So, this morning I was finishing wrapping the neighbor kid’s Christmas present with a whole roll of duct tape, you know, the standard male fare (blog post with pictures forthcoming) when Jacob climbed up on my lap and asked “Daddy, how does Jesus get into my heart?” Wow. One minute it’s Bakugans, and the next it’s soteriology. I suspect that this was on his mind at all because while we have him expecting to get hooked up by Santa, Crystal and I have been very diligent to remind him that the reason that we are all getting presents is because we are helping Jesus celebrate his birthday. I explained that Jesus enters our hearts when we ask him to and that afterwards, he lives inside of us forever no matter what. Okay, he got that as much as he could without charting metrics and logistics. “Why is he able to do that?” Not “how”, but “why” and if you want to split hairs, those are different answers.
Now, I come from a school where answers are given as a cross between answering a direct question with a direct answer and the thought that if the child is old enough to ask the question, they are old enough to hear the real answer as best the person being asked can explain it. That said, there is no reason to over complicate simple questions with overly complex answers or deliberately trying to talk over someone else’s head, particularly an earnest intentioned child. I posted on Facebook a quick bit about this conversation with Jacob taking place and a friend of mine replied with “The Gospel is simple. Men make it difficult.” So true; so very true. In the last year or so, I have taken quite an interest in apologetics and polemics and have been struggling with how much to tell the children directly and how much to save for later as conversations like this present themselves. I want to make sure that my children are biblically grounded, but don’t want to overly tax their minds with the arguments and defenses of adults. Those will come far soon enough; my job is to prepare them for when they do.
I don’t buy into the thought that parents should not be influencing our children’s religious views. To the contrary, I feel that parents have a great responsibility to address these larger issues and need to be prepared with an answer when asked the reasons for future hope held by the parents. The Bible clearly teaches this in 1 Peter 3:15. In my opinion, “every man” would include the one that is being raised to become a man (or woman in the broader context of the word). I have no issue with the fact that some day he will question everything that Crystal and I have taught him about Jesus and the Bible and honestly, I hope he does question it! It’s the very important step of taking what Mom and Dad said and proving it to one’s self. It’s where the faith becomes deeply personal and is very necessary to one’s faith journey.
It’s kind of funny that this came up just now. I am reading a book called “Boys Should Be Boys: 7 Secrets to Raising Healthy Sons” by Dr. Meg Meeker and this very issue of the needs young boys and “The God Factor” was just addressed in a recent chapter that I read. I know that not everyone who reads this blog is a Christian, but before you dismiss this book as all Jesus-related propaganda, I will tell you that the following excerpt is found deep in the 10th chapter and thus far, this is the first time in this book that the author has written anything more than a fleeting reference to a faith system of any kind and that she has yet to reveal her own beliefs, relying much more on her experience as a seasoned practitioner of pediatric and adolescent medicine, than one trying to push her own flavor of religion. She uses the term “God” generically because “God” can mean different things to different people and I have yet to see her drop a J-bomb, so read the book! Really, I highly recommend it.
Dr. Meeker says that: “God makes sense to boys. Boys find it easy to imagine that God exists in an invisible state without definitive form, that he possesses both male and female qualities (God is as authoritative as a father and as loving as a mother), and that he can see everything in the universe all at once.
One reason young boys find this so easy is that they connect their inner thoughts and feelings to the exterior world. In other words, their external behaviors mirror their inner feelings. Boys feel less inhibited and less socially guarded, and are uninhibited about sharing their natural belief in God. It is not until they reach later elementary school years that they begin to force their inner selves to go “underground.” When classmates become cruel, parents divorce, or failing grades come their way, boys learn to push their interior world into a private place.”
