In our last blog post, we talked about the church living in a secular post-Christian society. We need to explore further the implications of what it means to be the church in such a secular post-Christian society.
In what is now regarded as a Christian Classic, H. Richard Niebuhr’s book Christ and Culture discusses the various stances that churches have in relation to the culture at large. One of the stances is The Christ of Culture in which churches “interpret culture through Christ, regarding those elements in it as most important which are most accordant with his work and person; on the other hand they understand Christ through culture, selecting from his teaching and action as well as from the Christian doctrine about him such points as seems to agree with what is best in civilization” (Christ and Culture, p. 83). In other words, this stance involves finding those elements of culture that are believed to fit with the Christian faith and then, in turn, operate with a Christian faith that is at home within society.
In some significant ways, though not every way, this Christ of Culture stance fits with a lot of Christianity within the United States. In particular, I’m thinking of the ways in which Christianity operated from the paradigms of modernism and Christendom. This includes the Churches of Christ that many readers of this blog likely have some affiliation with.
With that said, much of the Western world has undergone a paradigm shift in which the realities of modernism and Christendom have given way to postmodernism and a post-Christendom society. Add to this paradigm shift the realities of secularism, and we find ourselves living in the post-Christian society that I described in the previous post. The question we have to ask as we seek to plant churches and make disciples is how do we equip Christians to live with a Christ-formed faith (cf. Gal 4:19) in such a post-Christian society?
With such changes in society, we must learn how to live in a manner that is transformative rather than antagonistic. Becoming anxious or angry with people who embrace values and practices that are at odds with Christianity will only further the gulf between Christianity and society. Making enemies out of society will not do any good. There may be some people who see Christians as the enemy but we must love them anyway because Jesus teaches us to do so (cf. Matt 5:44). In fact, David E. Fitch wisely suggests that when we have such adverse reactions, we should instead “probe what it is about the enemy that creates such fear, jealousy, envy, or even disgust in our lives” (The Church of Us vs. Them, p. 34).
Of course, we don’t want to simply become accommodative towards society and so compromise our witness. So in making disciples, it will take intentional teaching and formation of faith to live, as I like to say, as faithful participants in the mission of God. That is, we must be intentional in learning how to embody the gospel in ways that do not make enemies. But is this possible? David Fitch rightly points out that there is a difference between “making enemies and revealing enemies” (The Church of Us vs. Them, p. 155).
Living as followers of Jesus will certainly put us at odds with the society we live in but like Jesus, we must see ourselves as servants among society. Christianity in society is about serving, with humility and love, so that society might once again see the truth, beauty, and goodness that springs from the good news of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God!
_________________________ K. Rex Butts, D.Min, serves as the lead minister/pastor with the Newark Church of Christ in Newark, DE, and is the author of Gospel Portraits: Reading Scripture as Participants in the Mission of God. Rex holds a Doctor of Ministry in Contextual Theology from Northern Seminary in Lisle, IL, and a Master of Divinity from Harding School of Theology in Memphis, TN. He is married to Laura and together they have three children.
Over the last year and a half, I have slowly read through a book written by Charles Taylor called A Secular Age. This book is regarded as Taylor’s magnum opus. What Taylor does is tell the story of how secularism gradually developed over the last four hundred years and how secularism works in the Western world today.
Secularism works through what Taylor calls a “social-imaginary,” which has to do with the way people “collectively imagine” their existence (A Secular Age, p. 146). This is different from what we think of as a worldview in that the social-imaginary is not a carefully constructed set of beliefs but more like assumed beliefs, some of which operate below the surface of awareness. In our society, the social-imaginary includes the loss of transcendence in the lives of people (A Secular Age, p 294). The loss of transcendence means that people can easily live life without any awareness of God at work in their lives.
Let’s briefly move on from Charles Taylor and consider another aspect of the macro culture in North America. In the year 2022, we are living in a post-truth society. According to Lee McIntyre, this post-truth reality means our society is one in which all kinds of people are trying to make us believe in ideas whether there’s good evidence or not (Post-Truth, p. 13).
