the clumsiness of fictional christianity

i loved the da vinci code
i loved holy bood, holy grail
i even liked the less-well-written 'last templar'

but let's be honest

these portrayals of christians are demeaningly one-dimensional

authors just don't seem to "get" christians
they write us as being scared of the truth, fascinated by folklore, and deprived of all rationale thought in favor of ancient mysticism

for example,
in the last templar
a character makes mention that there is "proof" of the humanity [aka non-deity] of jesus christ

he goes on to state the obvious, that this is threatening to christians, and makes the assumption that we are threatened by the "truth"
and that we prefer the "experience" or "comfort of faith" over "the facts"

but this is where they get it all wrong

see, there is a difference between truth and meaning

things that are true can be proven to be true
but true things are not always meaningful

likewise,
meaningful things don't always have to be factual
[love, for instance, isn't a fact - it's a kind of experience]

the problem with dan brown and raymond khoum is that they think we count our experiences are proof of the veracity of christ's claims

which we don't

in fact,
we believe the teachings of the bible
because there is ample archaeological evidence and scholarly research to prove the worth of the text

despite all of the hullabaloo about the council of nicea and all the pseudopegraphic gospels [gospel of thomas, of mary, etc...]
the scholarly evidence overwhelming supports that the books in our bible are
- written by their claimant authors
- authoritative in local churches [beginning in 1st C palestine]
- consistent with history and biblical theology
- credible [in the case of the gospels] first-hand and/or eye-witness accounts of the life and times of jesus of nazareth
- withstand the rigors of textual criticism [i.e. there's proof that the books we have in our bible are actually the original books written by the original authors] far more so than those of plato, aristotle, or caesar's gaelic wars

in short,
there is real proof that the bible is real [aka a credible, historical document]

that's why we believe it to be true

furthermore,
there are always those who say that jesus never claimed to be the son of god
that this is a distortion of the church or pauline theology

but this is also complete bollocks
there could be no greater student of the hebrew scriptures
or one more fully commensorate with the followers of jesus
than paul

so, when paul traces the claims/miracles of jesus through the hebrew scriptures
[and, then, so does the anonymous author of hebrews]
we get a pretty solid evidentiary set
that,
yes,
jesus did make claims to be god
equal with god
and his teaching supports the idea of a trinitarian god ruling all of the kosmos

so,
again,
we believe in jesus' teachings as they are commonly understood by orthodox theologians

because they're true

but just because they're true doesn't make them meaningful

again - this is where i think our fictional authors get it screwed up
"they" think that "we" overlook the proof/factuality of [1] the biblical text & [2] the claims of jesus because we're scared that the proof doesn't lie on our side

i.e. if we really looked at the evidence, we'd be forced to give up on our superstitions

but this just isn't the case

the scholarly proof
by-and-large
supports the biblical story

we can thank our host of apologeticists for unmistakeably showing us that [lee strobel, josh mcdowell, et. al.]

and i think the reason those authors [brown, khoum, etc...] make that mistake is that they hear us talk about our experiences so passionately and assume that that's all there is to faith

but this is not so

the proof makes it true

but the experiences make it real

real.

the experiences make it real in a way that proof never can

the experiences make it meaningful
which is why we talk about our experiences of god
rather than the proof

particularly in a postmodern world
we've come to take "truth" for granted
and have become disullisioned with the meaninglessness of some "true" things

so, what we've come to want more and more and more
are things that are meaningful

christian spirituality is ferociously meaningful
the experience of god is life-changing
living guided by the holy spirit into a lifestyle of divine cooperation is a fundamentally altering path

which is why we talk about it so much

but let's not be confused

just because we talk about our "experiences" more than our "proof"
doesn't mean there is no proof

it just means that proof isn't enough to affect us

for that, we need something more

we need something real

we need to experience god for ourselves

a straight line with a crooked stick?

i've always thought that god can use "a crooked stick" to draw a "straight line"

and i still do

i mean,
every teacher/preacher/apostle/etc... is flawed [aka "crooked"] to some extent

so,
by virtue of the fact that we learn/are expanded as a result of any of my/their teachings/inspiration, obviously god is using them to point us to him

yes?

