Everyone of us is called to be missional because God is missional. God is a sending God, and He is a sent God. And because God has united Himself with the Church, we are called to be missional. But the word can have many meanings to many people. Ross Hastings differentiated the words mission and missions. "Mission" is used to describe the sending God, it focuses on the "sentness" of the church, of God, and the people of God. "Missions" is reserved for witnessing to the unreached people. Most of what has been happening in North America, according to Ross, is not mission, may be some missions, but mostly cross-cultural partnerships where we can share our resources in third world countries.
A missional church is one that covers all three notions: mission, missions, and cross-cultural partnerships. It recognizes that our God is a God for humanity, loves humanity, a sent God who also sent His Son and His Spirit to us, and He is sending the church into the world. Thus it is both incarnational and pneumatic .. fully aware that God cares for the creation, people's vocation and location, and engages with the people, and fully sensitive to the leading of the Holy Spirit.
A missional church thus takes the great commission seriously. It also takes the great commandment seriously. And it takes the great creation and cultural mandate seriously. The last one comes from Genesis 2 .. that God regards all of His creation is good, indeed very good. And so we should too! But what does it mean to be a missional church in the 21st century? How can our churches take creation seriously? How can we begin to care for people as a whole being rather than just their soul?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Monday, April 6, 2009
Hans Urs von Balthasar
After mulling over chapter 6 from Balthasar's book Love Alone is Credible for almost two days, I think I finally have a faint idea of what Balthasar is getting at. From a casual reading of the chapter, it seems like any chapter extolling the love of Christ and His obedience to the Father for dying on the cross. But once I dug deeper into Bathasar's lifetime work on aesthetic theology (or theological aesthetic), I begin to see that he is trying to establish a theology in light of the beauty of God. It is not a theology of aesthetic where one tries to understand the nature of God in beauty. Instead, Bathasar's work is thoroughly theological and his goal is to integrate the beauty in our apologetics and understanding of God so others may be drawn to Him. We are to see the beauty of the Lord in all of life. He notes that "beauty catches men off guard. Men are powerless against it. It enraptures them" (Pearson, 2008). For Balthasar, beauty is the way to correctly interpret God's love, not through historical or scientific approaches.The book Love Alone is Credible combines the theme of beauty in theology and divine love together. The Absolute Love of God, the beauty of God's love is indeed credible. But credible for what? For our salvation, for our understanding of God, our devotion to Him, for everything!
Hence in the first part of Chapter 6 of the book, Love as Revelation, Balthasar focuses on the love of Christ, his self-surrender for His friends, for the many, for all. His love for us on the cross is not coerced, blindly following God's command, but is due to an obedience for God born out of love. The love is also a trinitarian love from God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, as this love is poured into our hearts.
In the second part of this chapter, Balthasar focuses further on love as the motivating factor for Christ death on the cross. Whereas other theologians may emphasize on the judgment of God, the spiritual transaction between heaven and hell, and the propitiation of God through Christ death, (and these are all important!!), Balthasar focuses on the "fiery abyss of divine love". He points out that the covenants of the Old Testament can be easily withdrawn, by man or by God. But Christ's death signifies that even though God can reject humanity, in the end, he will save us, because of His infinite and absolute love.
Balthasar then moves on to caution us that it is natural for man to abuse this kind of love, but once we truly consider the infinite love of God, this love awakens fear in us. We are entrusted with a hope, so our love may soar, and we will hope for the salvation of all men.
Aesthetic theology is thus a theology grounded in God's beauty especially manifested in Christ's love. It is a love that is credible, a love that is potent, a love that can save us, a love that will motivate us to love the world.
Reference:
urs Von Balthasar, Hans. (2008). Love Alone is Credible. Cambridge:Eerdmans.
Pearson, Chris. (March 19, 2008). Von Balthasar, an Aesthetic Theologian.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
How does Leadership for Christians look like in 21st Century?