In his book, McIntyre mentions the Tobacco Industry as an example. For years cigarette manufacturers colluded to fabricate research in support of the claim that smoking cigarettes were not hazardous to health. The Tobacco Industry engaged in this disinformation campaign even though they knew there was conclusive research showing that in all likelihood the tar in cigarettes caused cancer.
Over time, this spreading of disinformation and spinning of facts has helped create a culture where truth seems relative. Although we are now to the point where truth no longer matters as much as feelings (Post-Truth, p. 116). As a result, people may now add adjectives to the word truth and in doing so, seemingly claim whatever they choose to believe as truth whether it is true or not. For example, a part of our vernacular now includes phrases like “my truth” and “alternative facts” as a way of justifying a claim. Of course, what this accomplishes is making our own opinions, perceptions, etc… become a totalizing reality, even if it is self-deception.
This is why what we do as Christians, and not just what we say, matters more than ever. If we’re going to claim that the good news of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of God is true, which I hope we do, then our claim has to be seen in what we do and how we live. Hence, the title of this message series on Philippians, Living Christ.
I’ll come back to the matter of what we do as Christians but I want to bring Charles Taylor back into the mix for a moment. The secular age we live in means belief and unbelief are in contest with each other. Almost everyone has some doubts about what they profess in terms of religion and spiritual life. For the most part, believers profess faith but have questions that raise doubts about such faith. Likewise, unbelievers profess agnosticism (perhaps even soft atheism) but have questions that cast doubt on their unbelief.
Taylor mentions the aesthetic awareness of beauty, the awareness of a need for ethics and morality, and the awareness of the creative capacity that humans possess as reasons why there are questions that cast doubt on unbelief. The awareness of beauty, morality, and human capacity evokes a wonder that cannot be explained by a secular framework of unbelief (A Secular Age, p. 596). In other words, beauty, morality, and creativity raise questions that cannot be answered in a life in which there is no God. Furthermore, as Taylor explains “there must be some way in which this life looks good, whole, proper, really being lived as it should” (A SecularAge, p. 600). Therefore, even in our day where moral relativism flourishes, people know that there is a right and wrong way to live… a good and bad.
If Taylor is correct, as I believe, then the fact is that even in a secular society, there are many skeptics who still have questions. Such skeptics may have reasons for doubting belief but even with their pervasive secularism they also have questions about whether there is more to life than just what can be observed in a science lab. I contend that this opens space for the church. Knowing that people still have a sense of right and wrong and wonder where that comes from opens space for the church to point to the existence and redemptive work of God. This opening is based on the way we live life, particularly by practicing what Paul describes as true, honorable, just, pure, pleasing, and commendable (cf. Phil 4:8-9).
Although the church’s understanding of what is true, honorable, just, pure, pleasing, and commendable, is going to differ from the way other people understand, surely there are places where there is similar understanding. These are the spaces where God is out in front of the church, already working in the community. For example, believers and unbelievers alike agree that racism, poverty, and human trafficking are unjust realities. So when a local church works to address one or more of these matters, there is a portal for demonstrating what the kingdom of God is like. In doing so, this can become an opportunity to build relationships within the community and perhaps share the story of Jesus as an explanation for why the church would care enough to do something about racism, poverty, and human trafficking.
I’m sharing this with you because we are well beyond the days of leading with “The Bible says…” In fact, in a secular age where truth is now relative, our words matter not without actions that coherently express what we hope to proclaim with our words. At the end of the day, there isn’t any guaranteed outcome except the promise of hope that exists in the crucified, resurrected, and exalted Jesus Christ. Yet the way we bear witness to that hope is by our good works.
“In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.” – Jesus, Matthew 5:16 (NRSV)
_________________________ K. Rex Butts, D.Min, serves as the lead minister/pastor with the Newark Church of Christ in Newark, DE, and is the author of Gospel Portraits: Reading Scripture as Participants in the Mission of God. Rex holds a Doctor of Ministry in Contextual Theology from Northern Seminary in Lisle, IL, and a Master of Divinity from Harding School of Theology in Memphis, TN. He is married to Laura and together they have three children.
