Discuss Theology

It Takes a Monk to Save a Civilization
Ben House

Art historian and critic Kenneth Clark wrote, “It is hard to believe that
for quite a long time — almost a hundred years — western Christianity
survived by clinging to places like Skellig Michael, rising seven hundred
feet out of the sea.” Skellig Michael is a rocky island located off the
southwestern coast of Ireland. It was one of the outposts of early Irish
Christians, who in the 5th and 6th centuries rescued European
civilization.
This took place in a time when the old order and power of the Roman Empire
had completely disintegrated and when illiterate, pagan, barbaric hordes,
who were devoid of understanding the Greco-Roman heritage, were
rearranging Europe. While Greece lay in ruins and Rome was being pillaged
and plundered, the best of their accomplishments were preserved only in
books.
But books too are perishable. Great libraries, like that of ancient
Alexandria, were vulnerable to destruction, and with the destruction of
books, the knowledge, thought, and poetry of whole cultures were subject
to extinction.
For a time, about all that stood between the preservation of European
civilization or its descent into a true dark age was a hardy band of Irish
monks who were dedicated to copying books and evangelizing people. Usually
we think of the Irish as the victims of colonization and oppression. In
their later history, English policy toward the Irish ranged from trying to
absorb them to trying to obliterate them. Just as the Emerald Isle is on
the edge of Europe, so the Irish have been on the edge of the progress and
forward tug of history — most of the time.
Although there was never a time when Irish armies occupied Europe or Irish
leaders dominated the councils of power, there was a time when Ireland did
save civilization. We recognize the name of Patrick, but most know little
about his successors, like Columcille and Columbanus, who spread the
Christian message beyond Ireland to Britain and then to continental
Europe. Thomas Cahill’s book, How the Irish Saved Civilization, is a
delightful account of this history.
Two things were done primarily by the Irish during the 5th and 6th
centuries. First, they carefully copied and preserved the books that fell
into their hands. Latin literature would have been lost without the Irish;
furthermore, as Cahill points out, “there would have perished in the west
not only literacy but all the habits of mind that encourage thought.”
Second, they established monasteries all over Europe that were devoted to
preaching, teaching, and ministering to the local populations. These two
activities point out the way for Christians to take dominion over the
future.
I recently had a conversation with a friend who teaches history at a
junior college. He was bemoaning the fact that his college students could
not locate key American cities on United States maps. I smiled and said,
“Well, my tenth graders are struggling to understand Augustine’s City of
God.” Literature has faced extinction in our own era, but in a way
different from the past. In the ancient world, rare manuscripts were
destroyed; in our age they have been crowded out by the abundance of
technology and paper and by philosophies of education that oppose
knowledge. But in Christian school and homeschool settings, books have
been rediscovered.
There have been some useful textbooks written in the past several decades
since the Christian education movement emerged. But more important,
students are now reading books in the junior high and high school levels
that I never read even in college. I repeatedly learned about the
Federalist Papers, but only after I taught in a Christian school did I
begin actually studying the Federalist Papers. At its best, much of my
education seemed to better train me to watch Jeopardy! or to play Trivial
Pursuit than to think.
In this modern reformation, Christian educators debate whether it is best
to read the ancient pagans or the early church fathers. Further debates
occur between those who favor Cromwell’s secretary, John Milton, and those
who favor the Italian Catholic poet Dante; advocates for Shakespeare lock
horns with devotees of Spenser; and some even assign Hemingway and
Faulkner to the disgust of those who prefer Tolkien and Lewis. We more
eclectic types try to assign them all. But the debates continue amongst
Christian educators. In language, disagreements break out over whether to
teach Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or some modern language. Even logic teachers
differ over whether you begin with fallacies or syllogistic validity.
Isn’t this great? Isn’t this fun?
In the Christian education community, we are producing a generation of
graduates who are well read in Greek and Roman classics, Patristic
theology, Reformed treatises, the Great Books tradition, the Medieval
Trivium, and much more. There is no uniformity imposed by a statist decree
telling these students what to read and telling teachers what to teach.
Instead, we are experiencing the rise of a generation of thinking
students, who have traveled all over the intellectual globe. They will
have achieved Mortimer Adler’s ideal of having read the best ideas that
men have thought and written. In one sense of the word, they will be
Renaissance men and women. But in another sense, because they are viewing
these books through scriptural lenses, they are Reformation men and women.
Imagine an iron-sharpened generation of people who go beyond Trivial
Pursuit to actually discuss issues. Imagine political debate where
Christians grounded in Hamilton’s and Madison’s views of the Constitution