but i'm really wrestling lately with the difference between "flawed" and "crooked"

i mean,
i consider myself flawed
because i'm not perfect
i'm still prone to losing my temper
acting like an idiot
speaking out of frustration
not watching my tongue
etc...

but
in no way would i consider myself "crooked"

by which i mean
deliberately
openly
rebellious
to the lifestyle advocated in the new testament scriptures

however
i see plenty of examples of people who seem to disregard these lifestyle commands
and also seem to prosper in ministry

which is hard for me

and
which forced me to deal with my own issues about significance, meaning, calling, ministry, and judgement

but also makes me wonder about accountability

what are we to do
if we see someone living contrary to the scriptures
who is in leadership
but who has no accountability?
no governing authority to whom they are supposed to report?
no one to "remove them" from their "position"?

this is scary to me

because i think - in the absence of accountability - the only thing that truly authenticates the ministry of someone is their charisma and their talent

and we are all easily swayed by those

now,
this may be why the book of jude is given to us in our bibles

but i'm wrestling about whether or not instructing people to read and re-read the book of jude is ever really a sufficient response to the ironies and injustices i see in the world of ministry around me.

how about you?

friends, not companies

i'm in paducah, kt, right now spending some time with my friend brad [a pastor here of a cool church]. brad and i met in college and have spent a good amount of time over the years woodshopping ideas over the phone and keeping one another fresh and innovative.

one of the things that being with brad affirms most for me
is how much energy/vitality/freshness i get from being with my friends in ministry

whether that's jvo or randy
vince, mark, steve, glen
cam, brad, ryan, ryan, stephan, dan
or any of the other million friends i have loved serving jesus with [perhaps most especially my dad]
i always find that it's my friends who keep me honest
keep me sharp
and keep me pure

ironically,
i don't think i've ever experienced sharpness, purity, or a challenge to integrity from my denomination

this isn't to say that the denom is anti-sharp, etc...
just that a group like that is a particularly impotent motivator

which is the primary reason why i've always tried to lead as a friend
instead of as a boss, or "pastor", or "leader"

because i think bosses are dumb
pastors are [far too often]fake
and leaders are dumb [except, of course, for their keen ability to use a goofy language all it's own, complete with words like "paradigm-shift" or "vision-cast"]

jesus was a friend
"no longer do i call you servants, but friends...the friends of god"
and provides a pretty healthy example for another way to lead
to love
to be in ministry
to be in relationship
to serve
to go
to dream

this "friend" thing was brilliantly exemplified by the quakers [though they did get enough other stuff so weird as to make their "friendship" seem spooky], who lived and served together in a profoundly spiritual capacity

and [minus the spooky bits] this is really how i'm hoping to model my own "leadership" and set of associations

by having friends

now, i've been told that i can really only make this work up to a point
that - if i'm serious about "being the leader god has called me to be" - i'll have to accept that my friendships will be few

but that perspective, of course, falls victim to the way the world actually works
and i - together with my friends - am trying to fix this world
to put the pieces back together again
so the world will be more like the way god intended it

full of friends

natural friends

so much anger

i'm often troubled by the amount of anger expressed by christians at other christians

in my tribe, this is most often manifested as young people
or emergent types
or pomophiles
or dissenters
angry at the church-as-it-commonly-exists-in-america
for their
consumerism
apathy
uselessness
irrelevance
marriage to tradition/disregard for mission

but,
i actually believe that our anger at these [justifiably] bothersome traits
is as much of a problem as the problems we are identifying

first
because our anger allows others to dismiss us as idealists/professional protestors
whom they assume will never be happy because we're "anti-institutional"

second
because we're very free about the expression of our anger
such that others see our malice
and equate our hatred with the cause of christ
the fallacy of religious unity
and identify us as the evangelical al-queda
on par with jerry falwell
or those weirdos from the appalachians who call down judgement on those unlike themselves

and,
third,
because it makes jesus sad to see us hate the very people he loves

because
after all
he does indeed love the church

he died for the church

we're told in the gospels that men will know we are christ's disciples
by our love for one another

