shift at different rates in different countries. Certainly within the US there are certain geographic regions that are still very modernist in their world view. I know that western Canada is only just starting to be post modernist in the 21st century, at least 15 years behind Melbourne in Australia where I come from.

My own personal definition of post -modernism is this: It is ok to question everything, in fact it is healthy to question. For me, my personal questioning never questioned the existence of God or the reality of Christ's death and resurrection. I liken it to throwing a deck of cards up in the air and letting the cards fall as they may. Then each card is examined and determined as to whether it is valid or valuable. If it is determined invalid then it is discarded if it is determined valid then it is made a part of the new deck of cards. The new deck of cards will have some of the old cards but some new ones as well.

A personal grievance of my own was that so many people placed sanctity in the church in "form." It was important to people how church and Christianity was practiced. How many times a day do you read your Bible? How many church services do you go to? How many hymns are sung? What clothes should you wear to church? When I grew up the traditions and form seemed to be far more important than the actual meaning the form was supposed to represent. Post modernism for me has allowed me the opportunity to discard the "form", dig down, rescue the true "meaning" and give it freedom to breathe without the chains of the old "form." To me many churches in RS are completely chained by form and tradition and meaning itself is on life support.

People who are born from 1965 to 1985 are generally considered to a part of "Generation X." Gen X is also known as the "buster" generation. Those born 1945-65 are the "boomer" generation. Those born before 1945 are known as the "builder" generation. "Builders" are commonly very modernist in their world view. Boomers are commonly proto post-modernists. Gen X-ers have embraced post modernism with a frenzy. The next after Gen X 1985-2005 are known as "Generation Why?" of Gen Y. Gen X and Gen Y are both post modernists but have different approaches. I have Gen X friends who are still busting it all up. I think this needs to happen for a season but can not become a default position for life. The pieces need to be put back together at some stage. Gen Yers have more of a solution based approach and are positive about the world. Gen Xers are often known as the doom and gloom generation, a generation without hope. Of course Chrn-ity tackled from a Gen X perspective does not have to be doom and gloom. I am definitely Gen X in my approach to the world.

As I said though, people in Prairie Canada are only just discovering post modernism now and so are different to young urban Aussies. It remains to be seen what impact post modernism will have on the world. The Renaissance lasted a couple of centuries. The Enlightenment started in the 1700s and morphed into Modernism which has lasted until the end of the 20th century. These are dominant paradigms that can stay around for centuries. Is post-modernism the start of a new world paradigm or is it the epilogue to modernism? I think it has elements of both. Post-modernism is a paradigm between paradigms. The paradigm you have when you don't have a paradigm. It appears that a dominant paradigm that is being born from post-modernism is "pluralism."

Pluralism is the approach "you have my spirtuality, I have mine." This has come into liberal denominations, who say "we should let them be Buddhist of Hindu etc; why should we change their religion." One of the big reasons post modernism has arisen is that modernism failed to answer the questions of spirituality. Science can not tackle the questions of God. As much as many scientists wants to have the answers for all knowledge, they need to admit that science has its limits. This does not mean that science is not useful, it is simply restricted.

The post modernist is not afraid to talk about spirituality. The post modernist does not assume that they have all the answers. The post modernist is willing to explore and will always listen to the Chrn perspective even if they do not choose it. I have two friends who have left their Chrn faith behind. One is into many different spiritualities, yet still asks me to pray for him and still is open to Jesus being the answer. He is very post modern. Another rejected post-modernism and has gone back into a modernist world view and now holds closely to the precepts of atheism.

I would say from what you have told me that you currently do not sit very much within the post modern camp. I guess that maybe your parents were boomers? Boomers had some post-modern tendencies- they questioned some things i.e morality, war, politics; but left others alone. Post modernism is a more full blown questioning. Melody tells me that she doubts whether she is Gen X or possibly the next generation. Some sociologists have narrowed the boundaries to Gen X to only include up to 1980. My wife was born in 1979 and is on the cusp of these two generations. She seems more keen to find solutions than some of my friends who are still questioning ten years later. Myself, I went through a questioning phase of 6 years.

What I can say for certain is that our societies (overlapped) are in great flux. Western society is moving away from modernism. The middle eastern world have never even had a renaissance and they are in a very different place. You will probably find your self going through some kind of post modern experience at some point over the next decade. These ideas seem to hit different geographic regions at different times. Russia is not a place that has begun a post modern search yet. They are still trying to recapture their pre 1917 world view and are a bit confused in the process. I guess Russia is a very different kettle of fish.

The answer to what post modernism is will only be fully known within a couple more decades. It is still very much a movement in flux and full swing. Only when the dust settles will there be full clarity.

Post-post-modernism

I have been a post modernist. It tasted good for quite a while. But I have moved on.

My own definition of post modernism: To take all of the rules, structures and norms of society, church, institution etcetera, throw them up in the air; let them fall down any which way; try to make sense of them; question them to see if they have any value or not; throw them out if the don't have any value and keep them if they do.

I personally think that people do need to go through this process. The western world started the post modern movement in the 60s, so in many ways it is already quite old. The church has been quite afraid of the post modern movement. But if truth is truth then it should quite easily stand up to scrutiny and we should not be afraid to allow it to be tested. This has been the downfall of parts of the church- they have resisted questioning and scrutiny. Something should never be the way it is, just because that is the way it is. Everything is up for questioning.

Here is the crux though. There are two starting points for such questioning. 1) God is true and eternal- and I am therefore testing everything that is a human construction. OR 2) God is a human construction and he is also up for questioning. People have to be free to take the line of questioning in number 2 if they so choose. But it has to be said that this is not necessary for someone who already has a faith in God. I will readily admit that my line of questioning has been that of number 1, but then I have had real and tangible experiences with the true and eternal God. But I have thoroughly been through the questioning of world view number 1.

To ask a true and honest post-modern question it is necessary to not expect an answer any time soon. Allow the question to sink in. Allow it to permeate the soul and mind. The answer could take months or years. But here is the second crux- if God is true and eternal, there must always be an answer eventually. Modernism insists that the answer is obtainable now and through logic. Post modernism does not buy into such dogmatism. Post modernism says "I am a person and there is something much bigger than me, something I may never understand." But the truth is; God does understand me and he will help me to understand if I want to. The good news is, that God is not in a hurry.

The dangerous aspect of post modernism is that people can be self indulgent in the midst of it. It is right and necessary to question, but unhealthy to stay in the questioning for ever. I find it unhealthy when people are so bitter at the church and those in the church. This is not honest questioning. Yes, people in the institutional church need to question for themselves, but I think we should have some grace for them as they have not begun the process yet.

I would like to take the time to quote a great post-modern thinker, Alan Hirsch; "There is simplicity before complexity and simplicity after complexity. You need to take the time to go through the complexity, but eventually come out into simplicity on the other side."

Post-post-modernism is the simplicity on the other side. The post-post-modernist knows that there are no easy answers. The post-post-modernist thinks that modernism is a waste of time. The post-post-modernist has been through the complexity.

This post-post-modernist says "question, question, question, but do not be self indulgent in your questioning; resist the urge to be bitter in your questioning; be honest with yourself; know that God is true and eternal and that there is simplicity on the other side; take your time, there's no hurry, but don't be late and don't hate me for walking on and leaving the complexity behind."