One of the more important stories told in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke is the story of Jesus’s transfiguration. In the story, Jesus takes Peter, James, and John up on a high mountain with him where they encounter Moses and Ellijah talking with Jesus. There are a lot of details in this story but the most important is the fact as a cloud descends upon them, the disciples hear a voice saying, “This is my Son, whom I dearly love. Listen to him!” (Mk 9:7, CEB).
God says that Jesus is his Son and that we should listen to him!
Listen to Jesus.
Of course, we understand that we must listen to Jesus. We can’t follow Jesus unless we’re listening to Jesus and we know that. But knowing doesn’t necessarily mean doing. Regardless of our ministry and church context, we need to remember that we must listen to Jesus because we live in a society saturated with many voices. From the news to social media down to the most mundane messages we encounter in the office, at our favorite coffeehouse, etc…, there are many voices vying for our attention.
An important question to raise is how do we listen to Jesus? After all, we don’t have the ability to have a one-to-one conversation or small group conversation with Jesus. In the absence of having Jesus directly speak to us, it’s also easy to tell ourselves we’re listening to Jesus when we actually listening to ourselves or some other voice and just telling ourselves that’s Jesus. So how do we listen to Jesus?
The most obvious way of listening to Jesus is by reading the Bible. Since all scripture testifies about Jesus (Jn 5:39), reading the Bible allows us to listen to Jesus. I also believe we can listen to Jesus when gathered with our church for times of worship, and fellowship. It will take a little more discernment but whether we are listening to a sermon, praying together, or just having a conversation, we just might hear the voice of Jesus speaking to us.
We can also indirectly listen to Jesus in the sort of people we give our attention to as conversation partners. Whether these conversation partners are found in the books we read, the podcasts we listen to, or else, it’s possible to hear the voice of Jesus speaking to us.
We may be even more able to hear the voice of Jesus speak through others if we’re willing to diversify who we read and/or listen to. For example, I love to read and I have a lot of books on my shelf. However, a few years back I had someone ask me how many books were written by people of the majority world or women. As I thought about this I realized that almost every book on my shelf was written by a White man of European descent. Now that’s somewhat to be expected since the majority of the theology of the last several centuries has flowed from Europe to the United States. Nevertheless, since then I have tried making a more conscious effort to read books written by minorities and women.
Listening to Jesus always requires discernment and that happens best with a few others we trust to tell us what we need to hear rather than what we want to hear. Discernment with others helps us avoid the trap of self-deception which is more likely to happen when we are not considerate of what others might say.
So I’ve reminded us that we must listen to Jesus and have shared some ways we can do so. Are there other ways of listening to Jesus? If so, please share in a comment.
____________________
K. Rex Butts, D.Min, serves as the lead minister/pastor with the Newark Church of Christ in Newark, DE, and is the author of Gospel Portraits: Reading Scripture as Participants in the Mission of God. Rex holds a Doctor of Ministry in Contextual Theology from Northern Seminary in Lisle, IL, and a Master of Divinity from Harding School of Theology in Memphis, TN. He is married to Laura and together they have three children.
We live on the frontier of the mission field – actually the far edge of it. Our family lives in the inner city of Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, among a large Indigenous population. In 2011 my wife and I and our three children prayerfully moved into North Central Regina, and we have been living here ever since, living our lives for Jesus among the people. In this article, I would like to share several aspects of planting a church in this context that invites us to reflect on both the challenges and opportunities before us, as Christians in a rapidly changing world.
Post-Christendom. Recently we were having a Bible study with some younger adolescents. A girl who is about 12 years old, and whom I thought had a church background, asked if it hurt when Jesus was crucified. Imagine what the statement that “Jesus died on the cross for our sins” would mean to her. Little to nothing, given her question! The statement not only assumes a theological understanding of sin but also historical knowledge of crucifixion as an extremely painful form of execution.