not by our cool churches
or narrative theology

but by our love

which - to me - is what seems most absent about our movement

there is no love for one another in the emerging church

we defend against our detractors
we're hospitable to people of other faiths
we're engaging with people of no faith
we're warm and loving for anyone god brings to us - except brothers and sisters from another part of our family

and this
more than anything
is the quality that disqualifies us from effecting real change in america

we don't live the gospel to those who already know it

A Time for Miracles: Bono speaks to Europe

Fifty years ago this week, the idea of Europe was set to paper, on a continent unsettled but past the worst of the postwar period. The air was clear of sulfur if not spleen. Ireland was a small rock in the North Atlantic made relevant only by its cultural totems and ever increasing diaspora. In Berlin a chasm was opening up between East and West--the partition of lives, fortunes and fates. In the global struggle between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., between freedom and totalitarianism, Europe was the fault line and the front line. Old Europe was being rebuilt to fight the next war: a battle not just of ideologies but also, very possibly, of nuclear arsenals. It was not a moment for dreaming--more like one for digging a basement and ordering a year's supply of tinned soup.

And yet this was the moment the New Europe was born.

On the continent that had been the theater for mankind's darkest hour, we witnessed a very human miracle. The people of Europe found that their capacity for destruction was mirrored by an equally immense capacity for forgiveness, grace and hope. Looking to the U.S., Europeans could see how cherry-picked European ideas from minds like Locke, Rousseau and Tom Paine could flourish in a society not polluted by blood and aristocracy. And so, in 1957, six nations signed the Treaty of Rome and, with that one crucial act, built a showcase of multilateralism, prosperity and international solidarity.

Fast-forward 50 years. An Irish rock star reads the treaty with the enthusiasm a child has for cold peas but does uncover what I think technocrats might call poetry. Not much of it--just a turn of phrase here and there. Like Article 177, which summons the signatories to foster "the sustainable economic and social development of the developing countries and more particularly the most disadvantaged among them" and calls for a "campaign against poverty in the developing countries." Not exactly Thomas Jefferson but a glimpse of the kind of vision that might bind us.

Over the next 50 years, we might need a little more poetry. Europe is a thought that has to become a feeling--one based on the belief that Europe stands only if injustice falls and that we find our feet only when our neighbors stand with us in freedom and equality. Our humanity is diminished when we have no mission bigger than ourselves. And one way to define who we are might be to spend more time looking across the eight miles of Mediterranean Sea that separates Europe from Africa.

There's an Irish word, meitheal. It means that the people of the village help one another out most when the work is the hardest. Most Europeans are like that. As individual nations, we may argue over the garden fence, but when a neighbor's house goes up in flames, we pull together and put out the fire. History suggests it sometimes takes an emergency for us to draw closer. Looking inward won't cut it. As a professional navel gazer, I recommend against that form of therapy for anything other than songwriting. We discover who we are in service to one another, not the self.

Today many rooms in our neighbor's house, Africa, are in flames. From the genocide in Darfur to the deathbeds in Kigali, with six AIDS patients stacked onto one cot, from the child dying of malaria to the village without clean water, conditions in Africa are an affront to every value we Europeans have ever seen fit to put on paper. We see in Somalia and Sudan what happens if more militant forces fill the void and stir dissent within what is, for the most part, a pro-Western and moderate Muslim population. (Nearly half of Africa's people are devotees of Islam.) So whether as a moral or strategic imperative, it's folly to let this fire rage.

How will Europe respond? For all the babble of clashing ideas, there's more harmony than you might think. Historic promises have been made on aid, debt and even the thorny subject of trade. Aggressive progress on these, matched by advances in fighting the evils of corruption in Africa, could transform the continent and prevent the fire from spreading. As a group, the E.U. countries have promised to commit 0.7 percent of GDP to the poorest of the poor. How Europe works to keep that promise is as important to Europe as it is to Africa.

We might remember that Europe, 50 years ago, did not pull itself back from the abyss on its own. Across the Atlantic was a nation with a pretty broad notion of neighbor. Sure, the Marshall Plan wasn't all altruism--the U.S. wanted a bulwark against Soviet expansion as the temperature of relations dropped below freezing. But it was also generosity on a scale never before seen in human history. It defined America in the cold war era.

