Book Review: God Talk by Ruth A. Tucker

April 2, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

We’ve all heard it said, and have probably said it
ourselves- “God told me to go into this ministry…” Sometimes it’s a calling, a
leading, a tug, a voice, or a whisper, but it’s pretty much the same. One of
the most treasured spiritual practices in evangelicalism today is receiving
communication from God, and not just from the Bible.

In God Talk, Ruth Tucker takes the practice of
hearing God’s voice to task. She notes, “our reported words from God often
sound eerily like our own.” (8) Most of the book is comprised of analysis of
stories and points made by those who teach on how to discern God’s voice- such
as Dallas Willard, Jack Deere, and Henry Blackaby.

Ultimately, Ruth Tucker contends that God is a God of silence,
and this if not a bad thing. “The talkative God of today is a second-rate
version of the Trinitarian God, who as Father spoke in times past, who as Son
incarnate lived among us, and who as Spirit inspired and illumines the
Scriptures, the silent Word of God.” (14) She insists that we must recognize,
“God is God, and with that recognition we must accept the silence of God.”
(173)

While there is much in the book I agree with, there were a
number of problematic points. For
instance, in chapter three she charges Christian apologists with claiming to
speak for God (incidentally, something Paul told us we do in 2 Cor 5:20) and
not doing it well. In the course of her rant, she mischaracterizes Reformed
Epistemology, indicates that Reformed theology teaches “only a small percentage
of people” will be saved (which is false), and repeats the popular fiction that
after C.S. Lewis was “deeply disturbed” by a debate in 1948 with Elizabeth
Anscombe he “wrote primarily children’s fantasy tales.” (57)

After being down on those who claim to hear from God, Ruth
Tucker claims she’s heard the voice of God in waterfalls. “I’m convinced we can
hear the silent voice of God in nature.” (164) Though she explains that this is
rooted in her belief that nature is a second volume of God’s revelation, she
doesn’t clearly explain what she means by the “silent voice of God in nature”
or how it qualitatively differs from those who claim to hear God in their
prayers.

God Talk
attempts to be the much-needed corrective against a Christianity that loves to
put words in God’s mouth. In her analysis of contemporary literature and
narratives, Ruth Tucker mostly succeeds, but periodically stumbles along the
way.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts No Comments »

Mr. T's Back!

April 1, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

“NarniaWeb has confirmed that Mr. T will be the voice of Reepicheep, the talking
mouse of Prince Caspian. Director Andrew Adamson said of the choice, “From the
beginning I have wanted to make a movie based not on the book, but on my memory
of the book. Mr. T perfectly embodies my image of the 'tough-guy' mouse with a
heart of gold.”

Get the full story at NarniaWeb, along with Reepicheep artwork. (HT: Mr. JT)

UPDATE: Acting isn't the only thing on Mr. T's agenda. He'll also be teaching at Kutztown University in Pennsylvania. More info from The Keystone. (HT: again, Mr. JT… 1. Why is Mr. T the subject of multiple Fool's Day jokes? 2. How is it that Justin Taylor knows where they are? I sense a conspiracy…)

Category Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts Comments 1 Comment »

Some Problems Feminism Helped Cause…

March 31, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

This is one post in a series I do every Friday on gender issues. When I refer to points that aren't in this particular post, you can find them in our “Gender Issues” category.

One of the difficulties in discussing the problems of
Feminism (by which I typically mean Radical or Second-Wave Feminism) is that
there is never one cause for a problem. One of the reasons offered for going to
war in Iraq was WMDs, but to think that was the only reason would be foolish.
Likewise, many of the problems that Feminism has brought to us are not the
fault of Feminism alone. However, in many cases it is the most motivating
factor behind the problem.

The problems often revolve around the distortion of roles. Remember that in the
Bible we find that men and women were created for different purposes and we
were given different strengths to fulfill those purposes. This has mostly been
understood as men being the provider and authority for the family, and the
women being the nurturer and supporter of the family. Note that the roles are
family centered. The Feminists from the ‘60s forward have declared that women
should not find their meaning and value in family, but from education and
careers.

It was the Feminists (Betty Friedan and Marilyn French in particular) who
explicitly told women that unless they pursued careers they were somehow less
human. You might recall that Teresa Heinz Kerry said that motherhood isn’t a
real job. I don’t think she meant that it’s not a lot of work. Rather, she
meant that it’s not that important. Through the onslaught of Feminist ideology
in our culture many people have come to believe that motherhood is meaningless
busy work. This is one reason that abortion became legal. It is no longer about
the life of a child but about the choice of a woman to not let being a mother
ruin her meaningful (i.e.: in career or education) life. If pro-life apologists
were able to frame the debate around the unborn they would have won. But since
the pro-choice apologists were able to make it a women’s rights issue they have
won so far.