We often hear from the pulpit how important it is for fathers to act as role models for our children so they can grow up to be strong leaders for tomorrow. While this may be true, and logically sound, it is interesting to read that "Those who study leadership tell us that the lack of a strong father figure is a commonplace in the backgrounds of great leaders" (Lewis, 200). These great leaders include William Wilberforce, Shaftsbury, George Whitefield, John Wesley, Charles Wesley, Charles Simeon and William Carey, to name a few. Could it be the lack of father figure caused these men to over-compensate by becoming the powerful leader that they were?
Reference:
Lewis, Don. (September, 2000). "The Moses of these Israelites ... Courtier of Pharoah" Wilberforce and Shaftesbury as Evangelical Lay Leaders. Crux, XXXVI.
Reference:
Lewis, Don. (September, 2000). "The Moses of these Israelites ... Courtier of Pharoah" Wilberforce and Shaftesbury as Evangelical Lay Leaders. Crux, XXXVI.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Is the Reformation Necessary?
Protestants claim that justification is by faith only and Christians are certain of their eternal destiny by their faith in the works of Jesus Christ on the cross, and His resurrection. But what kind of certainty is this? Do Protestants really have that certainty and simple trust that are founded purely upon Bible passages such as Romans 10:9 or Titus 3:5-7, or does it take a significant amount of will power to have that certainty that they blindly assume to have? The Catholic view, on the other hand, is that one needs to tremble before God, that the life of a Christian is nurtured by fear and eventual judgement. Through regular confessions, careful observations of the Eucharist, and following a strict order, the Roman Catholics seem to be have a narrower but clearer sense on how to live a devout life than the Protestants. At least they don't seem to have a problem with the interpretation of the Bible.
The reformation has also been viewed as a tragedy because of the fragmentation of the Church. Surely there have been gains in both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The former can point to the catechetical teaching, the strong expositional preaching, the long tradition and richness of hymnody in the worship service, and liturgical imagination. The latter can point to the personal devotion (which can lead to individualism), the centrality of the Word, the cessation of corruption in the Roman Catholic church, and the explosive growth through mass evangelism.
"Catholic theologians and artists tend to emphasize the presence of God in the world, while the classic works of Protestant theologians tend to emphasize the absence of God from the world. The Catholic writers stress the nearness of God to His creation, the Protestant writers the distance between God and His creation; the Protestants emphasize the risk of superstition and idolatry, the Catholics the dangers of a creation in which God is only marginally present. Or, to put the matter in different terms, Catholics tend to accentuate the immanence of God, Protestants the transcendence of God."
But according to Hans Boersma, the greatest loss of the reformation is the sense of sacramental ontology, not just the sacraments, .. that the former integration of the world is now divided into natural and the supernatural. That is, whereas all things, whether natural or artificial, were supposed to draw us to God as means of God's grace, after the reformation, we compartmentalize what is of God and what is not. That's also why we also compartmentalize our faith ... Sunday is for God, the rest of the week is for the world.
What has caused this de-emphasis on sacramental ontology? Promotion of human power (especially of the pope and the Church) under Pope Gregory, the separation of Eucharist and the Church, discovery of nature through human reason as opposed to observance of the natural law, emphasis of Scripture over tradition or Church authority, rejection of the human nature and that supernatural grace is needed for salvation.
The reformation has also been viewed as a tragedy because of the fragmentation of the Church. Surely there have been gains in both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. The former can point to the catechetical teaching, the strong expositional preaching, the long tradition and richness of hymnody in the worship service, and liturgical imagination. The latter can point to the personal devotion (which can lead to individualism), the centrality of the Word, the cessation of corruption in the Roman Catholic church, and the explosive growth through mass evangelism.