Post-Christendom can be described as the decline in the influence of Christian institutions in society – to the point where things such as the church and the Bible are neither central nor well-known. In Regina, there is a neighbourhood called Cathedral, which is named after the large churches (Roman Catholic and United Church of Canada) that are in the area, as well as several smaller ones. The Cathedral area is over 100 years old. But contrast that with two of the newest communities in Regina – Harbour Landing and Grasslands – developed in the 2010s. These neighbourhoods have no property set aside by the City of Regina for church buildings or cathedrals. A lot has changed in the last 100 years, and that includes the removal of the church as a tall, central figure in our communities, to disappearing off the map. So, what are the challenges and opportunities of the Christian mission on the margins?
The challenge on this front is clear. Biblical knowledge is little to none. Gone are the days when the youth went to Sunday school while their parents stayed home, as that was one to two generations ago. Gone also are a Christian moral framework and worldview. So our task is to help people learn the contents of the Bible, and especially the large story of God and his mission in this world. The opportunity here is equally exciting though. We help people learn to read the Bible in a new way by emphasizing the character of God, his mission to love and redeem the world, and the invitation to participate with him in this grand adventure. What a glorious calling! In this missional way of reading the Bible, we are carefully observing God as he worked in the past, and listening deeply for how he desires to work in our lives now, all in eager anticipation for what he will do in the future to complete the story!
Residential School Impact and (Post-)Colonialism. In Canada, Indigenous peoples were for several generations forced to attend Residential Schools, run by various Christian denominations on behalf of the federal government. Among these schools, they were taught the English language and Christian teachings, but many also experienced physical torture, emotional trauma, and sexual abuse. So as one Christian Reformed Church leader described it, “They were offered a cup of cold water in the name of Christ, and it turned out to be battery acid.” So it is understandable that they would give us a long, cold look whenever we offer them anything of a Christian nature today. In fact, after the discovery of unmarked graves at a number of Indian residential schools in 2021, several church buildings on and off reserves throughout the country were burnt to the ground. The backlash against Christendom was swift and strong. Today the hostility to Christianity is palpable in many Indigenous communities and I sympathize with much of that anger.
Indian Residential Schools were a tragic marriage of Christianity with colonialism – European countries bent on empire. Unfortunately, the children of this marriage were not Hope and Dignity, but Despair and Poverty. Today many indigenous peoples, and other Canadians, want nothing to do with the church. If that is what the church is like, who needs it?
So, what challenges and opportunities do this legacy of Christianity married to colonialism bring? The big challenge here is to carry out the gospel mission in a context where many people are jaded and hostile toward Christians. This was a serious concern I had about 12 years ago when I was considering God’s call on my life to plant a church in the inner city of Regina. Would Indigenous people have anything to do with us? Would they even consider the Christian message? Would they even contemplate a friendship with us? We took comfort from one Indigenous woman’s wisdom. She told us that while ethnicity is certainly a factor early on in a relationship, people sense whether you have genuine love in your heart or not and once they get to know you this is what carries the day. We have found that often to be true and so, while we will never be insiders to the culture, we have several relationships of mutual love and respect.
The opportunity that this presents is very significant. Serving as a missionary from a position of weakness is very different from a position of power. As my Christian Reformed friend said, he was highly esteemed in Africa decades ago, as a white male Christian missionary. Now in the inner city of Regina, it is the exact opposite. Each of these words carries, in many people’s minds, a corrupting and coercive sense of privilege and power – white, male, Christian, missionary. So how do we proceed? This challenge is also an opportunity because it forces us to be creative. It requires that we dig deeper into the Christian story and reconsider how we tell it. No longer can we just construct a church building and sit back and wait for people to flock to it. Serving as a missionary requires that we go to the people, that we incarnate the gospel through our lives and actions, that we embody the message of sacrificial love and service to the world in real and tangible ways. The old question is relevant here: If our church disappeared tomorrow, would the community notice? Would they miss us? Would there be a serious hole? Our response to this opportunity lies in humility, self-sacrifice, and genuine love.
Technology. While there are other things we have learned, I am choosing to focus on technology here because we work with a lot of youth. Let’s be honest. Technology has changed our lives, especially for young people. It has impacted how we shop (Amazon), relate (social media), bank, read (Kindle), access news (youth source their news from TikTok), listen to music (Youtube, Spotify), and go to school (Zoom). To lose one’s phone, or go somewhere with no internet access, is the kiss of death for many people.