This worked because the abortionists were able to point to this new ideology
that meaning and value is not found in family. So now we find family devalued,
but more specifically, motherhood devalued. Fatherhood was devalued long ago,
and as a result, very few men today are good fathers. We’ve witnessed the
results of this shift over the past 60 years or so, mostly since WWII. It would
be incredibly foolish and ignorant for someone to say that the absence of good
fathers in our society has had no negative impact on it. Likewise, the value
motherhood is continually in decline, and this is leaving us with few good
mothers. We’re only beginning to see the outcomes of this shift, and in some
ways I think it will be more devastating than the loss of fathers. (I realize
that much more could be said about this, but I will allow you to think of
examples from your own lives and experiences that evidence this problem as I
move on.)

The core to Feminist ideology is that women are equal to men in every
non-physical way. Not just that women can do the same things as men, but that
women should do the same things as men. Sometimes as an afterthought they’ll
say that men should do the same things as women, but that’s usually stated more
out of an effort to be consistent than as something to be advocated. In other
words, men and women are interchangeable. A man can chop down a tree, but so
can a woman, and since she can she should. Of course there are physical
limitations to this doctrine that the Feminists don’t want to talk about. Most
women cannot do all the heavy labor and hard work that men can do, and men
cannot birth and nurse children as women can do.

We are taught that roles can be traded or changed regardless of gender. Some of
the out workings of this can be found in the homosexual movement. If the role
of the mother and father do not require a man and a woman, then there’s no
reason why two men shouldn’t raise a child. If men and women are interchangeable,
then who’s to say that marriage has to be between couples of the opposite sex.

Feminism has changed how we understand the genders, what roles and goals we
should pursue, and where women receive their meaning and value. It has
downplayed the role of the mother and to some extent the wife, telling women
that they’re not fully human until they get out of the house. Children are
often asked what they want to be when they grow up more than they are asked
what sort of person they want to marry or how many children they’d like to
have; as if those goals don’t matter. It’s not that women don’t make good
accountants or CEOs, many do. It’s that they are becoming good accountants and CEOs at
the expense of becoming good mothers.

Category Posted in Culture, Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts 12 Comments »

Speaking of Paganism…

March 30, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

First the glorification of paganism in The Da Vinci Code, and now this:

Eclipse prompts meditation at Egypt’s pyramids

“We are all made of light. Light is what binds us all and makes all us humans one, so this is a very important time to be here,” said the Dutchman while standing barefoot in a circle of people meant to symbolize the sun.

My first impulse in reading this was to laugh and respond with “Light? And here I thought it was the Force!” But then I stopped short, remembering an experience I once had in the Egyptian room at the British Museum…

My friends and I were talking with a large group of seemingly average professors when, in the middle of the conversation about their trip, one of them threw out this comment in passing: “You know, the Egyptians came from the sun, but they don’t teach you that in school….” He then moved right on to his next topic as my friends and I cast furtive, questioning looks at each other. Had we really heard what we thought we’d just heard? Yes. It turned out this “international club” of “professors who just love learning about the ancient Assyrians” was meeting there to experience the energy vibrations as they passed single file in slow motion between the walls of an ancient Assyrian temple.

I wasn’t laughing then. The incident was, in fact, extremely spiritually disturbing. These things take on a whole new level of gravity when you’re face to face with the people who are deceived by them and (even worse) are attempting to deceive others (they were actually able to persuade a couple of my friends to join them).

Francis Schaeffer, in his book The God Who is There, comments on our impulse to laugh at expressions of absurdity from hearts rooted in false beliefs. He was speaking specifically of art like this as a result of postmodern despair, but we could just as easily apply this to books like The Da Vinci Code or people who visit pyramids at an eclipse, hoping aliens will appear. Here is his exhortation to us as Christians when we encounter such expressions:

These paintings, these poems, and these demonstrations which we have been talking about are the expression of men who are struggling with their appalling lostness. Dare we laugh at such things? Dare we feel superior when we view their tortured expressions in their art? Christians should stop laughing and take such men seriously. Then we shall have the right to speak again to our generation. These men are dying while they live; yet where is our compassion for them? There is nothing more ugly than a Christian orthodoxy without understanding or without compassion.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page, The Da Vinci Code 3 Comments »