are sparring with other Christians holding to Patrick Henry’s objections
to the Constitution. Imagine your children fighting over whether Calvin or
Augustine was the greatest theologian. Imagine young people who will be in
awe of us who lived in the same era as Rushdoony, Van Til, and Bahnsen.
Some of us struggle to resist watching the evening political talk shows.
When we give in to the temptation and watch the shows, we rejoice in
seeing conservative Christian spokesmen locking horns with liberals in
debate. Such a witness and voice is good, but a few Christian ideas touted
by talking heads squeezed in between toothpaste commercials in a national
debate will not change the culture. Books will do that.
Today’s Monasteries
Likewise, churches will change our culture. Churches should strive to be
the monasteries of today. Monasteries are not well understood in our
culture. We picture drab, dark places where hooded monks went about
singing chants. Instead, monasteries were centers of Christian activism.
J.O. Westwood describes monasteries as
schools, all the way from kindergarten to university, hospitals, hotels,
publishing houses, libraries, law courts, art academies, and
conservatories of music. They were houses of refuge, places of pilgrimage,
marts for barter and exchange, centers of culture, social foci, newspaper
offices, and distilleries. A score of other public and practical things
were they: garrison, granary, orphan asylum, frontier fort, post office,
savings bank, and general store for surrounding agricultural districts. We
carelessly imagine the early monasteries as charnel-houses of cant and
ritual — whereas they were the best-oiled machines for the advancement of
science, the living accelerators of human thinking, precedent to the
University of Paris.
Referring to the works of the monks in the Middle Ages in his book The
Making of Europe, Christopher Dawson said, “The greatest names of the age
are the names of monks — St. Benedict and St. Gregory, the two Columbas,
Bede and Boniface, Alcuin and Rabanus Maurus, and Dunstan, and it is to
the monks that the great cultural achievements of the age are due, whether
we look at the preservation of ancient culture, the conversion of new
peoples or the formation of new centres of culture in Ireland and
Northumbria and the Carolingian Empire.”
Christian churches actually are doing the work of monasteries today,
without the baggage of some of the errors of the Medieval time. Christian
churches and voluntary agencies provide the best social services for our
society today. Without endorsing President Bush’s program for aiding
faith-based organizations, it is reassuring that the national debate
recognizes that Christian organizations are the most effective means of
dealing with poverty, drug abuse, and family problems. Christians are the
ones providing the educational reforms (at no cost to taxpayers), music
instruction, marriage counseling, English language instruction, and other
needs of society.
There remain those churches that are merely stained glass edifices open to
the public only for a few hours on Sunday mornings. But, some great
Christian works are being done in places that do not look like traditional
churches. The news coverage of the recent hurricane relief efforts in
Louisiana and surrounding states could not help but highlight Christian
ministries to the evacuees.
The greatest events going on in our day are not happening in cabinet
meetings at the White House or in caucuses on Capitol Hill or in executive
board rooms on Wall Street. Civilization is being saved by faithful
pastors, dedicated Christian teachers, moms and dads who are teaching
their children about Jesus, small name book publishers, newsletters,
magazines, and websites dedicated to Christian causes, and to a host of
other Samaritan-type works happening across the land.
Thomas Cahill contrasted the Romans, who were unable to save or salvage
their once grand civilization, with the Irish saints, who changed the
direction of history. Cahill says, “The twenty-first century, prophesied
Malraux, will be spiritual or it will not be. If our civilization is to be
saved — forget about our civilization, which, as Patrick would say, may
pass ‘in a moment like a cloud or smoke that is scattered by the wind’ —
if we are to be saved, it will not be by Romans but by saints.”
We could spend a lot of time bemoaning the legion of dangers to our
republic, our civilization, and our way of life. Hillary just might get
elected in 2008, the economy might implode, and gay marriages might become
the rage. Congress might not pass and the president might not sign some
mythical piece of legislation ending all bad things and promoting all good
things. Don’t despair. Instead, teach a Sunday school class, support a
Christian school or mission work, buy some Christian books, give away some
Christian books, go to prayer meetings, witness to someone, encourage a
faithful minister, and pray for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in
heaven.
Arend van Leeuwen’s book Christianity in World History ends with this
note: “We live in a time of crisis: and krisis is a biblical word. In the
Bible it signifies ‘judgment’, but along with that, ‘justice’ and
‘salvation’. The Servant of the Lord ‘will not fail or be discouraged till
he has established justice (krisis) in the earth; and the coastlands wait
for his torah,’ (Is. 42:1ff.; Mt. 12:18ff.).” Holding on to a few acres of
rocky and jagged islands, Christians once persevered for a century,
laboring to see the faith spread. We here in this land have so much more. [posted to me from Steve Johnson]

