:: in.a.mirror.dimly ::

Before you read this piece of satire, I wanted to say that I’ve been feeling quite convicted that I take myself a bit too seriously sometimes. I wrote this piece with myself in mind—I am the target of this piece, but I know I’m not alone. I think a lot of us in America do this. I hope after reading this we’ll all be encouraged to tone down our debates over theology.

ROME—The historic Christian faith that has endured persecution at the hands of emperors, papal corruption, a divisive Reformation, colonialism, and modernism currently hangs in the balance over a struggle to define the nature of truth, justification, and how to interpret the Bible between warring factions in the white American church.

The Pope has declared a day of fasting, asking faithful Christians of all denominations and all nations to pray that the true expression of Christianity will emerge victorious.

Pastors in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East have stopped all ministry among their congregations and communities, encouraging their flocks to join the Pope in prayer and to check regular updates on the internet among the key blogs and news sites involved in the struggle for the future of Christianity.

The Theologians in Corduroy Blazers (TCB) faction has been gathered in meetings around the clock in New York City, planning their strategy to prove that truth is defined by multiple perspectives, justification is accomplished by Christ’s victory over evil, and that culture plays a significant role in the interpretation of scripture. Blog posts, podcasts, and online articles have been appearing faster than you can say A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished CHRISTIAN.

TCB leader Rick Heckman shared, “We are living in the most important period of Christian history. Everything pivots here. What these courageous leaders decide to do today will forever change the course of Christian history.”

Not to be outdone, the Theologians in Tweed Blazers (TTB) have assembled a broad coalition of bloggers and media superstars in Seattle to spread their message that truth is absolute and certain, justification is a legal transaction, and that culture pollutes the truth of scripture. They have countered with a staggering number of blog posts, articles on mainstream media web sites, and reports on Christian radio that make Calvin’s commentaries look like a pocket guide.

In a press release, Paul Shoutman of TTB declared, “Without a clear definition of truth we run the risk of allowing anyone to define Christianity in any way they want. With so many individualist Christians operating as if the bulk of Christian tradition has nothing to do with them, we have no recourse but to fight for a rigid formulation of truth and interpretation for the faith to survive.”

In a separate and possibly related event, Wikipedia has repeatedly crashed as theologians in the developing world have been looking up entries such as postmodernism, inerrancy, and absolute truth in an effort to figure out how they relate to their ministries in preaching the Gospel and serving the poor.

I’ve been asking myself a few questions lately that I’d like to play with here, spurred on in part by Harvey Cox’s book The Future of Faith (which I don’t necessarily agree with as a whole, but I find a great read):

What did Jesus leave us?

Why did he leave those things and not others?

How far dare his followers expand and innovate upon them in order to remain faithful?

The list could be longer, but in a sense he left three key things: a group of followers, a meal for them to celebrate, and the Holy Spirit. While he certainly taught a great deal, he never wrote down his sermons, trusting his followers to pass them along under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He didn’t leave us with a creedal statement, but rather a ritual meal along the lines of a reimagined Passover celebration.

So that leaves me wondering what we should infer based on these things.

If I may dare to speculate, I wonder if Jesus was telling us that it’s far more important to focus on him, on one another, and on the Spirit rather than any kind of written account or a creed, even if those things have a place. In fact, Jesus may have been passing along a way of living more than a set of beliefs. How can we make Jesus’ priorities our own without descending into a holy mess?

Let’s remember that God knows how to give commands, to write lists, and to dictate scripture. However, Jesus focused on creating a community that was shaped by a meal centering on him and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

I wonder if Jesus knew we’d turn scripture into an idol if he wrote anything down directly? I wonder if he knew we’d become so enamored with truth and scripture that we would miss the more important parts of his message: imitating his way of life, focusing on his death and resurrection, and living in accord with his Spirit.

It doesn’t seem to have been a mistake that Christianity was first called “The Way” or that Christian literally means “little Christ.” Jesus left us with a way to live, not a set of creeds that define us as believers.

On one occasion John the Baptist asked Jesus if he truly was the Messiah. In reply, Jesus listed his actions, not his beliefs. He defined himself and his beliefs according to how he acted.

However, us Christians today have swung heavily toward defining ourselves by what we believe. Churches list their beliefs on their web sites and candidates for ministry write doctrinal statements because that’s how we establish our credentials. 

