Comments (7)

By Richard Hamilton, October 31, 2008 1:20 pm

Where does our understanding of Jesus (his life and mission) come from?

The answers to this question (if we were somehow able to draw out an honest answer from within ourselves) would probably be as varied as the number of respondents. So many factors effect how we interpret Jesus. Texts. Traditions. Perspective. Limitations.

Maybe, the real question I have in my mind is, do the gospel texts serve as the primary interpretive framework for our understanding of Jesus or do other christian texts? More specifically, does Paul shape our understanding of Jesus, or Jesus understand our understanding of Paul?

Before we even get into that, I am well aware that all the christian texts this brings into play are said to bring equal weight. It’s hard to claim that is actually the case though. Let me sight a few examples.

Example 1. The kingdom vs. the church. Jesus seems vaguely (at best) interested in discussing the church. Apart from Matthew, (and only twice there) Jesus doesn’t talk about the church. Jesus’ rhetoric centers around the kingdom. Paul, on the other hand, talks of kingdom twelve times, but church sixty. Which language dominates today’s Christianity? (I am well aware that kingdom talk/theology has come back into vogue. For that matter, Jesus scholarship in general is much more popular today than it was 100 years ago. But, I tend to write in broad strokes misrepresenting and offending the general evangelical community. You know this. I think my point remains the same)

Example 2. What is our example for christian living? The gospels or Acts? I can speak specifically for my faith tradition. We have always made an appeal to Acts as our guide for practice. (I know this deviates slightly from my question about Paul and Jesus, but I think we rely more heavily on the Pauline model from the latter half of Acts than we do on the beginning of Acts)

Christians frequently teach that “difficult” texts of the Bible are to be interpreted based on what is “known” from “simple” passages. (Let it be known, I think this hermeneutic is faulty on many levels.) Interestingly, we often turn to Paul to understand other texts. The problem is, Paul’s writings “contain some things that are hard to understand.”

Is it possible, we have started with Paul and therefore misunderstood Jesus? Or at very least changed Jesus’ emphasis?

Maybe the academic trending toward Jesus scholarship will benefit Christianity after all, if, by nothing else, drawing attention back to Jesus.

Comments (5)

By Richard Hamilton, October 24, 2008 2:59 pm

On September 1, Andrew Jones (aka Tall Skinny Kiwi) hosted a poll in which 60.8% of respondents said it was time to dump the term “emergent.” A month or so back I read a post by Dan Kimball about the changing definition of emergent and the move by some to dump the term in favor of something more apt. Andrew continued the discussion later that month with two interesting posts, one of which was an international (yet still English speaking) perspective piece.

The discussion centers around whether or not emerging accurately describes the state of this movement [of churches/theologians/thinkers/etc.] who are exploring Christianity beyond Western Modernity. Maybe terms like Post-Modern or Post-Colonial are more familiar to you than emergent, but both (all three for that matter) imply simultaneously a movement from and a reliance on the Modern (Colonial). Some, myself included, have embraced terms like missional, for it’s ability to stand on its own and act descriptively rather than adescriptive. Missional is however limited in its usefulness. This term serves no benefit in describing the broader philosophical and social threads at play in the “emergent” movement.

Is there a solution to this “dilemma”? Who knows.

This caused me to think. “Why do we insist on labeling everything?”

Why do these terms break down? Because they are no longer allowed to serve as descriptions, but are forced beyond their inherent limitations into becoming titles. When did the word “emergent” become the word “Emergent”? According to emergentvillage.com, “In English, the word ‘emergent’ is normally an adjective meaning coming into view, arising from, occurring unexpectedly, requiring immediate action (hence its relation to ‘emergency’), characterized by evolutionary emergence, or crossing a boundary (as between water and air).” What happens when the Emergent Movement stops emerging? What happens when it itself becomes a system? (I would argue that in many ways, it has. A notable example to me was when the website emergentvillage.com’s primary function was no longer to serve as a discussion board for those wrestling with nagging, unanswered questions of faith and became a sounding board for the new found expertise of the likes of Brian McLauren.) People begin to question the use of the term “Emergent” in search of a suitable title to slap on their movement, much like what we see today.