"Catholic theologians and artists tend to emphasize the presence of God in the world, while the classic works of Protestant theologians tend to emphasize the absence of God from the world. The Catholic writers stress the nearness of God to His creation, the Protestant writers the distance between God and His creation; the Protestants emphasize the risk of superstition and idolatry, the Catholics the dangers of a creation in which God is only marginally present. Or, to put the matter in different terms, Catholics tend to accentuate the immanence of God, Protestants the transcendence of God."
But according to Hans Boersma, the greatest loss of the reformation is the sense of sacramental ontology, not just the sacraments, .. that the former integration of the world is now divided into natural and the supernatural. That is, whereas all things, whether natural or artificial, were supposed to draw us to God as means of God's grace, after the reformation, we compartmentalize what is of God and what is not. That's also why we also compartmentalize our faith ... Sunday is for God, the rest of the week is for the world.
What has caused this de-emphasis on sacramental ontology? Promotion of human power (especially of the pope and the Church) under Pope Gregory, the separation of Eucharist and the Church, discovery of nature through human reason as opposed to observance of the natural law, emphasis of Scripture over tradition or Church authority, rejection of the human nature and that supernatural grace is needed for salvation.
Geocentric and Heliocentric Models
Plato and Aristotle both believed in geocentric model - earth is the center of the universe. Ptolemy was the first one to give a detailed account of this model where the earth did not move, and half the stars were above the horizon and half were below, and all the stars (sun, moon, Mercury, Venus, etc.) move around the earth, and were equidistant from it. In 1953, Copernican posited that instead of the earth, the sun was at the center of the universe. He was soon joined by Galileo and Kepler. What I found interesting are:
1. The stars that looked equidistant from the earth, as Ptolemy believed, are actually a lot farther than he could have imagined. Because the shapes of the constellations did not change and seemed to be at the fixed position over the course of the year, he concluded that the earth could not have moved. But in reality, the earth moves and the stars are so much farther beyond our comprehension, (hence we are so much smaller in Ptolemy's estimation of the size of the cosmos). No wonder Pascal exclaimed: “When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after, the little space I fill, and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of space of which I am ignorant, and which knows me not, I am frightened, and am astonished at being here rather than there, why now rather than then?”
2. Having the earth at the center of the universe was not considered a privileged position in ancient times. The earth was considered to be "heavy" and it was the cosmic sump where the "universe's filth and ephemera collect". Having realized that the earth is not at the center of the universe actually elevates us to the position that we are no longer "excluded from the dance of the stars" as Galileo pointed out. So it is with us that sometimes we may have thought that being at the center of the universe is a privileged position, but it also carries its weight and filth that we may not realize!
1. The stars that looked equidistant from the earth, as Ptolemy believed, are actually a lot farther than he could have imagined. Because the shapes of the constellations did not change and seemed to be at the fixed position over the course of the year, he concluded that the earth could not have moved. But in reality, the earth moves and the stars are so much farther beyond our comprehension, (hence we are so much smaller in Ptolemy's estimation of the size of the cosmos). No wonder Pascal exclaimed: “When I consider the short duration of my life, swallowed up in the eternity before and after, the little space I fill, and even can see, engulfed in the infinite immensity of space of which I am ignorant, and which knows me not, I am frightened, and am astonished at being here rather than there, why now rather than then?”
2. Having the earth at the center of the universe was not considered a privileged position in ancient times. The earth was considered to be "heavy" and it was the cosmic sump where the "universe's filth and ephemera collect". Having realized that the earth is not at the center of the universe actually elevates us to the position that we are no longer "excluded from the dance of the stars" as Galileo pointed out. So it is with us that sometimes we may have thought that being at the center of the universe is a privileged position, but it also carries its weight and filth that we may not realize!
Church History
Prior to 1500, the church age first underwent sever persecution within and without, under the hands of Nero, Diocletian, Galerius, until the time of Constantine when he became the first Christian emperor in 306 AD and transformed the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium to Constantinople, and remained the capital of the Byzantine empire for the next 1000 years. Although it was a time of convergence, the period after 1500 has been a time of fragmentation. There was religious division, the Thirty Years' War between the Protestant and the Catholic Church, religious diversity with many voices of confessions that needed to be clarified and defended, doctrinal retrenchment that made use of inductive and deductive principles to articulate demoninational doctrines and positions, and the emergence of rationality so there could be some common ground in the midst of the conflicts from different groups.