This immersion in technology has created several challenges. Most importantly, the advent of the smartphone with a reversible camera has had a dramatic impact on the mental health of adolescents (and adults as well). This development, in combination with social media, has created a context where people are able to get instant feedback on their public portrayals of themselves. Never before was this possible So a girl may be disheartened because her selfie did not get as many likes as her friends or boys may compare who has the most followers. Photos and videos are heavily curated, and some parents even hire professional photographers for their teens so they can publish the best possible pictures of themselves online.
The problem here is that people are invited to form their identity based on their online activity. So they are elated when a photo is popular, and then depressed when a Tiktok they have created tanks. Their online activity becomes an extension of, and sometimes even the very heart of, who they are. In some cases people take on an alter ego, an alternate personality, assuming a different gender or ethnicity in an online game or social profile. The question becomes, what is their real identity? Who are they really? And what do they base their value on?
The opportunity in this is to help people form their identity in Christ. This is not a trite statement. In fact, the Bible holds up Jesus Christ as the ultimate reality. In a world of disparate versions of reality – virtual (VR), augmented (AR), and mixed (XR) – we as followers of Jesus are invited into the kingdom of God, where Jesus is the ultimate reality (UR)! This requires that we live into this reality deeply ourselves and that we teach it, model it, and advocate for it with all our hearts. It calls for us to embrace the teachings of Jesus as words of life, as words that have both a descriptive quality about this ultimate reality (the upside-down kingdom of God) and an imperatival call to adoration and obedience. To quote Simon Peter: “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life” (John 6:68).
To sum matters up, church planting is an exciting adventure that is filled with many rewards and much adversity. The dynamic nature of Canadian culture, and its various subcultures, presents many challenges and opportunities for the Christian mission. With each challenge comes a requisite opportunity. As God’s people, living missionally requires us not to fall into the pit of despair over the rapidly changing landscape all around us. Our task calls us to be creative, listen deeply to our friends and neighbours, pray fervently, humble ourselves, serve sacrificially, and most crucially, listen carefully for the Spirit to lead us in His mission. And so in our corner of the world, we attest to the fact that there is hope at the margins of society!
_________________________
Kevin Vance is a minister and church planter in the inner city of Regina, Saskatchewan. He works among youth in Regina and throughout the province to help them find hope and healing in Jesus Christ. He has a special passion for Indigenous youth and the reserves. He and his wife Lisa have been married since 1989 and have three grown children. Together they planted Gentle Road Church of Christ in North Central Regina in 2011, and dream about planting other churches in the toughest communities in Canada.
Most of the books on my bookshelf are written by White American men. Not all, but most. Although most of the books on my shelf have benefited me as a conversation partner when it comes to the intersection of theology, mission, and culture, I am aware of the need for more diversity when it comes to the books I read. So over the last several years, I have started reading more books written by people of color, women, and to some extent, people who live outside of the United States.
I suspect most of us have the same issue. In fact, if we throw in podcasts, YouTube videos, and other forms of learning, the majority of the voices we give our attention to are White American men. There are many reasons for that, some of which are beyond our control, but point this out to say that we need to be more intentional in giving attention to more voices than just those of White American men.
For us serving in ministry in the United States, one of the voices we should give more attention to are those of our Canadian neighbors to the north. Whether we serve as church planters, pastors within an established church, or another sphere of Christian leadership, we can and should learn from Christian leaders living in Canada. My friends from Canada tell me that, in general, their nation as a society is about twenty years ahead of the United States in terms of where our western society as a whole is headed. So listening to some perspectives from our Canadian neighbors just might help those of us serving in America better anticipate the future that is coming.
Jeremy Hoover, a church planter in Sarnia, Ontario, and Jonathan Massimi, an Anglican pastor, have already contributed articles to this blog but there are other Canadian voices to hear. So beginning next week and the two weeks that follow, this blog is going to feature three different Canadian people serving in different capacities of Christian leadership. First, will be Stanley Helton, who serves as the president of Alberta Bible College. Besides years of ministry experience in both the United States and Canada, Stanley also writes to us from the perspective of a Christian educator. Next up will be Kevin Vance, a church planter in Regina, Saskatchewan. Kevin will share with us the challenges faced in church planting in a post-Christendom context where technology is ever-changing and some people within that society have suffered injustices. Lastly, will be Shu-Ling Lee, who writes to us a 2nd generation Canadian-born Chinese pastor serving with a church in the suburbs of Toronto, addresses the challenges presented by suburban ministry, pragmatism, and the need for diverse voices.