Another example of this, which may only be appreciated by those of my particular faith tradition, is that of the “Restoration Movement.” Sometime back, a group of disenchanted American Christians broke free from denominational restraints in an effort to “restore” the ancient (New Testament) church. With the book of Acts as their model, they made great strides in going, in many ways, well beyond their reforming predecessors. Today, you do not hear the term “Restoration Movement” very often. I would argue that this is not because restoring is no longer needed, but rather because this is not what this movement is doing. One might even argue that the term “movement” is not appropriate. More common terms today are Church of Christ/Christian Churches, or independent Christian Churches. Some have even adopted the title “Stone-Campbell” in memory of some early pioneers in this movement. I don’t like that term, but it, in many ways, is a more accurate description of these churches than “Restoration Movement.”

Why do we insist on titling everything?

I believe this tendency even effects our reading of Christian texts. The ancient church was known as the Way and we assume they made signs and had t-shirts printed. They were first called Christians in Antioch. Someone in Antioch as really clever with marketing.

Is it possible, this type of language was intended to be descriptive exclusively? I think so. And I’m not sure that calling them Christians was intended to be flattering. What about the word “church” or the term “church of Christ”? Other ecclesiastic terms like “deacon,” “elder,” “pastor,” and “evangelist” come to mind.

I’m not sure what, if any, ramifications this might have on theology. I do think however, we have put way too much stock in language. Words, in and of themselves, are not capable of truly capturing the life of something like spiritual movements.

Comments (11)

By Richard Hamilton, October 7, 2008 8:55 pm

Inspiration of Scripture. The very thought of it brings the most impassioned debates to the forefront. This issue has divided churches, gotten professors fired and incited riots (okay, I don’t know of any riots, but it doesn’t seem to be too far fetched). Why is this issue so powerful and divisive? The inspiration of Scripture has historically been at the core of Christian theology and the center of Christian debate. It was debated at Synod of Hippo (393), the Councils at Carthage (397 and 419), and the Council of Trent (1546). It was the first issue addressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1664). And it was the reason for the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978). It was a driving force of the Reformation. In the Restoration Movement, it was at the center of two splits (the Disciples of Christ and the United Churches of Christ).

Today, most of the debate revolves around the understanding of two key passages, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21.

“All Scripture is inspired by God [God-breathed in the NIV] and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NASB)

“…knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:20-21 (ESV)

From what I’ve seen, most “born-again” types understand these verses to mean that God forcibly possessed the various authors of the Bible. While in one breath, they would say the Holy Spirit superintended the process and used the author’s language and culture, in the next, they would say God hand-picked and was the source of each word and the writers were not the source, nor were they compliant with the process. It seems they admit as little humanity in the texts of the Bible as they feel they can get away with.

When teaching on 1 Peter , famed author/speaker John MacArthur says,

“Now these two verses are just loaded with significance with regard to this matter of inspiration. The key word here is the word “moved” in verse 21. “Moved,” carried along, borne along, it’s a word that is used in secular Greek sources to refer to something floating down stream like a leaf. They were literally carried along by the Holy Spirit. The writers of Scripture, the men who wrote the Scripture…and by the way, there are no female writers of Scripture, all 66 books are written by men…so the Spirit of God moved these men along so that they actually spoke from God borne along by the Holy Spirit.”

It seems to be his understanding that the biblical writers were completely passive through the process, almost as though they were in a trance and didn’t know what they were saying. (I also find his aside on women interesting.) It is quite likely Joe six-pack evangelical view inspiration in these very terms.

Let me give you three hypotheticals and see whether they would make the cut under these standards of inspiration.

One. An early Christian writer sits down and dictates letters to a secretary. He even, on occasion allows the secretary to add a personal comment or two to the letters. Inspired?

Two. Early Christians are worried about their favorite Apostle dying and his stories about Jesus not being passed on. As a solution, they ask a scribe to write down the teachings. After it is finished, he shows them to the Apostle who says the writing is good. Inspired?

Three. An early convert to Christianity, who never physically met Jesus, went around talking to eyewitnesses and compiled what they said into a concise account to Jesus’ life. Inspired?

These don’t fit into the typical understanding of “men moved by the Holy Spirit” or “God-breathed.” But, without their inclusion, the New Testament would be short a few Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark (if you trust Eusebius’ account of its composition…I am skeptical, but many evangelical apologists appeal to him…at least when it is convenient) and the Gospel of Luke.