Christian leaders call for harmony
Jill Rowbotham, Religious affairs writer
December 14, 2005

CHRISTIAN leaders combined yesterday to call on politicians to look at the underlying causes of the cycle of race riots and reprisals afflicting southern Sydney.

Cardinal George Pell, Anglican Archbishop of Sydney Peter Jensen and Lebanese Maronite Catholic Bishop Ad Abikaram deplored the violence and offered their help in attacking its root causes.

Bishop Abikaram, who represents Australia’s approximately 130,000 Maronite Christians, reaffirmed their loyalty to Australia and said they were “proud to put Australia first”.

“As Australian Christians of Lebanese background, we offer our unqualified support to the Government in its quest to preserve law and order in our society,” Bishop Abikaram said.

He said his community offered “a hand of friendship to Australian Muslims of Lebanese background, as well as to Australians of all backgrounds, when the need is apparent to work as one community to resolve problems, whatever their cause. We must do this for the sake of the future of Australia.”

“With my fellow Australians, I am appalled at the violence perpetrated. We support the Government and the police in their efforts to ensure that those responsible are brought to justice.”

He said it was necessary to address the root causes that led young people “to commit wanton acts of vandalism and violence”.

“I believe that it is critical to the resolution of this problem that we as a community foster in all young people a sense of self-esteem and belonging to Australia.”

Cardinal Pell threw the authority of the Catholic Church behind efforts to calm the situation.

“Local Catholic communities and authorities are prepared to co-operate in any useful way to foster harmony and eliminate violence,” Archbishop Pell said.

“The Cronulla riots and the Maroubra reprisals were a disgrace. All people of goodwill should reject the extremists in both camps and work together so that this is the end of major disturbances, not the beginning of something worse.”

Archbishop Jensen urged leaders to examine the causes of community tensions which he said had obviously been building for some time.

“We must look to the root causes of this social disharmony, seek authentic information about them, and deal with those matters,” he said.

“All citizens must pledge themselves to supporting appropriate measures from government and community leaders.”

Posted by Steve Lehrer in Dating, Steve Lehrer

I am not an egalitarian! I am a complementarian because I think Scripture clearly teaches that there are clear and distinct roles for men and women in different hierarchical relationships. But I disagree with John Piper and Wayne Grudem’s definitions of biblical manhood and womanhood in their book Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism. I think they unintentionally take the concepts of masculinity and femininity and run with them beyond the limits of Scripture. I think this muddies the waters for all of us who want to be faithful to Christ, whether male or female. (By the way, for those of you who are wondering when I am going to describe/explain what Mr. Right should look like, this is the path we need to take to get there. Once we can identify what biblical manhood and womanhood look like, we will know what Mr. and Mrs. Right look like).