Imagine if we added action statements to our doctrinal statements: we heal the sick, we feed the hungry, we visit the prisoners, we cloth those in need, we gather to worship Jesus, we celebrate his death and resurrection, we follow the lead of his Spirit. That sounds curiously similar to Matthew 25. Underneath these actions there are beliefs, and in fact I would argue that these beliefs are even more valuable and relevant because they prompt us into action.

In fact, it may be that our beliefs are irrelevant unless they are overshadowed by their actions. Maybe the only way to save, preserve, and truly honor our beliefs is by spending a significant amount of time on action, putting them into practice. The people who love truth are the ones who act on it.

That kind of speculation makes my head spin.

I love scripture, and I believe in truth, but I wonder if Jesus would really care about the many things we argue over in relation to the truth. Keep in mind that I devoted a significant amount of time to writing a theology book, so I’m pretty sure I’m not flirting with relativism here. I’m seeking balance here, but in order to arrive there I need to critique the side of certainty that can stumble into conceptual idolatry, while hoping to avoid falling to the other extreme of listless relativism.

Continuing my meditations on the book of Romans…

What are the marks of weak faith?

One person’s faith gives great liberty in disputed matters, but the weak in faith place limitations on themselves.

They key is to avoid quarrels over disputed matters. Don’t condemn others whether they have more or less freedom.

In the case of acceptable food among the Romans there is no cause to judge one another because God has accepted both sides of the debate. Judgment of fellow believers is a mark of a lack of faith in God’s ability to make someone stand or fall. They have no place in judging God’s servants.

The standard set involves being convinced in one’s own mind about these matters, but to also hold back on judging others. We can expect to hit interpretive conflict when attempting to apply the principles of this passage to our doctrinal disputes today. Where do we draw the lines? I think we would quarrel over which matters are even worth quarreling over.

However, Paul reminds the Romans that they do not live for the approval of one another, but rather they live and die for God. Christ’s death and Resurrection established his Lordship over all humanity. If God acts in mercy, reigns as Lord, and is able to make his servants stand or fall, then there is no room to judge his servants.

When considering judgment and quarrels, it is important to ask whether the person being judged or challenged in an argument has anything to gain. In fact, does the judge or instigator derive the most “benefit” by justifying his/her own views or way of life?

Judgment has been reserved for God. The Romans are challenged to resolve to not put any obstacles in the way of a fellow believer since judgment and quarreling do not lead to peace or edification. Even those with freedom to eat anything should be willing to abstain out of love for those with weak faith. These peripheral matters do not promote righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. When promoting the growth of one another so that we are approved before God and others, the Romans will find that disputes often do little to help anyone.

When considering how to handle disputes, the direction of God and the peace of the Kingdom should lead all responses. That doesn’t open the door to heresy necessarily, but rather the goal is to build up others rather than picking them apart and condemning them.

They are free to hold opinions on disputed matters, but they are ultimately accountable to God and need only be approved by God in them. Their beliefs should be rooted in faith, believing that God is honored by their beliefs and practices. In fact, the practice of condemning others may be a sign that some need to justify themselves, to build up their convictions and ultimately their faith by pulling others into their systems of belief. Judging others and pushing them to accept other convictions on disputed matters shows a vestige of doubt and fear that one’s beliefs may be wrong unless everyone else accepts them.

However, if someone is not fully convinced on a matter before God, then there is a real possibility of sinning because his/her relationship before God is put into jeopardy with uncertainty interfering with the relationship. Faith is also the means by which the Romans are made right before God, and so departing from faith means reliance on other means for holiness and perhaps salvation.

For more on this topic, see my previous post: When We Should Not Debate Theology

I recently finished studying the book of Romans, and I can’t shake Romans 14, as well as a few other related verses where Paul tells the Romans to stop fighting over peripheral matters. The challenge it seems is that others would not agree with his assessment that issues such as Jewish laws and customs were peripheral.

The debates in Rome seemed to center on observing feast days and dietary laws, though Paul was also working on rethinking the role of the law under the new covenant of grace that is accessed through faith. Some believed these Jewish practices were important, while the Gentiles didn’t really have a grid for them.

Paul tells them to make up their own minds on these matters, to live by faith in God, and to trust that God is able to approve or condemn his servants. Under no circumstances should they put a stumbling block in front of other believers by casting them under judgment or doubting that God isn’t able to approve those with whom they disagree.

Am I the only one a little disturbed by this?