As always, if you believe that Mission Alive might be able to help you as you serve on mission with God in North America or would like to help support Mission Alive, we’d love to hear from you. In the meantime, I hope you will enjoy this series of blog posts and share them with others.
Grace and Peace, Rex.
_________________________
K. Rex Butts, D.Min, serves as the lead minister/pastor with the Newark Church of Christ in Newark, DE. He holds a Doctor of Ministry in Contextual Theology from Northern Seminary in Lisle, IL, and a Master of Divinity from Harding School of Theology in Memphis, TN. He is married to Laura and together they have three children.
While the Imago Dei is not a prominent biblical theme, it shows up right at the beginning of scripture in Genesis 1-2 and so, understandably, becomes vital in Christian history to how we understand God and ourselves. Stanley J. Grenz explains how there have been two primary ways of understanding the Imago Dei in the west, structural and relational, with the former taking the increasingly prominent view in western Christian history (The Social God and the Relational Self, p. 142). The structural view also tends to identify certain attributes or capabilities, particularly “reason” or “will” as what make humans in the image of God.
Although it makes sense that the church fathers would primarily focus on the qualities of “reason” and “will” given the influence of Greek philosophy in their day, this conception of what it means for humans to be in the image of God is not what we have in view in Genesis 1:26-27. In the ancient Near East, “an image was believed to contain the essence of that which it represented” (Walton, Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible, p. 8). Generally, it was either the king or an idol who was supposed to have the image of God. However, in Genesis 1:26-27 we have people in general, both male and female, bearing the image of God, which would have been radically egalitarian in that day.
In the first creation account, we have a man as the pinnacle of God’s work (Gen. 1:27). Each of these aspects of our biblical origin story shows a communal, bodily, and even environmental understanding of the relationship between humans and the Creator. We start with humans reflecting the divine image, an image depicted in the plural that reflects not just the relationships that take place within God’s Triune self, but the relationships between God and other spiritual beings.
In Genesis 1:26 we see God creating in community, probably in the author’s mind including what might be called the divine council, heavenly host, or even other Elohim (cf. Ps 82:1, LEB). While the author might not have had the Trinity in mind when saying “us,” including the Trinity in our exegesis of the passage would not conflict with the meaning of the text even though it might be anachronistic. The point that God identifies himself in the community is made either way by the “us” passages in Genesis. The author of Genesis saw fit to represent God’s identity in the plural in various places (Genesis 1:26, 3:24, 11:7, 18:20-21 cf. 19:13), which seems to indicate that God’s identity is to be portrayed as not alone but in relationship to others. Possibly the poetic parallelism of “them” in vs. 27 is also meant to reflect “us” of 1:26 in referring to the divine community. In this way, the human plurality would also mean a reflection of both divine plurality and unity. In other words, God’s identity is social and relational, and no individual by him or herself represents the image of God.
While the first creation story has already established humanity as the pinnacle of creation, in the second creation account man is made first after “the heavens and the earth.” Not even the plants have come up before man is created. The first task man is given is to work and take care of the earth (2:15). The adam (earthling) is formed from the adamah (ground), showing his intimate connection with the land and environment. The isha (woman) is formed from the ish (man) to show her intimate and harmonious connection to the man (Note: ish and isha are in other places in the Old Testament is translated as husband and wife).
Everything is depicted as being in a harmonious relationship, with emphasis on humans and animals, humans and the earth, and male and female. However, in Genesis 3, the result of their disobedience is to disrupt these harmonious relationships. It would be a misreading to see the results of the fall and the “curses” as the way things were meant to be or even should be today. Instead, the curses are distortions of what God intended for humankind.