My favorite is Luke. “Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus.” Luke 1:1-2 (NASB) The text itself claims to be a massive research project, an ambitious journalistic undertaking.

So, what does this mean? Well, either Luke-Acts doesn’t belong in the cannon or we misunderstand inspiration.

**the text below was not contained in the original post bu was added Wednesday, October 8.**

Let me be clear. I do believe the bible is inspired, accurate and authoritative! It just seems my understanding of what that means and why that is differs from some.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, September 19, 2008 3:32 pm

There is an article on nytimes.com today titled, “In Japan, Buddhism May Be Dying Out”. According to Norimitsu Onishi, Buddhism is loosing its appeal to the Japanese because it is seem as a religion of the dead, not the living.

While the message of Christianity should be one of life and resurrection, I wonder if we aren’t running the same risk sometimes.

Comments (1)

By Richard Hamilton, May 30, 2008 3:03 pm

As many of you know, I am looking for a new ministry. I am parting ways with the church I have worked with the past 4 1/2 years. They are having a lot of problems meeting budget and have decided to cut my position. In my search, I came across a non-instrumental church on the West Coast looking for a youth minister. I know it was a long shot, but Sarah and I really liked the area and the church was very ethnically diverse, which appealed to us, so I sent in my resume. Here’s the thing, they actually called me for a phone interview, and it went well. They arranged for a second phone interview and I thought it might really work out.

I guess maybe at this point I should give some background for those of you who are like, “What does he mean ‘non-instrumental.’” Actually, Wikipedia does an adequate job on that front. Check out the wiki on churches of Christ. For our purposes, it’s sufficient to know that they are independent churches from the Restoration Movement which broke fellowship with other churches of Christ/Christian churches during the American Civil War partially in rejection of using instruments in their worship gatherings. My background is in the churches that use instruments (among other things) in our gatherings.

Anyway, I had a second interview and it did not go as well. They interviewer spent 1 1/2 hours trying to convince me that instrumental music in worship was sinful. I assumed this meant I didn’t get the job, and I was right. Here is the e-mail I got a week later (the names have been changed to protect those involved, except mine of course):
__________

Dear Richard,

I want to thank you for interest in the “City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage” Church of Christ. It appears to me that you are a sincere and committed individual who will be an asset to any organization that you choose to serve. As for us with the church of Christ in “City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage,” we have decided to continue our search for a Youth Minister in other candidates because we can not reconcile the doctrinal differences in regard to instrumental music that exist between us. We believe that the “sacrifice of praise” like all sacrifices must be offered as specified by God, if they are to be acceptable to Him. In this case, God has specified “the fruit of our lips” (Heb 13:15), thereby excluding the use of instrumental music.

Again thank you for your interest in us. I encourage you to continue to your study in all matters pertaining to God’s goodness, power, and will for our lives.

May God bless you in your efforts to serve him,
“John Doe”,
“City which shares its name with a well-known Mexican adult beverage” church of Christ
__________

I see two big problems with the non-instrumental way of thinking (besides the fact that they won’t hire me, oh yeah, and they butcher/mis-use texts of the Bible).

One. There is an idea they have that if we aren’t explicitly told it is okay, its not. The guy just flat out says that in the e-mail. “God has specified ‘the fruit of our lips’ (Heb 13:15), thereby excluding the use of instrumental music.” I think you need to explain that one. Let’s assume this verse is telling us to sing. Let’s also assume this verse is about corporate worship gatherings (which is a stretch). How does this verse forbid Christians from using instruments? If the use of instruments was so wrong, don’t you think Paul would have jotted down a “I do not permit the use of the harp, lyre, cymbal or trumpet” somewhere? Christianity is the Law of Liberty. The words of Jesus about some particularly religious people come to mind. “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.” Most of these churches are so inconsistent. They own property, have Sunday School, hire youth ministers and utilize PA systems. None of these are explicitly commanded in the Bible. If you were to carry this principle to its extreme, most of what they do as a group would not be allowed.

