I have really wanted to post lately, but the GRE is consuming me; it is less than 2 weeks away.  So, for brevity’s sake i thought I would post a video that a couple of my middle school students showed me recently.  I think it captures the joys & challenges of shepherding middle school students nicely:

Being situated as i am in a mostly conservative evangelical setting, i have noticed an infatuation with the idea of understanding one’s “identity” as a means of spiritual formation.  In case some are not aware of it, here is a brief layout of the concept:

1. A relationship with Christ makes one a new creation (eg one is “given a new identity”).
2. Based largely upon Romans 12:1-2, much (all?) of one’s struggles in spiritual formation can be reduced to negative understandings of one’s self, a misunderstanding of their new identity.
3. When one grasps their new identity, they are spiritually liberated/mature/in step with the Spirit, etc etc.

Although there are different nuances to this, that is pretty much it.  As (1) makes clear above, it is one’s connection to Christ that is the root of this new identity.  However, i see that often (1) is simply the instrument, the tool to get to the important stuff, which is who I am now.  In many ways, the discipleship process can be reduced to an almost anthropological journey of self-discovery.  It seems that one can fall into a sort of spiritual narcissism in their quest to unlock the awesomeness of their identities, ironically undercutting the fundamental needs for self-denial & an outward focus in the life of discipleship. 

To be fair, bright-minded women & men could respond that an outward focus & submissive life-style are also part of the identities which they must grasp.  Fair enough.  My question is if such a genuine grasping of these dimensions of discipleship is possible when there is a functional, instrumental Christology at work (an issue I recently wrote about here).  Did Jesus come only/primarily to give me a new identity?  Can the scope of the incarnation be reduced to this function, this need of mine?   I am doubtful; something seems fishy to me.  If the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection were only a tool to provide us with a new identity, how else can we understand these acts of God as anything more than just that, a tool for us?  If the Gospel is primarily about me & my need, how can i move beyond myself to genuine renunciation?   

Enough for now; bed time.  I hope to think more on this soon, but anyone have thoughts?  Am I just out to lunch here?

As is mentioned on occasion here @ ATP, i am not only an aspiring scholar, but also a youth pastor (middle school).  Occasionally as i surf the internets & theological blogs the topic of youth ministry/pastor comes up.  When it does, it is always derisive in nature.  For example, here is the most recent offering i have encountered, via Ben’s twitter.

Now, if you took the time to watch that video, don’t worry, I am not defending it.  Probably not the best idea in the world.  Few sensible, theologically minded people would disagree with this being a poor idea.  That isn’t my issue.  Nor am I unhappy with Ben Myers; he was just the most recent example i have encountered.

My problem is that discourse on theological blogs about youth ministry/pastors are limited to shooting these fish in their barrels.  Anyone can expose these tacky approaches for what they are, but can anyone actually do some constructive thought here?  If anyone else works with youth, then I am sure you’ll agree with me that in America at least, these people need both loving & theologically competent shepherds.  To sound like an immature youth pastor, their lives often suck, more so than adults often.  I hope that in the future i encounter bloggers who care about more than mocking other’s approaches, and actually helping youth leaders think theologically.  Of course, to do that one might have to go beyond making fun of youth ministries & their leaders, and instead get to know them & do some actual theological work. 

End of Rant.

Long, Stephen D.  Theology and Culture: A Guide to the Discussion (Cascade Companions).  Eugene: Cascade, 2008.  124 pgs

In this short work Stephen Long provides a helpful introduction to the important issue of theology and culture.  In keeping with the spirit of brevity of Long’s work, only a couple salient points will be touched on.

One of Long’s central concerns in this work is language.  In particular, Long addresses the pitfalls surrounding metaphors in general and in particular the metaphor of “culture.”  He wants to help the reader see the problems language causes, particularly as it relates to talk about God, since all language is culturally embedded.  How can one escape the prison of the “linguistic turn?”

Rather than provide firm answers to this and other related concerns (although at times his preference for a Christological explanation is evident), instead Long provides a survey of how people have tried to deal with the dilemmas inherent in understanding theology and culture.  Long’s survey is a model of ”concise breadth,” dealing with thinkers like Troeltsch, Niebuhr, Tillich, Milbank, Balthasar, Tanner, and McClendon, as well as movements and events like Radical Orthodoxy, Vatican II, Communio Catholicism, Reformed thought, liberal protestantism and more, all within less than 60 pages!  The explanations are accessible for the novice and thorough enough to see the issues they raise.

This is a fantastic guide to the complex issues surrounding this topic for the beginner.  Further, Long is a clear, concise writer who strikes a nice balance between charity and ascerbic wit, making it a pleasant read.  I highly recommend it for those who want to look into the issue, or need a refresher.

Not much posting lately.  The GRE is staring me down right now, & i am reading a great book on Bonhoeffer’s concept of “accepting guilt.”  I have really enjoyed it, & hopefully when i finish i can reflect on it a bit.  Here is something to tide you over until i can write something of substance:

Two things you must do immediately:

1.)  Click this image & read everything that pops up as a result:

2.)  Click this, buy it, & let your ears take in great music:

I can think of few things that would be a better use of one’s time this weekend.

