Sanctification

So I'm teaching a class on Saturday where we are covering the way of salvation and sanctification.  The latter idea is a big distinctive of the tribe that I belong to, but as I'm doing research on what John Wesley taught and believed I'm finding that we are way off.  In fact, the way that most people are starting to think of sanctification is more in tune with Wesley than the way that I remember it being taught to me.

The argument conversation basically boils down to process.  Wesley argued that we are cleansed from sin and then begin a process whereby our love is perfected into the love of God, or we are made into the imago Dei.  In the early 1800's a woman by the name of Phoebe Palmer started convincing people that they could have the whole kit and caboodle at one time.  No need to wait, just come to the altar, pray through, believe, and bam your sanctified.  The latter began to emerge as the standard view of the process of sanctification and I believe led many to a state of spiritual apathy.  You see, Wesley was very intentional about teaching that we were not through after the moment of sanctification.  We were still to grow in grace and in learning how to love God and neighbor perfectly.

I am perceiving that the Wesleyan view is once again taking hold in light of the many shift in thinking thanks to postmodernity.  Now if only we would stop preaching felt needs, self help sermons, etc and get back to a strong conviction of our tribe.

How big is your pile?

That is the question that Francis Chan asked us at the youth specialties convention.  But before you tune me out, let me give you a big of context for the question.  Chan has been a very successful pastor in California in terms of building a mega church that started as a church plant.  He shared with us that God had been dealing with him about what success was in the Kingdom of God and how he started to rethink his priorities in ministry.

Chan then went on to talk a little about discipleship and how Jesus did discipleship.  He talked about how Jesus ministered differently to his disciples than to those in the crowds.  He then talked about the parables and Chan seemed to say that Jesus spoke in them to confuse those that didn't really care about what Jesus had to say.  I don't really know what I think about this but I see what he was trying to say.  He pointed to the fact that the disciples would come up to Jesus after a parable and then ask what the meaning was, this according to Chan is what Jesus means by the good soil. (Matt 13:1-17)  My problem with this is I don't know if I can say that Jesus essentially didn't care about those in the crowds at that time.  I understand that Jesus was concerned with teaching the disciples as much as possible since they were going to carry on what Jesus started.  But I'm a little uncomfortable in saying that Jesus didn't care about those in the crowd with whom he was teaching.  Maybe I'm wrong about this and would be willing to discuss it the comments of this post.  Or maybe I misunderstood what Chan was trying to say.

Anyways, Chan then began to talk about salt (Matt 5:13) in terms of "success" in ministry.  He then did something that has stuck with me the past few weeks and I am still thinking about.  He pulled out a little salt packet, opened it up and poured it on the top of his Bible and said that this represented those in his church who were truly living into the mission of God.  These were the people that he wanted to pour his life into and see how they would begin to flavor the world around them.  He then poured a big salt shaker that you would get at Denny's and dumped it on top of the smaller pile and said that this salt represented those that were just around for entertainment, prestige or any other reason that does not correspond with living into the mission of God.  He said when we get caught up in our "success" that we begin to walk around asking the question, "how big is your pile?"  I had to chuckle a little bit because not only have I been asked that question before, but in some cases I've asked that question.

If you do not know me, I must tell you that I am a co-youth pastor of a large youth ministry.  I do not say this to brag, but to let you in on my current situation.  We have a lot of kids that come through our doors, but Chan has me thinking about what kind of salt our students are.  Are they living into the mission of God or are they there to be entertained or to be seen?  More than anything this has me thinking about the discipleship process that we hope happens organically and I am wondering how intentional we should be about this. I am also thinking about how a student should enter into a discipleship process.  Should they be invited?  Should they take the initiative?  Should it be forced upon them?  What do you think?

I hope that I have done Chan justice in how I have remembered his message that evening.  If not, please correct me as I do not want to misrepresent what he said.  I will say that I totally admire the changes that he talked about that he and his church are making in an effort to live into the mission of God.  I pray that they will continue to allow God to lead them as they shift the way in which they "do" church.

One might wonder...

So I have been reading and studying the book of Acts lately.  I have actually never read through the book from start to finish even though I've said that I wanted to many times.  In light of that I am trying to read a few chapters and week and do some extensive research by reading commentaries and doing some word studies, a la bib ex class in college.

Anyways, I wanted to ask you what your take is on the story of Ananias and Sapphira.  Here is a very interesting story that seems a bit out of place in light of the God that is portrayed in the New Testament.  I have a few thoughts that I will share as the conversation unfold in the comments but wanted to hear from you as well.  The whole story context is found in Acts 4:32-5:11.

Name calling

Do you remember when you were a kid and how calling somebody a name was like the biggest slap in the face?  You probably had your standard once and for all name that you used frequently too, didn't you?  For some it may have been boogerhead, dufus, dummy, four eyes, etc.  Growing up when I did I think I used Beavis a bunch.  Now that I am approaching my third decade of living, am involved in youth ministry and have a child on the way, I find myself thinking back to my own childhood and the things that I did.  Why did I feel the need to call someone a name?  Most of the time it was out of frustration because the other person didn't do something I wanted.  I don't really know what made me think calling them a name would change their action, but that was my line of thinking.  In fact, as best as I can remember, name calling usually made the situation worse because the one named now feels as if they need to defend their honor.  Which would lead to more name calling and eventually some sort of scuffle.