Book Review: Jack's Life by Douglas Gresham

March 29, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

Last year, Douglas Gresham (C.S. Lewis's stepson) was kind enough to meet with me in his home when I was visiting Ireland. He had a quote by C.S. Lewis (“Jack”) tacked to the bulletin board above his desk. I didn't write it down at the time, but in searching for it later, I believe it was this:

The great thing
is, if one can, to stop regarding all the unpleasant things as
interruptions in one's “own” or “real” life. The truth is, of course,
that what one regards as interruptions are precisely one's life.

I couldn't help but see for myself how much of an influence Lewis had had on Gresham,
for here I was, a random interruption welcomed into his home as he
tried to live out what had formerly been modeled to him by his
stepfather.

Gresham was, indeed, greatly influenced by Lewis, and in writing Jack's Life,
his goal was to present a picture of C.S. Lewis, the man–his goodness,
personality, and integration of Christ's teaching into his daily
living–a picture that Gresham felt had not been fully described by previous works on Lewis's life and writings.

Because of the personal nature of the material, Gresham's writing in Jack's Life
sounds less like a written biography and more like a man sitting on his
front porch, telling the story of someone he admired and loved. This style has its strengths and weaknesses. While Gresham's
connection with Lewis does bring a sense of reality to Lewis's life,
this same connection makes it difficult for him to separate himself
from the telling of his story. Hence, you
have the man on the porch, telling the story from his point of view,
inserting his thoughts and opinions on details of interest to him,
jumping back and forth in time, explaining customs or offering advice,
and occasionally following rabbit trails or repeating himself.

Rather than attempt to tell about all of Jack's life as any average biography would do, I would have loved for Gresham to have focused completely on his strength–the personal, colorful vignettes of life with Lewis. The obligatory facts about Lewis seemed forced, and instead, it felt as if these personal stories were the stories Gresham really wanted to tell. I would love to read a book made up only of these; no one else living today could write such a book.

Jack's Life also comes with a DVD of an interview with Douglas Gresham. While
the DVD is an interesting addition, I would still have to say that
overall, if you're looking for a personal account by Douglas Gresham,
you should instead read his first book, Lenten Lands. As
an autobiography, his style works much better with the subject matter
because he has personal experience with all the events discussed
(rather than just a small portion of Jack's life), and, reading LL, one can still get a sense of Lewis and all the characters who surrounded him in his life.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page No Comments »

Book Review: The Benefits of Providence by James Spiegel

March 28, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

Dozens of books have been published in recent years debating
the extent of God’s sovereignty and knowledge of future events. Few of these
works, however, examine the far-reaching implications of the views they
propose. In The Benefits of Providence philosopher James Spiegel fills
in this gap by applying the Augustinian view of providence to several important
areas of philosophical and practical theology.

Distinguishing between high (Augustinian, Simple Divine
Foreknowledge, Molinism) and low (Process and Openness Theology) views of
providence, Dr. Spiegel begins by explaining the core ideas of each of these
positions. He then proceeds to contrast the biblical cases and explanatory
power of the Open view with the Augustinian view, arguing that in each case the
Augustinian view of providence is on solid ground and the Open view is not.
Thus he contends that God has complete sovereignty, exhaustive foreknowledge,
does not take risks, and that God’s determination is compatible with the moral
responsibility of human beings.

Having laid the foundation for why the Augustinian view is
best, Dr. Spiegel applies this high view of providence to several areas in
which he sees particular benefits. He begins with looking at the world as
divine art, first through the divine conservation of the cosmos. This doctrine,
he shows, has important implications for understanding natural laws, miracles,
and art. As an explanation of divine art, he puts forward the E-C aesthetic
model- “that the cosmos is an expression of divine emotion and a communication
of God’s eternal ideas.” (105)

Dr. Spiegel then applies his high view of providence to the
practice of science, specifically showing its implications for the problem of
induction, the origins debate, and the problem of consciousness. Subsequently,
he dives into the issue of divine emotion. While historically those who hold
high views of providence tend to believe in God’s impassibility, and conversely
those of a low view tend to believe in His passibility, Dr. Spiegel seeks
middle ground. He proposes that God is omnipathic, experiencing of all emotions
eternally.