I feel like I spend so much time scrutinizing and debating points of theology that may well be peripheral to the big picture of God’s redemptive, Gospel message. Paul isn’t advocating for lazy or bad theology that falls away from the core teachings of the Gospel. He spends plenty of time spelling that out. However, he sees how debates over doctrine can divide believers and cause them to lose focus on their common love and common mission.

On twitter today I ran across an article on Christianity Today with a series of opinions regarding whether some believers should fast with Muslims for Ramadan. I would usually retweet this on a typical day. This is one of those issues where there are a host of qualifiers added by Christian participants, straw men created by critics, and some well-informed debate from the moderates on both ends of the debate.

However, even if those debating this are well-informed and charitable, is this even a debate worth having? I can see Paul saying “Some fast with Muslims to reach out, while others abstain. Both are living by faith to please God and should be convinced in their own minds by faith. All should leave the judgment to God.”

Maybe I’m just putting words in Paul’s mouth, but after reading Romans 14 I have a feeling that many of the issues I label as “important” may in fact be peripheral issues where grace, trust, and faith must replace arguments and debates.

I took a few days away from blogging to market a few things, to film a goofy video of my rabbit eating lettuce, and then to help a friend move in to her place at Long Island. It was a welcome break from writing in general that has me ready to jump back into blogging. However, before we dig into today’s passage, I have a story of my own stupidity to tell.

The night before leaving for Long Island, I had a tough time sleeping. Our new futon, which we sleep on, is way more firm than anything I’ve slept on for years. And so I rose at 5 AM to catch the ferry feeling a bit like a zombie. That feeling persisted all day.

I had a 6:30 PM ferry to catch in order to head back to Connecticut, meaning I needed to be at the dock by 6 PM, and leaving my friend’s place by 5:30 PM. For some stupid reason I became convinced that I needed to be there by 5 PM.

So she dropped me off at 5 PM, I waved goodbye, and I walked to the ticket office. I noticed a rather large, white, ferry sort of boat leaving the harbor. I checked to the schedule. That was the 4:45 PM boat. I had a long time to wait. I made the most of it however, sitting down to a plate of steamed clams with a view of the tiny harbor. Things went swimmingly until my 6:30 PM ferry began pitching in the Sound’s rolling waves.

Ick. Not ick for too long, but just a general ick for an hour.

And now for some meditations on Romans 6…

Paul has established the problem of sin among the Romans and has explained the role of Christ’s death and resurrection in giving us new life through the grace and kindness of God. In chapter six he becomes a broken record of sorts, expounding on the importance of leaving sin behind because the Romans have died to it, and then making the decision to live as servants of God. It’s a simple message really, but it’s one that every Christian must wrestle with day by day.

Though Paul is working toward his climax in which he states that death is conquered by God’s free gift in Christ, Paul begins this section by explaining the union of believers with the death and resurrection of Christ that frees them from sin. Those who have died to sin and risen with Christ have no obligation to live under the sway of sin.

A Debate Over Baptism

This passage is one of the more mystical ones of scripture because Paul speaks of believers as having been united with Christ’s death and resurrection by becoming Christians and being baptized. The implication is that God’s resurrecting power is at work with us in the same way it’s at work in Christ. This has led to a great deal of debate about the role of baptism in salvation. Does baptism illustrate what God is accomplishing or is it a necessary part of the equation.

I won’t be able to settle this one here, but there are some articles that help flesh out the issues: Is baptism necessary for salvation? and Baptismal Regeneration in Wikipedia. I think some reading on atonement theories will help readers of Romans 6 sort through some of the things to look at out for as well. So far as I can tell, we know people can be saved apart from baptism, i.e. the thief on the cross whom Jesus promised to see in paradise, but we also should be wary of minimizing this important, ancient sacrament. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more to it than an illustration, but it’s hard to know how far to take that.

The Choice of Holiness

The major theme that arises throughout the rest of the chapter is the prospect of making a choice to live in the reality of Christ’s death and resurrection. Christians need not ask for Christ to free them from sin, but rather to live in the power of that reality. In other words, we can still choose to obey sin, but God has given us the victory through Christ that we can claim. In this sense, we are very much dependent on the Holy Spirit to apply God’s saving work to our lives.

This passage also brings up the idea of offering ourselves to God. This comes up later in Romans 12, but as Paul speaks of offering ourselves as slaves or servants to sin or to God, we have a great illustration of what it looks like to live holy day to day. I like to begin by asking, “Am I offering myself to God?” If I am, then I need to keep it up, choosing to live in the reality of his life and power. If not, then I know I need to look for his redemption and renewal.