God helps man learn through interaction with his environment, giving him tasks to do like caring for the earth, and the fieldwork of naming the animals. What is conspicuously missing from the account of Adam and Eve is that God directly teaches man anything. On the contrary, in allowing Adam to name the animals, God—knowing that Adam needed a female counterpart—allowed Adam to learn through experiment. As the first human, he would know very little at this point, being like an infant. He may not even have known that he is actually different than the rest of the animals, or that he is not simply an animal himself.
God could have easily told Adam that he was different or needed a female counterpart. However, God let Adam learn through a “failed” experiment so he would know in his gut that he would need a partner different than what any other animal would be able to offer. So God is not operating not from a “bobble-head” premise, in which people primarily learn through head-knowledge, but from James K.A. Smith’s premise that “We are what we love, and our love is shaped, primed, and aimed by liturgical practices that take hold of our gut and aim our heart to certain ends” (Desiring the Kingdom, p. 40). God treats Adam not primarily as a cognitive creature, but as an embodied learner, a “liturgical animal”, so to speak, who learns through a process of experimental habit and practice over time to be “a certain kind of person” (Desiring the Kingdom, pp. 24-25). This is how God gains ground in His relationship with Adam and helps Adam learn.
The way God interacts with Adam and helps him learn is through bodily experiments. In the same way, ministers should not shy away from uncharted territory where people try different things until they find out what works for them or their ministry in life. Such tests and experiments should be encouraged even if they may lead to “failure.” Allowing such “failure” means entrusting people and helping them along in the process, even if the process does not necessarily “succeed” in the way we might measure success. God allowed Adam to know what the way forward was because God allowed Adam, who bears the image of God, to walk through the process in an embodied way. This would have built trust between Adam and God because God was not simply dictating to Adam what he should or should not do but allowed him to go through his own process of embodied discovery.
_________________________
Jonathan Lichtenwalterhas written and edited for the website evidenceforchristianity.org, articles forrenew.org and his website jonwalt.com, He has studied under John Oakes, Ph.D. (creator of the website evidenceforchristianity.org), and is currently getting a Master’s in Missional leadership from Rochester University. He is passionate about missional theology, apologetics, and biblical studies. He loves to use his writing and studies to build up the faith of others, to help disciples grow deeper in their understanding of scripture, and to share the truth of the gospel with others.
Unless you have just emerged from a long hibernation, you know that we are living in some interesting times. Much of the world has faced a difficult challenge with the Covid-19 pandemic and all the repercussions that have followed. At the same time, there is a lot of reckoning taking place as evangelical Christianity faces scrutiny in regards to some highly publicized church scandals, Trump politics, and a past that includes racism, misogynism, and other problems that undermine their witness to the gospel.
In response to this reckoning, there is a growing number of evangelicals saying that enough is enough. Some of them are shedding their conservative understanding of the Christian faith for a progressive expression, while others are renouncing their Christian faith altogether. This is a process called deconstruction, which I am sympathetic toward but also concerned with pastorally. Is it possible to deconstruct an evangelical Christian faith and eventually discover a reconstructed faith that is neither conservative nor liberal but still within the historical stream of orthodox Christian faith?
I believe so and so does pastor Brian Zahnd. This is the reason for his latest book When Everything’s on Fire: Faith Forged from the Ashes, which was published in late 2021 by InterVarsity Press. The book is currently available in both Kindle and hardback format, with the latter for a cost of $15.44. Brian Zahnd, for those who do not already know, is both a pastor and author. He has served in ministry for over thirty years, serving as the Lead Pastor for Word of Life Church in St. Joseph, Missouri.
The book is 183 pages and is divided into two sections with a prelude, followed by eleven chapters, and then a conclusion. Although Zahnd is quite capable of intellectual engagement with various theologians and philosophers, the book is very easy to read. Drawing on thoughts from people such as Frederick Nietzsche, Fyodor Dostoevsky, John Chrysostom, and Paul Ricoeur, Zahnd engages scripture and Christian tradition. Writing as both a pastor and theologian, Zahnd describes what he believes is the essence of the Christian faith while disentangling that from the empiricism of modernity that evangelical Christianity has been embedded within.