I can’t speak for everyone, but in my situation, I feel that these statements are right on the money. In terms of seeing God in both a paternal and maternal light, Jacob has stated that he wants God’s powers so that he can stop time and shoot lightning at people (Atta boy!), but has also told me that he loves me as much as when God sent his Son to earth *tear*. As far as I can tell, he has no reservations about seeing his realities though what I’ll call a “God filter”. He knows John 1:3 by heart and concludes that since God made everything, he can control it. Call it sheltered if you want, but the people that he comes into contact with who do not share in the Christian faith are not about to start trying to correct someone else’s child (mainly because he hasn’t entered public school yet, but that’s a whole other topic). Effectively, everyone that he talks to says pretty much the same things that he does and he is not treated like a weirdo when he says something about God in public…yet.
Jacob and I spent the bulk of this morning’s session talking about sin and how it separates us from God and how Jesus died to reconcile us back to God since we can’t do it ourselves any other way than simply believing that this was the case (the answer to why he can enter our hearts). Fundamentally, I was trying to plant seeds that will one day bloom, hopefully in the form of convicting him in terms of knowing that he needs to accept that this price was paid by Jesus for him individually, not just for all of mankind corporately. As we were wrapping up, I told him that some day Jesus would probably live inside him too and because he already knows that Jesus was God, he declared “See! So I WILL have God’s powers!” and ran off to electrocute something.
As adults, I know that as my friend pointed out, we over complicate the simple, simple message of the Gospel and try to almost bury it under the added-on traditions of under the guise of “religion.” I can only speak first hand about evangelical Christianity, but so very much of what gets argued about so vehemently today in church, politics, etc. has almost nothing to do with biblical truth and yet these are where the deepest fractures within the church occur! It’s no wonder that people who don’t know Jesus personally reject the gospel; look at what we do with it!
At any rate, it was very refreshing to talk to Jacob this morning and I look forward to the next time we do it. His innocence and lack of capacity to fully understand what I was talking about forced me to strip all of my preferences and cultural proclivities away and just give him straight up what the Bible says. In the end, that’s all that really matters anyway.
Popularity: 43% [?]
So, I am reading the book “Preachers and Preaching“ by D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a famous British preacher who preached from 1938-1968 at Westminster Chapel in London, England.
I was struck by two paragraphs from the introductory chapter and I marveled at how applicable they were to a Contemporary Theology class that I have been taking that has been discussing the Emergent Church (EC) at length, even though the book is dated 1971. It gives rise to the question of when postmodernity truly began or at least the realization of when its need to be addressed came about as this book is basically a series of lectures that were given to ministerial students and young ordained preachers, now from a generation ago. The author of the referenced Wikipedia article even goes so far as to suggest that postmodernity began in the 1950′s with the entrance of television into American and Europeanhomes, but I’m digressing.
I found the following comments interesting:
- Dr. D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, 1899 – 1981
“Here is the great question therefore: Can we justify preaching? Is there need of preaching at all in the modern world? This, as you know, is part of a larger question. We are living in an age where not only preaching, but the very Church herself is being questioned. You are familiar with the talk of “religionless Christianity”, with the idea that the Church herself is perhaps the greatest hindrance to the Christian faith, and that if we really want to see people becoming Christians, and the world becoming “Christianised”, as they put it, we have to get rid of the Church, because the Church has become an obstacle standing between people and the truth that is in Christ Jesus.
With much of this criticism of the Church one has, of course, to agree. There is so much that is wrong with the Church – traditionalism, formality and lifelessness and so on – and it would be idle and utterly foolish to deny this. Often one really has to ask about certain gatherings and communities of people whether they are entitled to the name Church at all. The Church so easily can degenerate into an organisation, or even, perhaps, a social club or something of that kind; so that it is often necessary to raise the whole question of the Church herself.”
As Chef Emeril Lagasse likes to say, “BAM!” What of this statement by Lloyd-Jones? Were these (correctly?) perceived ascertainments of the degeneration of church life into merely formality driven social clubs what drove some of who we call the early EC “leaders” to pick up their axe and start to grind it in the name of “[questioning] the Church herself”? Especially in light of the fact that nearly the entire EC movement is largely contained to the United States and Western Europe, I would have to argue yes.