The problem of evil and suffering is an important issue in
these discussions, and so Dr. Spiegel turns to it next. After explaining why
several of the more popular theodicies fail, he makes the case that the
“Greater Good Theology” is the most biblically grounded and practical.
Essentially this entails that all suffering exists for a purpose. The book
concludes with moral and devotional applications, examining the implications
for virtues such as faith and humility and for disciplines such as prayer and
evangelism.

One sign of a good writer and thinker (in my view) is that
the author anticipates his reader’s questions. This happened several times as I
read this book, particularly in discussing divine omnipathos, and though I
wasn’t always fully satisfied with the answers; I appreciate Dr. Spiegel’s
ability to anticipate possible objections. This is particularly important as
his work sails in several almost uncharted theological waters

The Benefits of Providenceis an important and stimulating inquiry into
philosophical theology. Though some will find its academic rigor challenging,
most will find James Spiegel’s clarity and passion for biblically based
philosophy extraordinary. Though this is a significant work in the debate about
God’s sovereignty, I think it’s more significant for those who hold to the
Augustinian view. Regardless of whether we agree with every point, Dr. Spiegel
has challenged us to apply our theology more widely and deeply.

Category Posted in Book Reviews, Main Page, Philosophy, Roger's Posts 2 Comments »

An Introduction to Feminism

March 25, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

We must begin at an important distinction on a historical
level. The term “Feminism” has been applied in various ways to various time
periods and ideologies. Most simplistically, though, we can categorize feminism
into two forms. The most historic form sought to restore the equal value of men
and women within a culture. Movements that fall under this definition of
feminism (either consciously or unconsciously) argued for equal treatment,
rights, and appreciation in the public square. Women like Susan B. Anthony and
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who fought for the women’s right to vote in American,
were feminists of this fashion.

The second form of Feminism is sometimes called the “second-wave,” while I
prefer Radical Feminism. This form emerged in the 1960’s and sought (quite
consciously) to establish functional equality between men and women. According
to its proponents, women not only can do everything that men can do, but they should
do everything men can do. This sort of Feminism has been incredibly damaging to
the culture and its members.

Many people agree that this “second-wave” of Feminism was launched by Betty
Friedan in 1963 through her book, The Feminine Mystique. In her book,
Friedan argued that the traditional notion of women finding value and purpose
in being a wife and raising kids was incorrect. Rather, women should find their
identity in education and career. In essence she argued that in order to fully
develop as human beings, women need to go back to school and back to work.
Without doing this women can never find their identity and thus cannot become
fully human.

This should sound familiar to those of you who’ve studied psychology. Friedan
was a student of Erik Erikson, who was a student of Abraham Maslow, who was a student
of Sigmund Freud. (How’s that for a genealogy of bad ideas?) Maslow’s most
famous for his hierarchy of needs. His hierarchy depends on the fulfillment of
lower level needs before higher level needs can be met. At the lowest level are
our physical needs, like food, water, air, etc. The next level is safety, which
is sometimes sought above physical needs. The third level is love and
belonging. This includes both psychological/emotional needs as well as physical
needs. After these needs are met, one seeks the fourth level- value from other
people, or esteem. Finally, we pursue self-actualization. This is the driving
force of life. We grow as individuals as we realize and utilize our abilities.

Erik Erikson continued Maslow’s work in his 8 stages of human development. Each
of the 8 periods in a person’s life deals with different needs and will impact
the person’s life depending on if and how those needs are met. For instance, at
Stage 5 the adolescent (age 12-18) is faced with questions of identity. If the
person resolves their conflict identities they will lead mostly successful
lives. However, if they fail they will be indecisive and confused about their
role in life (like in vocation, sexual orientation, relationships, etc.)

There are at least two basic ideas that permeate all of these thinkers. 1) Human beings
evolved. The levels of needs and stages of development are applications of
naturalistic theory to the evolution of the self. 2) Human beings are basically
good. In order for human beings to realize their full potential they must have
the capacity for goodness. It is only those whose environments impact them
adversely who have great difficulty in self-actualization.

Betty Friedan’s work took these theories and applied them to the plight of the
woman. Self-actualization cannot be met, according to Friedan, through
motherhood or family. It can only be accomplished through pursuing education
and career. If a woman does not pursue these things she remains in some sense
sub-human. These ideas became the foundation of contemporary feminism (radical
feminism), and they can be found throughout the writings of feminists such as
Naomi Wolf and Marilyn French*.

