The path into the future runs through the past.  It's a widely held belief, yet many Evangelicals struggle with the fact that more and more church leaders are re-embracing many of the faith-practices from the ancient church.

The evangelical believers I regularly encounter who have this fear of past practices and outlooks, seem -- above everything else -- to fear a "Catholicizing" of their evangelical faith.  I do no think that the use of the lectionary, the Christian calendar, or ancient liturgies per se, are what the real problem is among these evangelicals.  Rather, it is a fear (and distrust?) that evangelical churches would begin doing "anything" which smacked of Roman Catholicism. Hordes of evangelical Christians have been raised amidst teaching which consistently pigeon-holed Catholicism as succumbing to some sort of "spirit of religion" and at risk of not even being Christian.  In fact, many evangelicals commonly consider Roman Catholicism as a "different religion", something categorically different from denominational protestantism.

That aside, progressive evangelical leaders will undoubtedly find it an increasing challenge to help these fearful members of their flocks to overcome their fear of the past so as to embrace the beauty, the richness, and the mystery that can be found there.

Here is a humble attempt at making suggestions to Evangelical leaders that might help them help the fearful ones:

1. Regularly include some ecclesiastical history in your corporate teachings times.  Help your people see your church/group/denomination in the context of Church history. Periodically remind your people that Roman Catholicism represents roughly 1/3 of Christianity.  Although many of their practices may be quite different from yours, they remain our Christian brothers and sisters.
2. Where possible, publicly praise the missions, outreach, and social justice efforts of Roman Catholics and liturgical Protestants in your community -- not just those in your corner of the kingdom.
3. Forge friendships with Catholic, Orthodox, and liturgical Protestants in your area.
4. Present ancient faith practices as transcending group barriers, and as relevant/needed in today's postmodern world.
5. Make a point to mention the other Protestant groups that embrace any given practice you're in the process of restoring (e.g. Lutherans, Episcopalians, Disciples of Christ, many Methodists, certain Baptists, etc.). Especially helpful here are any examples you can draw from others within your own denomination or family of faith.
6. Periodically discuss the arrogance and danger of the "modern perspective" -- thinking that somehow we are more advanced and enlightened than those in the primitive/early Church, and that therefore there is little we can learn from them.

Certainly, I see this as a rough-draft list suggestions, and would welcome any additions or revisions that anyone might offer.

.

Photo credit: © Lorenzo Pastore, iStockphoto.com

Through the centuries, the Church has seen Advent as a time not only to celebrate the birth and coming of our Messiah, Jesus Christ, but to  also anticipate his return.  This is nothing new. Yet, I'm wondering, how fervent or waning is the eschatological hope of most believers today? Popular interpretations and/or understandings regarding the Book of Revelation seem to be shifting of late, standing in opposition to views espoused by the Left Behind series.  The eschatalogical landscape seems more of a mixed-bag than ever before, yet a belief in the immanent return of Christ has always characterized the followers of Jesus down through the ages.

On a scale of 0-100 degrees (F), how do you read the current temperature when it comes to believer's anticipation of the Parousia -- the Second Coming of Christ?

.

Photo credit: © Andrei Tchernov, iStockphoto.com

A popular notion in many circles today -- including the emerging church -- is that the kingdom of God is a far larger entity than the Church (i.e. the universal body of Christ).  The kingdom certainly includes the Church, but is not limited to just the Church.

Some theologians and biblical scholars, however, assert that when Jesus spoke of the Church, he was speaking of the kingdom, and vice versa.  Passages such as Matthew 16:18-19 certainly seem to suggest an equation between Church and Kingdom:

    And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (NRSV)

With the publishing of books such as Alan Jamieson's "A Churchless Faith", I cannot help but wonder what effect modern individualism has had on contemporary views of ecclesiology, including those held by many within the emerging church. Certainly, the deconstruction of institutional Christianity has long been needed, but it feels at times that there are those deconstructionists who would rid the Kingdom of the Church.

It won't come as a surprise that The Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future is very much on my mind of late (my prior posts make that pretty obvious).  And, yes, I am thinking about the second article within the Call:

We call Evangelicals to take seriously the visible character of the Church.   We call for a commitment to its mission in the world in fidelity to God's mission (Missio Dei), and for an exploration of the ecumenical implications this has for the unity, holiness catholicity, and apostolicity of the Church.  Thus, we call Evangelicals to turn away from an individualism that makes the Church a mere addendum to God's redemptive plan.  Individualistic Evangelicalism has contributed to the current problems of churchless Christianity, redefinitions of the Church according to business models, separatist ecclesiologies and judgmental attitudes toward the Church.  Therefore, we call Evangelicals to recover their place in the community of the Church catholic.