Two. All this energy is spent on one of the most insignificant parts of the Christian life, music. I know. Some of you are stunned because Rich Mullins and DC Talk were essential to your conversion. Here’s the deal. The early church was dedicated to some things, namely the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer, and music didn’t make the list. I love music. I always have it on. I never leave home without my IPod. But, music is not worship. A transformed life and a renewed mind, that’s worship. A life of sacrifice, that’s worship. Spirit and truth, that’s worship. Music can be part of worshiping God, but it cannot become more important than worshiping God.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, December 8, 2007 2:56 pm

Christmas is fast approaching and it is easy to lose sight of what is important over the holiday season. It seems to be that more and more people are spending more and more money earlier and earlier in the year. I heard on the radio the other week that Americans spent 8% more this year on “Black Friday” then they did last year. It seems some people even go into debt to give the “perfect” gift. I wonder what our world would be like if people decided to spend less money on Christmas gifts and invest more time in the people around them.

I was in San Diego for the National Outreach Convention in November and got a chance to hear Rick McKinley from the Imago Dei Community speak. One thing he mentioned was the Advent Conspiracy. The basic idea is people spend less on Christmas, give relational gifts, and give their money to a good cause (in this case, making clean water available to those in need around the world).

Maybe instead of giving useless junk, no one needs as gifts this year; we can be a little more thoughtful and come up with meaningful ways to give.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, May 2, 2007 2:35 pm

I was preparing a Bible lesson for a high school group recently and wondered about the integrity of the typical approach to Bible study. The passage was Nehemiah 7 and the theme was “A Leader Actively Administrates.” No one is taking a pot shot at a certain publishing company; most sermons, talks, and lessons from Nehemiah focus on leadership. 2 Timothy 3:16,17 is as trademark verse for those who say that every verse has an application in everyday life. So we take a passage of Scripture and dissect it into “application bites.” Often teachers look so closely for nuggets of wisdom in the text that one misses the big picture.

If a person going to teach the Bible with any integrity, it is important to understand what the text meant to the original reader. I cannot tell you for sure how the original reader understood the text of Nehemiah. But it must be asked: do you think they naturally thought, “Leadership is influence (John Maxwell was re-writing that one book back then), and every person has influence over at least one person, so I am a leader and like Nehemiah I should administrate, equip, and motivate those I influence in the same manner?” In my mind this could be what we call in the industry “a stretch.” This approach lacks the common sense we use when reading any other book, fiction or non-fiction.
Imagine you approached a children’s book in the exact same manner. Perhaps I will open the Chronicles of Narnia and read about a talking Beaver rescuing children from talking wolves. Would a couple of pages gives us a clue as to what is going on in the bigger story? Can we draw conclusions from a segment of the story? Of course not. So we should not look closely at each verse if it means we miss how each narrative fits into an overarching story.

When one opens the book of Nehemiah or any other book of the Bible, the focus should be massaging the bigger questions out of those we teach. Why was the wall broken down? Why was Nehemiah in Persia? Why did God allow his people to go into exile? Does God always deal with sin in this manner? How does he give man freewill and still control the destiny of nations? How does God redeem His people?

There are overarching themes woven throughout Scripture-how mankind is designed to interact with their Creator, the power of sin, how God punishes, redeems and calls out of chosen people; teachers should consider showing how each story is a piece in a larger puzzle.

Perhaps the only books in the Bible where we dare even attempt pull specific commands straight out of the text into everyday life is the epistles, but even then we need to be aware of cultural considerations.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, March 27, 2007 10:42 pm

Last summer I had an interesting conversation with a couple of relatives. More distant relative, ultra successful, highly educated businessmen found out that I believe “evil supernatural beings” exist. After looking at me like I was a raving lunatic, he proceeded to pooh-pooh the idea by doing cartoonish impersonations of evil beings. It was quite funny, even though the laughs were at my expense. There was zero chance for a productive conversation, but later I thought about attitudes towards the supernatural.

Now I understand the reluctance to believe in certain supernatural elements, but I think we need to look a little closer at the issues to develop a consistent thought process. There are many people who consider belief in God to be a psychological coping mechanism or even a way for leaders to control people. And it is understandable when someone who holds this position denies the existence of angels and demons, Satan, even God because they deny the reality of the supernatural.

But there are many people who want to believe in a benevolent Deity but would not be inclined to believe in an actual evil being like Satan and be even less inclined to believe that he has agents that manifest themselves in our world.