After feminism achieves its goal of equality with men, then what? There is no
other place to go but inward. That is, the ideology will continually become
more self-centered and aimed at pursuing selfish desires (if that’s actually
possible). This fits right in with the contemporary definition of freedom. At
the founding of this nation it meant the ability to do what one ought to do.
Now freedom is the ability to do whatever one wants to do. Here we find that
radical feminism finds itself quite welcome among its postmodern neighbors
moral relativism, pluralism, and socialism.

Radical Feminism looks to revise our understanding of the past, present, and
future. For most feminists, women are actually better than men. They believe
they must reach into history and bring out the female stories that were
overlooked or overlook by men. While it’s important that we can access the
history of humanity, including men and women, feminist ideology has stolen
academics to the point that most courses are centered on feminist thought. One
only needs to look at the credentials of the English faculty at Cornell University
for evidence of this. Similarly most Christian institutions that have “Women’s
Ministry” departments do not have a “Men’s Ministry” counterpart. This
precisely how the Feminists like it, as it is in their minds what is due to
them for a history of male oppression.

This is only meant to be an overview of Feminist thought and history. Next week I’ll
look at the problems it's caused.

*Footnote: Some will note that I have not said
anything about third- or fourth-wave Feminism. There is scholarly debate about
that terminology, and I side with those who believe that contemporary Feminism
is ideologically identical to second-wave Feminism.

Category Posted in Culture, Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts 4 Comments »

And Where it Can’t, It Weeps

March 24, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

I’ve been doing my apologist’s duty, reading The Da Vinci Code the last few days, and it’s saddened me to the point of tears. Not because the history is laughable, not because of its insulting portrayal of Christians, but because of passages like this:

The quest for the Holy Grail is literally the quest to kneel before the bones of Mary Magdalene. A journey to pray at the feet of the outcast one, the lost sacred feminine.

And this one: Remember the temple prostitutes of the Old Testament? According to TDC, the Church’s suppression of ritual sex (part of its attempt to gain power in its struggle for dominance over paganism) was disastrous for those who wanted to “become spiritually whole”:

Holy men who had once required sexual union with their female counterparts to commune with God now feared their natural sexual urges as the work of the devil….

I knew this book would be an attempt to discredit Jesus and Christianity, but I wasn’t expecting the glorification of goddess worship and rituals. To me, this is a bigger concern than any of its historical fabrications. The idea that impressionable young readers out there would be moved by the negative picture of Christianity and the positive portrayal of paganism to pray to a dead woman’s bones–or the “sacred feminine” in general–and reject the true, powerful, loving, beautiful, good God is a sadness beyond belief.

The characters of TDC decry the fact that “the pagans lost” the power struggle with the Church, but the pagans lost for a reason–this reason: the pagans were drawn to the beauty and freedom of the reality of Christ’s forgiveness, love, and goodness; and they rejected their previous lives in service to chaotic, unpredictable gods, human sacrifices, and enslavement to endless rituals. As I’m reading TDC, I can’t help but think of St. Patrick who worked tirelessly to rescue spiritually oppressed people from paganism, thereby earning their undying devotion and gratefulness for centuries. How devastated he would be to see this book today falsely enticing his people and so many more into harm, away from the true God who loves them!

Our culture is now moving in the direction of paganism once again. After a few days of immersing myself in the world of TDC, I was driving to work, grieving for those–including some of my own friends–who have embraced paganism in belief of the lie that the Christian God is evil and oppressive. I see their lives–their emptiness and continual searching, and I can’t help but grieve to think that more will join them because of TDC. As I was driving, I saw that the bumper of the car ahead of me displayed a fish symbol. Because of the rarity of this in West L.A., I always get a little thrill of joy, comfort, and brotherhood when I see the fish. This time, though, after that thrill, when a stoplight brought me up close, it gave me a sock in the stomach. The word written boldly inside the fish was PAGAN.

John Piper’s words were ringing in my ears: “The salt of the earth does not mock rotting meat. Where it can, it saves and seasons. And where it can’t, it weeps.”

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page, The Da Vinci Code 4 Comments »

Relativism, Power, and the Need for a Standard – Part Two

March 21, 2006 Posted by Amy Hall

When I was seven, I wrote a paragraph about how I and each of my sisters had a stuffed animal. I thought mine was the best, but they each thought theirs was the best, so I sadly concluded I would never know which one was really the best. Even back then, I understood how hopeless it was to judge the toys without a standard beyond our three competing opinions.