What will define Europe in this new era? What will provide the bulwark against the extremism of our age?

Part of the answer lies eight miles away.

probably not a big deal for you

the other night i was struggling to shut my brain off and fall asleep [a fairly common occurence in my world], when i began to think about why i'm here.

now, typically, when i begin to wonder about that i've got more than one good answer; i mean, i never have a difficult time hypothesizing about why any of us are here [yes - i am familiar with the westminster short catechism] or why i'm here as a dad/husband/son/friend/pastor

but the other day was different

i just felt like i had to get specific

why am i alive
and on the earth
and a pastor
and a black-sheep pentecostal
and a dissident emergent
and a canadian in exile in my other home
with a penchant for media
with a creative mind that never shuts off
who likes knowledge
but hates academia and fights hard not to give in to pomp and pretense
who loves jesus and the church
but hates the western deterioration of christian spirituality into maxims and slogans

etc

etc

etc

why

am i [specifially me, with all of who i am - good and bad]

here [on earth, today, in michigan]?


well, leaving michigan aside for present purposes
i've become crystaline in one particular lens
which really does speak to my out-of-placeness among other pastors
or artists, or musicians
and perhaps even addresses my pathological obsession with local church ministry

i think i'm here
to create venues of spiritual interactivity and relationship

i'm here
to create
- because i'm an innovator
- because i'm a creator/artist/playwrite/musician/writer/thinker/programmer

i'm creating venues
- because i think space is sacred
- because i feel there are certain places that elicit certain emotions and legitimate spiritual responses to the working presence of the spirit of god
- because environmental worship shares much of the same benefits are environmental learning experiences, which immerse us into another world/perspective/esprit

these venues are spiritual
- because i'm not interested in making art, i'm here to help facilitate people who long to connect more meaningfully with god
- because humanity is spiritual, but ignorant of our true identity as image-bearers of god, and i want to help us remember that

these venues are interactive
- because presentation is not the only legitimate form of spiritual intersection
- because our knowledge of god cannot simply be gnosis [head-knowledge], but must also be noetics [the knowledge of lived-experience] and allowing space for interactivity draws people out of themselves and into moving with god's spirit and engaging him in those moments

those venues are relational
- because i really do find things that are uber-cool to be deathly monotonous without the randomization of laughter and open conversation
- because i think god resides in and among his people in collections as well as in isolation
- because the whole rest of the world is so fragemented we ought to be a haven of family networks and relationships, a surrogate home


this has been really helpful for me to articulate
i've thought about it a lot since i first landed on this thinking
and feel like i've tested it enough for it to remain true


so i've put it here for those of you who care
who - by the way - always bless me by demonstrating that care
because you are my friends

and my mom

:)

a little advice, a little tryst

i've just been thinking about loving my wife a lot lately...so at the risk of sounding slightly like a sissy i thought i'd throw out some free verse.

it's a reminder for us all
and a peek into my mind for her.





You can never tell your wife too often that you want her.
She is elemental, but you’re the imitation rain.

You would drown in someone else’s pools.

You are desperate and parched
whenever she is not close at hand.

For my whole life I’ve hoped to die while swimming on downstream
holding her hand – a waterfall that daily makes me clean.

She is my aqua vitae.

I am her Samaritan.

meaning: form, process, matter

we're all searching for meaning

meaning, which is the highest aspiration of every individual
in every moment
in every relationship

a fairly significant problem with the church world is that church doesn't mean anything
at least, for most people it doesn't

church has lost it's inherent meaning

it's just become hard to see the point of going to church
or belonging to church
or feeling like going to church is important

but it is

it's just that we've got to be intentional about creating meaningful intersections
at/with/in church

see, it's not the fault of the people who find church meaningless
it's our fault for not caring enough to try and make it meaningful

it's the fault of those of us in the pray-trade who seem unwilling [at times]
to put aside our goofy notions about what the right
or wrong
way to do things
really is

when we ought to be asking ourselves
instead
what cultivates meaning

fritjof capra talks about meaning being the fourth dimension in social phenomena
he says that - in order for there to be meaning - there must first be