The Modern period soon followed the Enlightenment period, where there were a number of cultural reform movements in literature, politics, and society. With the aid of technology, the world experienced great economical diversification and mechanization in mass production. Unfortunately, as we are now in the Post-modern period, there is a great sense of discontentment, hopelessness, and narcissism.
What will be next chapter of the church age? Some believe that attention will shift significantly from Europe and America (as churches become more and more secularized) to the developing countries where Asia and Africa are increasingly sending more missionaries abroad each year. Our churches in North America have become less and less relevant to the world they find themselves in. Perhaps we are desperate in need of some foreign aid.
The Modern period soon followed the Enlightenment period, where there were a number of cultural reform movements in literature, politics, and society. With the aid of technology, the world experienced great economical diversification and mechanization in mass production. Unfortunately, as we are now in the Post-modern period, there is a great sense of discontentment, hopelessness, and narcissism.
What will be next chapter of the church age? Some believe that attention will shift significantly from Europe and America (as churches become more and more secularized) to the developing countries where Asia and Africa are increasingly sending more missionaries abroad each year. Our churches in North America have become less and less relevant to the world they find themselves in. Perhaps we are desperate in need of some foreign aid.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Music and the Church
The study of the evolution of music throughout the church history reveals a number of interesting facts about the changing Christian attitudes, church power and structure, theology, etc. As an example, in 1500's, only monks were involved in singing (or more like chanting) as a service to God. The chants were in Latin, and they were sung from memory. Everyone sang in unison, and if one made a mistake, he had to apologize to the other monks and to God. Everyone else was excluded in participation. Then soon, music was introduced, and the monks could not read music, so that further reduced the number of participants. It was Luther who believed that everyone should sing, and so he created a smaller repertoire of music and used the vernacular of the day in the music. But most people still did not know how to sing, so he had the children taught at school first, and have them stationed at different parts of the church to "lead" the adults. We can identify with congregational singing nowadays as we understand that we are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and we all have a duty to offer the sacrifice of praise to God.
Zwingli, who was the most musical of the reformers, felt that music was a distraction. To him, only the word was sufficient. The Council of Trent was similar in its view on music, where no instrument and no complex music are preferred but only chant. Others used music as a display of power. St. Mark's cathedral, in Venice, was such an example, with elaborate choirs and architectural structure. Just as music was a source of conflict among Christians in the past, so it is also in the present. What is interesting to me is a new sense of awareness of how knowledge can be a distraction in our worship. It seems that with a greater knowledge of music, there is also a greater tendency to be distracted by the technicality of how the music is played, the interpretation of the music in the service, the appropriateness of the particular music chosen, etc. Perhaps there is a reason why music should not be played in church service! But then, the same argument also applies to the preaching of the Word of God. Could this be the reason for the desert fathers?
Zwingli, who was the most musical of the reformers, felt that music was a distraction. To him, only the word was sufficient. The Council of Trent was similar in its view on music, where no instrument and no complex music are preferred but only chant. Others used music as a display of power. St. Mark's cathedral, in Venice, was such an example, with elaborate choirs and architectural structure. Just as music was a source of conflict among Christians in the past, so it is also in the present. What is interesting to me is a new sense of awareness of how knowledge can be a distraction in our worship. It seems that with a greater knowledge of music, there is also a greater tendency to be distracted by the technicality of how the music is played, the interpretation of the music in the service, the appropriateness of the particular music chosen, etc. Perhaps there is a reason why music should not be played in church service! But then, the same argument also applies to the preaching of the Word of God. Could this be the reason for the desert fathers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)