In the same phone call I described in Part One, the talk show host challenged the caller who said she supported the Palestinians because they have less power than the Israelis. The host argued that the Palestinian leaders deliberately kill innocent people and are terrorists. Her response? “There are a lot of people who would label our government as terrorists.”

The moral charge was irrelevant to her because, for her, competing perspectives make a determination about the moral question impossible. If each side calls the other terrorists, who’s to say who’s right? If I see things one way and you see things another, we must find a third, trustworthy, unchanging standard to compare with each of our ideas in order to judge between them.

For those who are materialists on the left, this problem can never be overcome. No standard of immaterial ideas exists, so it can never be discovered and used. For the postmodern, religious left, this problem also cannot be overcome, but for a slightly different reason. For them, the revealed standard (the Bible) is weakened by their own perspective. Since they believe the language of their community determines their view of its ideas, they can’t know its true meaning (if it even exists outside their language) with enough certainty to use it to judge the morality of other cultures.

No matter how one reaches the relativist position, the result is the same: since judgments must be made in life, let us make those judgments based on undeniable, materialist, measurable, physical reasons. The standard becomes: Who has more power? That person (or society) must be in the wrong.

But for those Christians who not only believe that there is a moral standard for nonmaterial ideas, but also that we can know that standard, evaluate those ideas, and determine truth, falsehood, good, and evil–for those, power is not the ultimate determining factor of who is right or wrong. Power is not bad in itself (if that were the case, then God would be the most evil being of all!), but instead, those who have it must be judged by the morality of its use; and those without it are not necessarily in the right.

In the Bible, justice means equality of treatment under the Law (i.e., the moral standard given by God) and equality of punishment for its transgression. It does not mean equality of power or possessions, and one does not pervert justice merely by having more of something (including power) than another. All judgments of people are to be based on right and wrong, not power.

For example, we are not to allow someone without power to be treated unfairly (“Do not deny justice to your poor people in their lawsuits“), but neither are we allowed to treat the person with power unfairly (“Do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit“). In both cases, the concern is about what is right, and we are commanded to not let the irrelevant level of that person’s power interfere with the judgment. This is true wisdom and justice, and it can’t be grounded without a good, perfect, comprehensible standard revealed by God.

Category Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Ethics, Main Page, Philosophy, Politics 18 Comments »

The Importance of Community IV: Practical Application

March 21, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

I began this series summarizing two talks by Dr. Jerry Root
at Talbot School of Theology. His series was titled “Developing Dialectically
Safe Communities.” In the first lecture he discussed the necessity of
understanding ourselves and our audience when practicing exegesis. In his
second lecture, Jerry argued that the complexity of reality is best discovered
through safe communities. My third post in the series was a personal
exploration of why communities are important in the lives of believers.

At this point perhaps the most obvious question is- what do
dialectically safe communities look like? I suggest that a dialectically safe
community is a community in which the participants can comfortably raise
serious questions about important issues and have their ideas and/or behavior
relating to such issues challenged.

One of the strengths of the emerging church is its claim
that the church should be such a community. But churches do not by necessity
meet all the needs we have for community. These needs may be unpacked as
follows:

Academic v. Spiritual. There are communities that focus
explicitly on theoretical issues, such as discussing classical literature or
politics, and there are those that focus on personal spiritual issues, such as
accountability. An example of an academic community is The Inklings. A men’s or
women’s small group would be an example of a spiritual community.

Formal v. Informal. Some communities meet on a schedule with
a specific agenda in mind, while others meet more out of convenience with
little or no expectation toward a specific agenda. A class would be an example
of a formal community while a group of friends an example of an informal
community.

Group v. One-On-One. Naturally when we think of communities
we think of groups of people, but I think we can also describe the meeting of
two or three people as a community. A one-on-one community would be when my
accountability partner and I get together.

If I’m on to something here, we’ll find that the communities
we’re involved in fit somewhere within these spectrums. Most church meetings,
for example are spiritual, formal, group communities. There are thin lines
between these types of communities, and I don’t mean to suggest that academic
communities can’t also be spiritual or anything like that. In fact, the
church I presently attend does a great job of combining being an academic and a
spiritual community.

My point is not that we should find a single community
that exhibits every aspect of these spectrums. However, I believe we will grow
the most when we are involved with multiple communities that together challenge
us in each way. Perhaps some will find all of these traits within two
communities, but for others it will require three or four. But if we lack any
area we will, I believe, have some deficiency in our experiential growth.

Category Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology No Comments »