FORM - the pattern of organization, or "thing"
PROCESS - the means by which the configuration of relationships brings self-awareness
STRUCTURE/MATTER - the components of the form and their relationship to the whole


in eccleisure land,
this means we've got to take some time to process the spiritual needs
in the world around us
to think creatively about how to address those needs with people skilled and qualified to dream alongside us

it also means we've got to identify some kind of concrete response to these problems
which could be something as crude as an event
or as intricate as a rule of life
or as personal/private as a set of internal exercises designed for spatial and relational distance

but it must also be subject to some kind of structure
that defines how the parts relate to the whole
and why that should matter
and why we think it addresses the original need
for any response on our part to begin with

only when these things work
and work well together
can we encapsulate our experiences in a context of meaning

i.e. when we get how things are supposed to work
and then they work like that
we can begin to observe the changes brought on by those things
and test them to see if they're really helping

but...

we sometimes never get that far
for fear that our 'final product'
will be deficient in some way
that it won't mean anything
and that we'll have failed

which,
undoubtedly,
we sometimes will

but we'll never figure that out
unless we're willing to risk the meaningless we now experience
for the chance
at being
full
of
meaning

know what i mean?

prejudice

during our recent series on the novel "to kill a mockingbird" we tried to make the point that the racial prejudice in the book was only one of the many kinds of ungodly prejudice affecting our world today.

i mentioned that one inexcusable form of prejudice that evangelicals are particularly guilty of is hateful speech and beahvior towards either [a] gays, or [b] muslims
and have received a fair-amount of curious feedback from my remarks.

i've reprinted one set of correspondance here to illustrate:



Dear Dave,

We have some questions regarding your sermon on last Sunday (March 11th).

Were you advocating the homosexual lifestyle? Were you saying that if we believe as the Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, sinful and separates the homosexual from God, that we are racist or have prejudices or that we are hateful?

Instead of focusing on and accepting the 'lifestyle', shouldn’t we focus on the individual and lovingly come alongside them to help them turn from sin? If we are going to be balanced, shouldn’t we address all sexual sin and not single out homosexuals?

How does what you said line up with 1 Cor. 6:9-11, I Tim. 1:8-11, or Romans 1:27?

Sincerely,

[names withheld]





hi guys - thanks for your email

for future reference, my personal email is david.mcdonald@westwinds.org and you can feel free to email me directly. i try to make myself really accessible for conversation, so please don't feel like it would be inappropriate for you to contact me this way.

as to last sunday's sermon, let me see if i can clear up any misconceptions here

first,
no - i am not advocating that homosexuality be considered un-sinful
in fact,
i think the bible is fairly clear on that issue
but,
i am concerned by how hatefully we proclaim it to be sinful

the old adage is 'hate the sin, but love the sinner'
which i find to be a little trite, but also very true

i think this is what jesus did

he never excused sin
but he never responded to sinfulness with sinful behavior
i.e. he never treated a "sinner" with disdain, prejudice, or hatred

and i think the north american church is often collectively guilty of treating homosexuals hatefully

now,
i realize that by saying we ought to be less hateful towards homosexuals [and/or muslims, etc...]
i run the risk of being labelled a liberal
or being boxed into a category of pastors/theologians who seem to disregard the scriptural mandate for moral behavior

but i'm not those people

in fact, i don't believe i made any mention whatsoever of excusing immoral or unethical conduct
including the immoral and unethical conduct of christian people who [through their deep convictions about biblical morality] often get carried away with condemnatory language and behavior


does that help?