Continuing my meditations on the book of Romans…

The true badge of God’s people is faith. Though the Jews in Paul’s audience may have thought that circumcision took on this identifying mark, Paul tells the story of Abraham and his faith to drive home God’s inclusion of all people on the basis of faith. Because of his faith Abraham was declared righteous before circumcision even entered the picture.

In one swift exegetical swoop, Paul has removed a major barrier between Jew and Gentile. However, in creating a common ground in faith, the law is not discarded. In fact, by trusting in the death and resurrection of Christ, Paul’s readers are able to uphold the law through God’s power.

God emerges from this as both just and upholding the law, but also as a merciful savior who saves us on the basis of faith. From start to finish, God receives the glory for our salvation and subsequent holiness. There is no room for boasting to be sure.

Even when facing the odds against God’s promise for offspring, Abraham’s faith became stronger and he gave glory to God. He trusted that a larger obstacle meant a greater miracle and greater acclaim from God. It is important to note here that Abraham trusted in a promise of God, rather than simply trusting God would do something Abraham wanted.

Hearing God’s promise is the first step. Trusting in it is the second, even if circumstances stack up against us.

In the case of salvation we have promises throughout scripture that God can and will save us on the basis of our faith in his redeeming acts. We may face our sin daily, but so long as we trust in a God who can raise the dead and call life into being, we can trust in his power to save us and to make us part of his family.

When we live by faith we bring glory to God. 

I’m continuing my reflections on the book of Romans with chapter two today…

The second chapter of Romans continues to build the case for equality among the Gentiles and Jews in the Roman church, but at this point Paul is making a negative association that will continue into chapter three. The Jews and Gentiles are equally in trouble when it comes to sin and whether or not they consider themselves God’s chosen people, God recognizes those who are obedient, avoiding both sin and judgment of others.

This passage contains some pretty harsh words for folks who are supposedly saved by faith and secure in their salvation. They have the same sin problems as those who are not believers. They judge others. They are storing up wrath and judgment for themselves. They have stubborn and unrepentant hearts.

And the blow to the jugular? God will one day uncover all of the sin they’re hiding away in their hearts.

None of this is sounding all that pleasant.

I have a feeling that Jews in attendance may have felt a tad smug still after all that Paul said. Perhaps they still thought they had an edge on others because of circumcision: the mark of the covenant. Whatever the case may be, Paul drops a bomb on them by saying that circumcision doesn’t mean a thing if it isn’t paired with faithful obedience.

And if invalidating the mark of Judaism, one of the most hallowed rituals for the past 2,000 years with deep biblical roots, isn’t enough, he goes on to completely redefine circumcision as a spiritual act that the Holy Spirit performs on the heart. It would seem that sin has rendered the old system useless.

However, in the midst of this seeming biblical revisionism and verse after verse of bad news, there is hope that God can save and reform us.

The trouble is that his audience needs to let go of their deeply implanted sins, open themselves to the message of the Lord for them in their current day, and even let go of good, biblical practices in favor of the new things God is doing. We should marvel at the radical nature of Paul’s statement about circumcision. This is a deepening of that ritual to the core of what God intended: an obedient people who were holy as he is holy.

This is a goal for our lives: holiness. When we get that right, we are free to have fellowship with God. And when we have fellowship with God, we have tapped into the very thing we were made for.

Lately I’ve been realizing that I’m not comfortable describing myself as a “conservative” evangelical. Nevertheless, I’m still pretty committed to the Bible and even have many conservative traits in my reading of scripture. So while I have departed from the conservative end of evangelicals in part, I find myself trying to figure out what it means to have a high view of scripture from the evangelical left or center.

If I want to sound trendy or at least charitable, I’d describe myself as a “progressive”. Now doesn’t that sound catchy. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be progressive?

Here’s the thing: I’m cool with there being a broad range of evangelicals. Whether right, left, or center, our movement has thrived by focusing on the Gospel message of cross and resurrection, Christian activism (I’m going with David Bebbington’s word here for Christian service and volunteerism in ministry), conversion, and the Bible. Therefore, as an evangelical who sees himself somewhere in the middle to left of this movement, I’d like establish solid credibility for my end of things.