Let’s begin with their definition of masculinity since this blog entry is first and foremost designed to help women figure out what Mr. Right looks like:

“At the heart of mature masculinity is a sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women in ways appropriate to a man’s differing relationships” (35).

In their explanation of their definition of masculinity they clarify the phrase “a sense of” in the following manner:

“A man can be properly masculine in those circumstance (circumstance in which he is not around women or unable to provide or protect those he is around) if he has the sense of benevolent responsibility to lead, provide for and protect women. This sense need not be actualized directly in order to qualify for mature masculinity. For example, his ‘sense’ of responsibility will affect how he talks about women and the way he relates to pornography and the kind of concern he shows for the marriages of the men around him” (36).

First, Piper and Grudem argue for a concept of biblical “masculinity” that transcends specific relationships. While I agree that whether I am single or married I am still a male, I don’t believe God has anything to say about what masculinity is outside of the commands He gives us that are specific to certain hierarchical relationships like marriage or church government. When God is silent about such things, we should also be silent.

Second, the whole argument is really in the context of “should.” They are saying that this is how you “ought” to be or what you ought to do because it is morally right. It is what God wants you to do. I am all for “shoulds” and “oughts” if there are clear commands in Scripture that support them. But when there isn’t any clear word in Scripture and someone is saying what you should our what you ought to do, the ugly word “legalism” comes to mind.

Third, they say that men should have a sense (Feeling? Way of thinking? Desire?) to provide, protect and lead women in general. Where does Scripture say this? Notice the examples that are given are all guided by what Scripture says for all people, not just men:

· “…how he talks about women…”
We all have an obligation to speak truthfully about everything and in a way that edifies those around us (Ephesians 4:25-29). If a man is saying that women are inferior to men or incompetent and he is saying degrading things about them to others, then he is sinning. He is guilty of rebellion against God, not “immature masculinity.” We would say the same thing about a woman doing this.

· “…and the way he relates to pornography…”
If he indulges in pornography he is guilty of sinning against God by giving into sexual lust (Matthew 5:27). It has nothing to do with masculinity and everything to do with following Jesus Christ. Once again, if a woman gives in to sexual lust by indulging in pornography we would say that it is sin, not a gender issue.

· “…and the kind of concern he shows for the marriages of the men around him.”
If he is not actively engaged in encouraging the married guys around him to be faithful and responsible husbands, then he is guilty of not loving and encouraging others as Christ loved him (John 13:34-35). A woman who does not encourage those men and women around her to persevere in loving their wives and husbands as Christ has commanded is disobeying the clear commands of God in Scripture.

I think Grudem and Piper have unwittingly smuggled in the psychological concept “masculinity” and it leads them in directions they clearly do not want to go. Neither one of them would ever want to tell people that they “should” do things that God has not required of them (legalism). Grudem and Piper certainly had no intention of making clear and serious sin issues like looking at pornography or being unloving to others into less serious “immature masculinity” issues. But I believe this is what they have done because of the way they have brought the psychological concept of masculinity into what should be a biblical argument.

In my next post on this subject we’ll examine Piper and Grudem’s “nine clarifying statements on mature masculine leadership.”

Steve Lehrer
[Find more from Mr. Lehrer at www.ids.org]

Thursday, December 15, 2005
Insights Gained Through My Own Journey: Phase I — A Trinitarian Encounter
As I reflect on my own spiritual journey, both personally and professionally, I begin to discern a number of legs or phases in my journey in which my faith, perspectives on ministry, and who I am as a person growing to fullness in Christ. So far my journey has three key phases related to my ministry journey and I sense I am on the cusp of entering into my fourth phase which is engaging me in a process such as this where I am giving voice to a different way to understand the ministry to which we as shepherds have been called.

Though all journeying involves formation, the first phase of my journey involves the beginnings of my being formed for ministry by encountering God’s Trinitarian character.