But look whose foot is already in the door. It is the belief in something other than things proved by natural law. It is disturbing for us to think that there is an actual Force of Evil that may be at work, but much more comforting to believe in an all-loving God who may even send angels to help us out in need.

Look whose foot is already in the door; it is the belief in the supernatural, and it would be nice if we could have the good without all the evil, but it is inconsistent thinking. What source, other than our preference, would dictate to us, that we could have one without the other?

It seems like many people want to have their cake and eat it to. We don’t like the thought of evil at all even though most religions seem to believe that the benevolent Deity is more powerful, even has control of the devil-type. But people want to take it a step further and eliminate the forces of evil altogether.

I would be inclined to think that most people either really believe that there is no God or that people believe in both good and evil but simply stick their head in sand when it comes to supernatural. Either way, I think it is better if we are consistent in our thinking about the supernatural.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, March 23, 2007 10:40 pm

Here are a few things to keep in mind (I must admit, these are not original):

People need a spiritual friend not a spiritual adversary. Think back to when you became a Christian. For many of you, there was a person or a group of people you credit for their involvement in your becoming a Christian. Maybe they cared for you in ways you had not experienced before. Maybe they were there for you when you needed them. If we were listening, we would hear people talking about spiritual things, often ever deep spiritual things, at work, around the house, in the coffee shop or at the grocery store. Sometimes the best thing we can do is just be there to listen to them and their concerns and struggles. Most people are looking for meaningful friendship.

People need honest conversation not easy answers. I do not know about you, but it is my tendency to want to answer everyone’s questions, often before they even finish asking. I find myself plotting my response while they are talking. The result: I do not hear what they are actually saying. Even worse is the fact that, in many cases, they are not even looking for an answer but I am shoving one down their throats. People are not looking for Christians to be “Bible Answer Man.” They are looking for someone to be real with them. Someone to sympathize with them and not belittle their doubts…doubts that often lead seekers to faith. Evangelists need to be involved with open and honest dialogue.

People need to see Christ modeled. Read through one of the Gospels sometime and check out what Jesus did and said. He healed even when it was socially unacceptable. He embraced the outcasts. He shared life. Sadly, most Christians (myself included) cannot say they same about themselves.

Matthew 28:18-20, is quoted by many Christians as their evangelizing mantra. Matthew 28:16-17 are however a little less known. A some years back, I heard the late Mike Yaconelli talking about this passage and it has stuck with me to this day. Not that his words were profound or that I agreed with what he was saying. I just think it was the first time I had taken the time to notice these verses. “But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful.” Did you catch that? Some were doubtful. Doubt?!? These people had been with him since the beginning. They had seen the miracles; they were standing on a mountain with the resurrected Jesus and some doubted. Instead of calming their fears or answering their doubts, Jesus makes them his representatives. He sends them out. How is this possible? Evangelism, in Jesus’ estimation, must have been something other than what we have made it.

Comments (0)

By Richard Hamilton, March 22, 2007 10:38 pm

Because most people do not feel up to entering the debate arena, many Christians retreated to what I call “hit and run” evangelism. Christian bookstores are full of products to help these endeavors. My favorite product: the “Testamints.” Maybe you have seen them. Admittedly, I have even eaten a few. They are the mints, usually located by the register, that are wrapped with a Bible verse. Christians who do not feel qualified or prepared to debate can simply leave a punily named mint with a morsel of God’s Word for their unsuspecting friend or coworker to discover. This type of evangelism, although well intended, lacks the genuine connection many people are seeking. A church I once worked with decided to get groups together on a weekday evening to go visit people in the community. As a gesture of goodwill and with the intention of being friendly, they made sand-art cookie jars. Attached to the jars were usually a Bible verse and the contact info for the church. I thought it was a great idea. This small southern community was still very open to people coming to their homes and the combination of cookies and art was genius. The first night I showed up, we grabbed a few cookie jars and headed on our way. When I read the tags, I was stunned. A few of the jars had something like “I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. -Luke 13:3″ written on the card. With some tweaking, the visits proved to be very successful for that church, but it makes me wonder what these well-intentioned people were hoping to accomplish. I think we hope that if we leave tidbits of faith around, we will not have to win over our friends with eloquent arguments and we will have still done our evangelistic duty.

Evangelism does not have to be like this. In fact, these approaches usually are not very effective because they do not take into account what people really need.