Now that I am an adult I cannot really say that the world has changed too much.  We still call each other names.  We think that if someone is labeled as a liberal or conservative, Jesus freak or pagan/sinner, athlete or nerd, orthodox or emergent, that it will cause them to see the error of their ways and lead them to a path of change.  The truth is that our labels often lead to more division.  The line of thinking usually goes something like this.  We could not simply associate with that person because they are.....  Or they wouldn't want to talk about this or go to this because they are.....  Our labels put us in a box that we cannot break out of.

I speak to all of this because I recently found out from a credible source that I have been labeled, a couple of different things.  I don't really care that I have been labeled becaue in one of the cases there is a bit of truth to it.  Here's the thing that bothers me about this situation.  These people that have labeled me have not spoken to me personally about it.  They have not approached me to talk about if I may actually be what their label points to.  Truth is they may not actually know what their label fully means.  My point is this, the church as a whole has to get beyond this way of conducting ourselves if we ever hope to be fully missional in our communities and the world.  Those who we hope to reach usually do not look like, act like and think like we do.  So a part of reaching out to them is to look past any lables or names that we may call them.  But if we are not doing this with those who share a faith in Christ, how can we ever hope to extend a measure of grace to those who do not share a faith in Christ?

Thankfully we serve a God that looks past our labels.  I am reminded of a sermon that one of my professors, Dr. Tim Green, gave a time when he spoke at a church I was serving in.  He was working through the story of Hagar and Ishmael and talking about labels.  The narrative in Genesis 16 says that Abram and Sarai referred to Hagar as "my servant" and "your servant", never by her name.  She was ultimately driven out into the wilderness by Sarai and it was here that God came and spoke to her through his angel.  Then the coolest thing happened in verse 8.  The first word out of the mouth of the angel was Hagar.  God had given Hagar her name back.  In God's eyes she was not labeled as a servant or slave, but as Hagar.

In the same way, I need to be reminded that God sees me as Jared and not by the labels or names that others may project on me.  Thank you God for the grace that you give to your servants and may we in turn offer that same grace to our friends, our enemies and the strangers and aliens among us.

The Bible and Missional Listening

This was the title of a talk that Scot McKnight gave at the Missional Theology Conversation gathering I attended last Friday.  His main focus was for us to understand the Bible through a relational approach instead of an authority approach.  I'll try my best to break down what he was talking about and hopefully it will spur some conversation among us as well.

McKnight set up two different approaches to the Bible that we can take.  The first he called the authoritarian approach.  This approach uses a flow that looks something like this.  God-revelation-inspiration-inerrancy-truth-response-submission.  This is an approach that many of us are very familiar with and have spent much of our time in ministry combating.  "God said it, I believe it, and that's good enough for me."  This approach leads to things being very black and white with no room for gray.  McKnight says that the words inerrancy and submission are the most troubling with this approach.  He used Psalm 119 as an example where scripture (or the law) is not for submission purposes but to be followed out of response.  Vs 35, "Lead me in the path of your commandments, for I delight in it." (ESV)  Notice that it doesn't say "your words are authoritative so therefore I submit", instead it's "your words are a delight therefore I will follow."  This authoritarian approach is framed epistemically (knowledge is the desired outcome) and seems not to be what the God of the Bible is desiring.

The approach that McKnight was encouraging us to embrace is what he called the relational approach.  This approach is framed by desiring to know the God of the Bible or the 'I' and 'You' behind the Bible.  Here are a few tenets through which this approach flows.  First, we need to understand that the Bible is God's spoken word to us.  The Bible is not God but it points to God.  The Bible is God's way of assuring us that God is there and is not silent.  Second, we are invited to listen to God through the Bible and respond.  Third, we enter into the Bible's own conversation and the conversation that has been going on throughout church history.  There is a community focus to reading and understanding the Bible.  It cannot be done in a vacuum.

McKnight's claim is that the relational approach leads to a better understanding of who God is and what God has called us to.  The relational approach leads to us being able to respond to God in love and respect instead of fear and submission.  One quote that I especailly loved is that "having the right view of the Bible is not the point, but having a relationship (or engaging) with the God of the Bible is the point."

McKnight then moved on to talking a bit about Missional Listening.  He said that the biggest complaint that God has of the people is that they do not listen.  His call is for us to be attentive enough to hear the words of God, allow them to sink in our very being and then to go and do what they say.  When we engage in missional listening we will truly know God and follow God's desire for us to love and God and to love others.  It is not about gathering information, but it's about how we are following what God has asked us to be about.  Missional listening is inspired and it is a process.

I hope this is a fair summary of what McKnight was presenting to us.  I did buy the DVD so when I get it I'll watch it again.  What do you think?  What is your understanding of the Bible?  If you have shifted away from the authoritarian approach do you ever find yourself reverting back to the old ways?  How can we help others to view the Bible in this way without pushing them over the edge or is that what needs to happen?

By the way, I just received McKnight's new book, The Blue Parakeet, where I believe most of this talk came from.  I will let you know that later on as well.