Assuming that God's kingdom is far broader in scope than the Church is an easy assumption to embrace -- at least that was true in my case.  However, I'm taking a very hard look at all of this again, and invite you to dialog with myself and others about this fascinating and important concept.
.

Photo credit: © Sasha Martynchuk, iStockphoto.com

According to McNight, "The biblical narrative as a "Wiki-Story" is, in fact, an approach that is both historical and historic.  It's the way the Church has always read the bible" (including Irenaeus). The ancient-future approach to read the bible is to read the bible as a story.

McNight quoted Abraham J.Heschel : "to believe the bible is to remember, not merely to accept the truth as a set of dogmas."

Here is how the church listened to the story of the bible (McNight's 5-part Thesis):

1. There is a gospel, a message of deep magic -- the story of God's relational saving truth.
2. There are expressions of the gospel's message, or deep magic.  These expressions are stories of the story.
3. The stories unfold in time so that these stories form a plot -- a meta-story.
4. This plot that we discern in scripture contains divine energy -- the communicative action on God's part to engage you and me as communicants in covenantal relation with God and others.
5. The proper relationship of you and I  to the story and its plot is one of listening and discerning well.

McKnight went on to present a comprehensive, scholarly treatise on these ideas.  Of particular interest were his thoughts on "epistemic promiscuity", or... "why a 'wiki-story'?"  Here's an excerpt:

Download McNight_Wiki_Story_short.mp3

As we broke, Scot has encouraged us to discuss the following questions at our tables:

1. Which of the five models best describes how you read the Bible?
2. What can we do to restore "story" to the Church?
3. What are the positives and negatives of reading the Bible as a "Wiki-story"?

Again, jump on in and share your thoughts or reactions to any or all of these.

In the third panel discussion, which followed Edith Humphrey's presentation, discussion immediately centered around the role of propositional statements we include in the bible's story.

Humphrey:  The Fall, not only affected our "reason", but also our "imagination."

Vanhoozer: perhaps we should view the bible's narrative as "opera", where various musical forms serve as components of the whole.  Arias are solo material. Choruses are like the church's creeds.

Humphrey: opera is okay... until the opera is hijacked by material that doesn't "fit" into the main story line. Proposition keeps us honest. Story has the potential of seducing us away from the plot.She worries that the primacy of sola scriptura is being replaced by story alone.  She sees this as dangerous.  If narrative theology leads us to the primacy of the biblical "story", rather than to the primacy of "Christ" himself, then there is where we encounter danger.

Here's a clip:

Download MOV01220.MPG

Then, a fascinating exchange took place between Scot and Edith, in response to her earlier narrative exposition of Revelation 12 :

McNight: Is the woman of revelation 12, Mary?

Humphrey: Yes...and she is Israel, and she is the church.

McNight: Queen of heaven?

Humphrey: Yes... in that all of us are called as royalty (e.g.Kings and priests ) in God's kingdom.

McNight: (he yielded pursuing this any further)

The panel then fielded a few final questions from the floor, including a question about Revelation and popular notions of the coming apocalypse...

Humphrey: The Book of Revelation is mostly centered on Jesus, the Christ -- the Lamb.  It's about what God has, is, and will accomplish through the Church, NOT about some sort of coming apocalypse. Those who read Revelation as the description of a liturgy are probably not far off.

Edith also reiterated her concerns over how our understanding of the Trinity is errantly used as a polemic for a variety of issues (e.g. women in ministry, unity in the Church, etc.).

Our third and final presenter was Edith Humphrey -- the William F. Orr Associate Professor of the New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary -- addressed this year's theme with a message entitled, "On Persons, Plots, and Propositions."

"Narrative theology" is all around us.  Edith learned this as a student of Tom Wright.

The bible's story has a generative power that inspires expression, even outside of the Church.

"Stories are told by making statements."  Edith went on to espouse a position that affirmed the role of propositions in our faith, for the story of the bible's narrative is full of propositions, which help to make the story what it is.  To pull out those propositions, would be to alter the story.

How are plot and proposition related to each other and to the narrative of scripture?  Edith then led us through a story-oriented explanation of the following passages:

Philippians 2:5-11

1 Corinthians 8:1-6

Revelation, chapter 12

Here's a 3-4 min. clip of Edith's summary remarks:

Download MOV01218.MPG

As Edith concluded, delegates were encouraged to discuss the following questions at their respective tables:

1. What is the best way to tell about someone who is important to us -- describing him or her with statements, or telling stories that demonstrate his or her character and actions?
2. Which parts of the Bible are not well described in terms of story?  How would you describe these non-narrative passages, and what are their functions?
3. What are the dangers of describing God's work in our world as a story that has not yet ended, and in which we are participating?  What is helpful about this understanding?

Now it time to share your responses and thoughts with the blogosphere (and the readers here).  I look forward to reading your thoughts as well.