Understanding the way modernity shaped evangelicalism is important because that has impacted the way the Bible is read and regarded as the foundation of faith. Zahnd rightfully critiques this by returning to scripture to show that Jesus, and not the Bible, is the foundation of the Christian faith. “Christianity,” says Zahnd, “is not a series of proofs; it is the confession based on the revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord” (p. 91). The foundation of the Christian faith is God’s self-revelation in Jesus Christ which is known to us first through the witness of the church (tradition) who passes along a collection of canonical writings we know as The Bible. So we begin with Jesus rather than the Bible, or as Zahnd says, “First Jesus, then church, and finally the Bible” (p. 97).
Of course, both Jesus and the Bible are indispensable to the formation of our Christian faith, which is why Zahnd believes that mysticism and a mystical reading of scripture are necessary. For those unfamiliar, this might sound suspicious but mysticism is about seeking God. Thus Zahnd says, “We too can be mystics who encounter God, follow God, wrestle with God, speak to and for God, compose prayers, open new doors, heart the divine heartbeat, proclaim the gospel, and, most importantly, give flesh to the Word of God in our own lives” (p. 130). Then in reading the Bible as a mystic, we are seeking a “second naiveté” (a term coined by Paul Ricoeur) that allows the Bible to be heard in new ways as we enter the narrative of scripture.
I enjoyed reading this book and believe it has much to offer Christianity in North America. And this is especially so in helping us move beyond the challenges of deconstruction. As one who deconstructed from a conservative-fundamentalist faith, a process that was initiated through the existential crisis that followed the death of my oldest son, I identify with the concerns of this book. Like Zahnd, I see problems with the conservative-evangelical understanding of Christian faith but I also see problems with the opposite, the reactionary progressive understanding of Christian faith. So I appreciate Zahnd wisely saying,
When people from a conservative tradition begin to question some tenants [sic] of theological conservatism, they often find a way forward through a more progressive theology. But it should not be assumed that a progressive move is in every case the way forward. It’s important to understand that progressive fundamentalism is just as false and destructive as conservative fundamentalism. We seek to discover God as revealed in Christ, not in an ism, be it conservative or progressive. (p. 56).
He’s right. In discovering God, we follow Jesus Christ regardless of whether doing so appears to be conservative or progressive in the eyes of others.
One slight nuance I would make has to do with the way Zahnd describes his view of scripture. He says,
I don’t have a low view of scripture; I have a high view of Christ. I hold the Scriptures as authoritative in informing and shaping the Christian faith. …I faithfully affirm the Bible as authoritative in the Christian faith, but the Bible is now where we begin—the Bible is not self-authenticating. (p. 96).
I agree with Zahnd. He does hold a high view of scripture and this should be easily apparent to anyone who listens to his sermons or reads his books. Also, with Zahnd, I believe that the Bible is authoritative in informing and shaping our faith as Christians. That’s the reason we have scripture (2 Tim 3:16-17) but I believe we should retain the phrase “inspired by God” in our description of the Bible. I believe that Zahnd regards scripture as inspired by God but I’m mentioning this because I wish he would have explicitly said so.
Like Zahnd, I understand that scripture is given to us by the church, who decided which writings should be included in our canon of scripture that we call the Bible. But I also believe that God was providentially at work guiding the authors of scripture to say what was necessary for the formation of our faith as well as providentially at work in the canonization process (and I’m sure Zahnd believes this too). This is what makes scripture inspired by God and that’s important because when we read the Bible, we are reading God’s word to us. Hence, the response of the assembly after the reading of scripture, “The word of the Lord.”
Needless to say though, if you’re looking for an enjoyable and invigorating read, go by this book. If you’re asking yourself how do Christians move beyond deconstruction, add Zahnd’s book to your library and consider what he has to say as you read.
_____________________
K. Rex Butts, D.Min, serves as the lead minister/pastor with the Newark Church of Christ in Newark, DE. He holds a Doctor of Ministry in Contextual Theology from Northern Seminary in Lisle, IL, and a Master of Divinity from Harding School of Theology in Memphis, TN. He is married to Laura and together they have three children.