So when exactly did postmodernity start and what is the issue or set of issues it seeks to resolve? Refrains from legalism? The elimination of self-righteous hypocrisy? The placement and reverence of age-old traditions above Scripture? While Mark chapter 7 can attest to these issues being old hat, I can concede the point that they are finally getting a fresh and serious look in the 21st century public forum after many decades of being the elephant in the sanctuary.
So is “the Church herself is perhaps the greatest hindrance to the Christian faith”? What a great question. I think that if the EC leaders were to rally around a single point, it would be this one. We have all heard people say that church would be great if it wasn’t for all the Christians. Many of us have given nervous little chuckles over that trite, but sadly astute statement. Are we really so surprised that some people along the way quit laughing and decided to directly address the issue head on, warts and all? The emergent conversation seems to be centered around how to get rid of the obstacle known ominously as “the church” while still finding new and culturally relevant ways to illuminate and personally apply the Gospel in 2009 and beyond. In and of itself, this is not a bad thing at all. I think that it should be discussed and dealt with within the body of Christ and among those types that we wish to reach. If it is not, we as the established church in our current form run the risk of manifesting Lloyd-Jones’s speculative fear of the church becoming the single greatest enemy of Christianity.
Where the EC seems to go wrong is in their à la carte approach as to exactly what their ecclesiastical theology ought to be. There is a certain charm in making it up as you go along, but there are limits to that. Stan Grenz and John Franke open up Beyond Foundationalism by speaking at length about the fragmentation that exists within current postmodern theology, particularly on the larger (lack of) organizational level that they deny exists. At some point, the emergent conversation will have to declare “Enough talk” and start to back that talk up with ecclesiological action. They will have to fight this fragmentation by getting further organized, even if they drag their feet and scream all the way. At some point, they will have to either start taking defining and defending positions or run the risk / be content with being labeled a marginalized fringe element of western Christianity. In short, they will need to define what their own set of “white lines” are to stay in between. I realize that identifying and even defending these definitions flies in the face of what the EC is supposed to be all about and how linear (not to mention thoroughly modern) this approach sounds, but it doesn’t negate the need.
Given the western climate that this movement is thriving in, I think it would be a tactical error on their part not to at least allow this linearism to influence their methodology as their seemingly desired younger audience are in fact, mainly linear thinkers despite their claims otherwise. The EC is not an eastern hemisphere movement and has zero discernible impact outside of the US and Europe. Brian McLaren might have gotten some bad sushi and thinks that it is with his allusions to foundational faith being more like a spider web than a building with multiple anchor points and such, but even the emergent mainstream has started to actively distance themselves from him and some of his ideologies. There’s challenging people with your theological epistemology and then there’s good old fashioned heresy.
So how do we address some of the dogmatic stigmas related to the modern church at large? Do we let the church establishment die out and be replaced wholly with postmodern theology in the next generational go-round? Operationally, what’s really important to keep? What about theologically? Is there nothing that can be retained from the current models? Must every long held tradition and/or system be made to go? Here, I am forced to commit one of my own pet peeves. Being an operational and systems-oriented person, I naturally and sub-consciously evaluate how things work on a larger scale. Most often, in addition to offering current-state analysis, I can also objectively offer suggestions to advance the agenda of the organization or question at hand. As a general rule, I despise people who are long on observations about how to make it better (read: complainers), but are conveniently short on solutions as to how to logistically get there. In this instance, I have to acknowledge the enormity of the issue surrounding the transformation from a modern to a postmodern mindset (regardless of when it actually started) and how to lead this and future generations confidently into the fray without sacrificing the authoritativeness and inerrancy of Scripture, the triune Godhead, the wrath of God and/or how we who have believed on the name of Christ have been saved from the reality of Hell because of His ultimate, atoning sacrifice and mercy. If those few foundational things can be preserved, I’m open to just about anything else dropping by the proverbial wayside and I do love well executed change management. If we can manage to stop all of the petty infighting that happens within most churches today, we just might be able to turn our attentions properly inward, then outward, then onward.
Popularity: 3% [?]