Though I was raised in a conservative Baptist setting I did not have a transforming encounter with Christ until I was at the end of trying to be a good Christian. It was at the point that I came to discover that there was nothing I could do to gain God’s favor that I first experienced Christ Jesus taking a hold of me, embracing me, accepting me and bringing me into relationship with himself. It was through this experience, and it was an experience that completely changed the direction of my life as I yielded my life to Christ’s lordship, that I embarked on an intentional journey alongside of Christ.

Up to this point my Christian experience would have been best described by my trying to keep up with Christ — every time I would fall on my face, in my looking up from the dust I would see Christ walking over the ridge of the next hill and I would need to try to run to catch up just to make my way with him — it was a tiring journey. Once Christ embraced me and I rested in that embrace, when I fell down and looked up, Christ was there extending his hand to me, helping me to stand up so that we could walk together. This image has become a key metaphor for not only my spiritual journey, but for understanding the pastoral role.

Over the next ten years my journey with Christ engaged me in a Trinitarian encounter with God. At the beginning of my intentional journeying with Christ my life was opened to experiencing God in the person of the Holy Spirit. As I began worshiping with a charismatic community meeting in an Anglican church in Canada, I began to be embraced by the manifest presence of the Spirit within this community and became radically aware of the present working of the Spirit continuing the ministry of Christ on earth. Through these days and my college days, I discovered the presence of God’s Spirit taking hold of me, forming me, shaping me, in order to be the person God has called me to be in the service of his mission on earth. It was during this time that I sensed God calling me to pastoral ministry.

In preparing for this calling I entered Fuller Theological Seminary in 1979 where in my first year I had a fresh encounter with Jesus Christ in a radically different way which reshaped the way I live out my life in the world. Up to this point I acknowledged and worship Jesus Christ as Lord in my life, but my devotion to him was not integral to guiding every aspect of my life. During my second or third quarter in seminary I was struggling with questions I did not have answers to. I was raised to believe that engaged Christians had a biblical response for every query, that our faith was carefully thought out to address the relevant issues. However as I encountered questions I did not have answers for my faith began to be shaken. It was at this time I encountered Jack Rodgers who provided a perspective that shifted my understanding of my faith as to where the foundation of my faith lay. He stated that as finite human beings there is always going to be someone smarter than us who will be able to shake us with a question which we are unable to answer or even have adequate categories for considering. Rather than the only response being to question our faith, we need to recognize that the faith system we have constructed is faulty and not where we are to place our trust. Rather the only place to put our trust is in the person of Jesus Christ. It is he who is the basis of our faith, not our faith systems. We are to put our trust in him, not in what we have been able to systematize through our belief. What I discovered in placing my faith, my trust in Christ alone for all of my life, was that I was able to begin asking and exploring questions I did not have the answers for. The reason this was liberating is because such questions caused me to dialogue more intensely with Christ the Lord and foundation of my life. I knew that in him all things hold together (Col. 1: 17) and so in him I have the freedom to explore those things that used to threaten my faith. This liberation enabled me to not be afraid to engage all of life and to explore all of life, not by myself, but in my relationship with Christ. In this Christological leg of my journey, Jesus was beginning to give me eyes to see life–its brokenness, as well as his activity of grace, hope and peace, through his eyes, his actions, as he embraced his Father’s mission for restoring all humanity and all creation–missio Dei.

My encounter with the fatherhood of God became a part of my experience when I was pastoring in a United Methodist Church in Indiana. As I struggled with the debate that was being carried on at that time concerning inclusive language, not only in terms of male and female, but also how we talk about God–whether as he, she, or ?–I picked up Thomas Smail’s short book entitled The Forgotten Father. As I read Smail’s insights I began to see how the Father’s love for humanity, for his creation prompted his mission here on earth. It became clear to me that Christ’s own ministry was not his own, but that of his Father’s as the gospel of John reveals so clearly when Jesus on numerous occasions expresses that he speaks what he hears his Father speaking and does what he sees his Father doing (cf. John 5:19-20, 7:16-17, 12:49-50, 14:24, etc). I came to realize that in our walking with Christ Jesus we are called to continue the ministry which he began in partnership with God the Father in bringing about his missional purpose, his telos. This opening of my eyes to the Fatherhood of God changed the way I viewed and engaged in ministry, for no longer was the ministry I was called to my ministry, but my obedience to partnering with Christ in serving the Father in accomplishing his purposes for the restoration of humanity and creation.