I’ve been trying to think of the most evangelical thing I could do—something that would demonstrate my commitment to scripture in particular. How could I show that one need not cling to the right of this movement to be a Bible-loving evangelical? The folks on the left and center still take the Bible seriously—generally adhering to the accepted evangelical methods of historical-cultural interpretations that deal with the complexity of scripture, while not disregarding biblical revelation.

What’s an evangelical to do?

The answer: Study the book of Romans!

When all else fails evangelicals traditionally dig into the good ole’ book of Romans for spiritual sustenance. If I only had a denarius for all of the Bible studies that have started with the hefty book of Romans.

And so that is exactly what I’m going to do. I’ve been reading through Romans and hope to post a series of meditations on the book. I promise an especially exciting exegetical and hermeneutical adventure for the part about homosexuality in chapter one.

Seriously, when was the last time the words exegetical and hermeneutical were linked with “adventure”? Epic this will be. And with such promises of exegetical excellence, let’s jump in…

Read the rest of this entry »

I’ll be doing a twinterview with Englewood Review of Books today at 10 AM, EST. This is my first time doing something quite like this. I’m looking forward to it.

Our topic will be Coffeehouse Theology: Reflecting on God in Everyday Life, my introduction to contextual theology that provides the basics of theology and culture. Here’s the press release from the good people at NavPress, my publisher:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (Colorado Springs, CO)—NavPress, the publishing arm of the Colorado Springs based U.S. Navigators, announces that on Monday, July 13^th The Englewood Review of Books will be interviewing NavPress author Ed Cyzewski, author of Coffeehouse Theology, on twitter at 10 AM EST.

This “twinterview” will take advantage of twitter’s 140-character message length to provide readers with a brief introduction to Coffeehouse Theology, Cyzewski’s introduction to contextual theology.

To participate in the interview, log in at www.twitter.com, and sign up to follow “edcyzewski” and “ERBks.” For answers requiring multiple tweets, the name given to individual posts on twitter, there will be a “>” character at the end of each tweet. Each tweet in the interview will begin with “@ERBks”.

Twitter is an online networking service for friends, family, and co–workers to communicate and stay connected through the exchange of quick, frequent answers to one simple question: What are you doing?

The Englewood Review of Books is a weekly book review published by Englewood Christian Church, Indianapolis.

It’s hard to demonize someone after you share a meal together.

I’ve seen folks on the ideological right paint those on the left as freedom-hating regulators who want to squash freedom and ruin America. I’ve also seen folks on the ideological left stir up fear of right wing bigots who want to take over America and run it according to their narrow moral visions.

Each side is unable to countenance the views of the other, demonizing them as ridiculous, nuts, freedom-hating, bigoted, and non-sensible.

I used to be a pretty strident advocate for the right, but over time I met homosexuals, supporters of abortion, atheists, sundry Democrats, and a host of other sub-groups from the left.

On several occasions I shared meals with these people, and as my own views shifted and developed, I learned a bit  more about where they come from. I don’t agree with all that is on the right or left, but now that I know people on both sides, I feel like I can converse freely and understand where people are coming from. This helps me stand up for what I believe without demonizing or writing off those who disagree with my perspective.

When I think about the kind of community that Jesus wanted to create, it’s no mistake that that his final days on earth centered around a meal. Fellowship, prayer, theology, and worship can all be linked in many ways to this meal that Jesus instituted.

Sharing a meal with someone creates a certain degree of common ground. Once you’ve sat with someone for an hour or so, you probably know a little bit about this person’s family, background, and reasons for his/her beliefs.

Several of the courses I took at Biblical Theological Seminary took place over entire days, allowing us time to go out for lunch and dinner together. We didn’t always stick to theology during those meals, but we did manage to forge some pretty powerful bonds that continue to this day. In addition, I found a lot in common with the guys who came from very different theological or ideological backgrounds.

If we’d only debated in class, I would have certainly been inclined to write some of these folks off. However, our meals together forged a greater sense of community and common ground in Christ and in other areas as well. I was better prepared to hear them out and to learn a thing or two from them.

When most Christian theology takes place in classrooms and Sunday School rooms, as well as the contexts of Bible studies, I wonder if we’re missing the crucial component of a community-building meal. I know of many small groups who have adopted a meal-centered format, and have seen it work really well on many occasions.

We need to think a bit more about ways we can make our discussion forms more conducive to fellowship and community—letting our theology grow and develop in the context of meals. If the medium is the message, and Jesus used a meal to teach some of the most important aspects of salvation and theology, then we cannot ignore the ramifications for us today.