Recently i briefly explored a common pitfall i see in much theological work (especially in evangelicalism): using the doctrine of the incarnation as epistemological window-dressing. 

As i have thought more about this, it seems fitting to me to describe this trend as “instrumentalizing the incarnation.”  Basically, the incarnation is one’s tool of choice to justify a larger (or more foundational) theological commitment in a theologian’s work.  The key word often associated with this tendency is “embodiment.”  Simply stated, in this view the incarnation serves as more of a moral imperative to value the physical world.

It is likely evangelical theology has to some degree realized the lack of a robust theology undergirding their conceptions.  Since incarnational/trinitarian discourse is in vogue at the moment, it seems expedient to show how the incarnation provides a rationale for one’s real agenda to be furthered, & since all hobby horses can be construed as connected to the physical realm somehow, the way is paved for the incarnation to be used to justify the “embodiment” of the theologian’s real agenda.

This may not be done with malicious intent.  In fact, i would guess that such efforts are meant to recover a robust Christology, but if the incarnation is merely instrumentalized, then Christ’s humanity merely provides a moral impetus to value anything “embodied.”  But this actually cheapens the incarnation by ripping the moral imperative from the substitutionary nature of the incarnation.  Thus, despite good intentions, the incarnation is merely ethical; it is not a belief with ontological implications for one’s doctrine of God or theological anthropology.  We often, to use a former professor’s language, enjoy the “embrace” of the incarnation, but resist being “displaced.”  One must value physical realities while simultaneously displacing the central role our deeper agendas play in understanding these realities.  Christ, in his incarnation, does both.

To reduce the incarnation to the ethical imperative of valuing physicality is to do violence to the humanity of Jesus, who is still alive.  He is not merely a doctrinal corpse who we can perform an autopsy on in search of  justification for our agendas, no matter how noble.  In his humanity he does more than merely affirm true embodiment; he also judges all false understandings and the “alien principles” the misunderstandings are born out of.  This substitutionary dimension moves us beyond mere instrumentalizing  into the ontological depths of being, a necessity for a robust Christology.

Time for an informal poll: As a theology student, what literature should i be reading?  I am looking to garner resources, so please assume i know nothing (you might be right).  So if you have suggestions, please comment & include:

• name of book/author 
• brief explanation of why they matter/why i should read them

A proleptic thanks to all!

Today I started reading Norman Klassen & Jens Zimmerman’s The Passionate Intellect: Incarnational Humanism and the Future of University Education.  So far, the essence of their argument is that the university is in crisis because it has lost its formative dimensions, succumbing to the pragmatic drive in the West to provide for “pre-employment” training.  This is due to the loss of a genuine humanism stemming from the influence of what they call “Enlightenment dualism.”  An “incarnational humanism,” which they will flesh out near the end of the book, is the key to revitalizing the university & will provide resources for the student to flouish therein.

While I have enjoyed the book so far, i do have one major initial concern.  A couple quotes to set the stage:

university education is primarily a call to self-knowledge.

Yet we will have to undertake this tightrope walk-and argue that the student must similarly brave doing so-if we want to recover humanism as the guiding light for the university and for the character formation of future citizens and civic leaders.

I fear that for Klassen & Zimmerman humanism is more important than the incarnation.  I worry that the incarnation is merely serving as epistemological window-dressing, a mere justification, for their greater desire for a recovery of an authentic humanism.   Whether or not a genuine humanism is only possible within a Christian “worldview” is irrelevant, since methodologically the Incarnation cannot become instrumental to a greater principal, even one as noble as “Christian humanism.”  Karl Barth’s warning against the word “and” comes to mind in the opening pages of Klassen & Zimmerman’s book.

Despite these concerns, I am hopeful Klassen & Zimmerman are going in a different direction than these quotes might indicate, since there is so much of value already.

To John Zizioulas month, you ask? A few things:

1. The two staff members of my church who provide oversight to the ministry Jesus has me serve in are moving on.  One in January, & one (who was my immediate, day-to-day person) the 1st of September.  Neither was completely unexpected, but the extra amount of work & stress was.
2. I set the date for my GRE (November 17th).  After a practice test, i was encouraged by my results, but still have a long way to go.  With a clear “judgment day” in view i find myself wanting to focus more time there.
3. Recently, I have been meeting with a former professor.  We read a work together, then meet & discuss over lunch.  It has been infinitely helpful, & learning with someone has been a great encouragement. 
4. Related to this, since he is willing to do this consistently with me, I am hopeful that this will help me start to think through future areas of long-term interest.  I am becoming increasingly sympathetic to T.F. Torrance, & this is my professor’s specialty.  In fact, much of his research & writing seeks to further explore the implications of Torrance’s doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Christ.  So it seems likely that in meeting with him I can further delve into T.F.T’s thought, & in doing so hopefully preparing for the future well.
5. I am lazy.

So, for now, the event is off.  The content of future posts will probably be related to #3-4 for the foreseeable future.