As I stated this first phase was the beginning of my encounter with the Trinitarian character of God, who has continued to take hold of me and shape me to be the person he is calling me to be as a member of Christ’s community so as to increasingly live out my life fully in the presence of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
[Rolad Kuhl is involved both in church and academic contexts in Illinois, you can access his website at www.centerforpastoralministry.blogspot.com

Many years ago, Rodman Williams commented in Renewal Theology exactly about what is happening now in the SBC was the state about 20 years ago. Back then, williams stated that the apostle Paul oculdnot be a southern baptist missionary. This is even more true today. God bless the Southern Baptists, they do a great work but this November decision by the IMB is from the inquisition. spoken by an admiring Methodist [God knows we have our own set of alligators to wrestle!]

personally think the SBC would have a cow if they knew how many of their members actually had the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and prayed in tongues. Christianity is quite interesting these days. There are people all over the world who have not been saved, and all some are worried about is if the minister or missionary prays in the spirit. I wonder if the Apostle Paul knows that the IMB & SBC took his teaching on prayer language out of his Epistles????

“The NEXT Ten Things the IMB will Require of Missionaries.”

10) IMB Missionaries must have never watched an episode of “Desperate Housewives.”
9) IMB missionaries must never had attended an interdenominational prayer breakfast, even if it was all Republicans.
IMB missionaries must never use public restrooms, but only restrooms in SBC churches.
7) IMB missionaries must never shop at a Christian bookstore other than Lifeway. (Any Lifeway selling a non-SBC book should be reported asap.)
6) Female IMB missionaries must have never worn a two-piece swimsuit. In fact, the whole matter of swimming is under review.
5) IMB missionaries must have been saved under the preaching of a Southern Baptist Preacher.
4) IMB missionaries cannot listen to CCM or P&W by non-Baptist artists. A list is available at the SBC web site.
3) IMB missionaries must exclusively use the “Holman Christian Standard Bible.”
2) IMB missionaries must make a pilgrimage to Nashville at least once during their lifetime.
1) IMB missionaries must use the special, “SBC” version of “Pupose Driven Life,” with all non-SBC quotes removed.

(T)he majority voted by a 50-15 margin to regard those practicing a prayer language or tongues as unqualified for missionary service with the IMB. [That is in the Southern Baptist church]

“I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” – St. Paul

The Apostle Paul – disqualified from missionary service!

Boar’s Head Tavern: somments on the recent IMB controversy and quotes the Apostle Paul who said “‘I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you.” before making the fantastic dissent demolishing point:

“If your policy ends up barring one of the Apostles, you really ought to stop and think it over…”

Adrian Warnock-British blogger gives us another thought

Are the SBC being hypocritical?

Parableman takes issue with my use of the word “Hypocrisy” to describe the IMBs decision to ban only new missionaries from speaking in tongues.

I used the word hypocrisy because-

Either tongues can be from God or it is dangerous folly

Clearly the SBC seem to take the second position here. Therefore it is in my view hypocritical to act inconsistently with that belief. If tongues is wrong, then it is wrong for ALL missionaries, and apparently even some senior missionaries would have to be asked to leave. It would clearly be too costly for the SBC IMB to act in a way totally consistent with their beliefs in purging existing missionaries in some kind of charismatics under the bed witch-hunt.

I can see the rational of either banning or allowing tongues or indeed the previous policy of allowing it in private provided you are willing to admit that the answer to question 1 is not 100% clear. As soon as we believe we have a clear answer to that question, we should either be encouraging people to speak in tongues as the Apostle Paul does or telling them not to as many cessationists do.