your email is the third email i've received about my remarks last sunday
and i want to make sure i respond respectfully
because your concerns are valid

if i was actually dismissing the biblical mandate for moral and ethical behavior
you would be 100% justified in questioning my legitimacy as a bible teacher

but i'm really quite concerned that those standards remain unmoved
and that we all use the bible as the guide for our lives

also,
i'd like to make sure you know that i didn't catch any accusations or "complaining" in your email
it just seemed like an honest set of questions
so,
if my really long response seemed defensive
that wasn't my intention
i'm just trying to make sure that i give you the courtesy of a fuller explanation

if you'd like to talk further about these things then please let me know
i'd like to do everything i can to become a better pastor
and perhaps our conversations can help me in this regard

sincerely,

david





Thank you, David, for the quick response.
Your email helped clarify the misconceptions for us. The reason we emailed you was that we felt you left us hanging on what you meant when you brought up the topic of homosexuals/muslims...when your sermon was on racism. (which with muslims, would tie into the subject, but we couldn't figure out where in that homosexuals fit in.) When you bring up something like that, which is actually a new subject as it does not tie in to racism, perhaps you could explain a bit deeper. We did not imply that you were excusing immoral or unethical conduct; actually, perhaps you should have said you weren't excusing it and that would have clarified it, at least for us.

We would be interested in a sermon on homosexuals and how to reach them, lead them to Christ and set them free from the sin that has enveloped their lives. Actually, it should be a sermon about sin, and how it can take over one's life, as this is true with any addiction, be it alcoholism, pornography, gluttony, etc. It is the sin that they need to be set free from.

We realize this is not an easy subject (homosexuality) and a very controversial one. And we happen to agree with you that there are many who go overboard with hatred towards the sinner. For instance, we are extremely sold out on 'pro-life'. But it makes us sick when we see protesters yelling "baby killer" in front of an abortion clinic. I am sure Jesus is much more pleased when we make the effort to find a way to help the pregnant woman with her pregnancy; be it financial, moral support, or adopting the unwanted child, and hopefully, counseling her to better decisions that got her pregnant in the first place! (a life-style change?)

Sure, you can post our email on your blog, but as we are 'behind-the-scenes' type of folks, skip our names. Thanks.

Sometimes we trolls need things explained in more detail... (trolls being those who live beneath the bridge...okay, I'll explain that more if you don't get it...)

Sincerely,
[names withheld]

built in bullsh*t detector

hemingway was recorded as declaring that "everyone needs a built-in bullsh*t detector"

which, to be honest, is a concept that has probably been as formative in my spiritual development as anything by thomas merton or tom wright.

i just see so many people adopt "ways" of being "spiritual" that, in actual fact, seem to divorce them from spirituality rather than help facilitate it.

for example, i sometimes see people trying to practice "being present" with god and with others in each moment [this, btw, is a very noble intention and one that definately honors god]

but,
sometimes people work so hard to "be present" that that's all they think about

so, ironically, by being so intent on "presencing" they actually disengage from what's happening around them

and are not truly present, but are instead "being present"

which often looks like they've become zombies or drones

it's at this point that i feel like hemingway's magical b.s. detector would come in handy

i feel like saying,
"hey - quite presencing and look me in the face, weirdo"

which, i know, sounds harsh
but it just seems so foolish that someone would glaze over in conversation by virtue of trying to be more engaging

there are, of course, a myriad of ways in which people's efforts at being spiritual tend to prohibit them from actually being spiritual, and i gave this example only so i didn't fall into the tired litany of narratives about

1. the prayer-request gossipper, who uses your weaknesses as conversational carpet bombing

or,

2. the friendly-evangelist, who is nice so you'll become a baptist

or,

3. the passionate worshipper/passionate partier, who performs every day of the week but for a different audience

etc...

i suppose i'd just like to see more people own up to their shortcomings
without wallowing in them
or reveling in them
or lashing out at others for having them

but instead
demonstrating a willingness to just be who they are
while simultaneously feeling compelled to chip away towards becoming someone of whom
jesus can be more proud

i suppose i really just want this for myself as well

and maybe, to be fair, this is really what the "presencing" people are trying to do.
maybe they're looking at people like my friend randy shafer
who is sick with cancer
and yet maintains a remarkable ability to be present in conversation
and also with god
without falling into the glazed-over-spiritual guy trap
and seeing what it looks like to actually be present
instead of just trying to be present
but the only way to do that successfully is to just try

so maybe [again with the maybes?], i ought to have a little more grace for them in their efforts

but maybe not

'cause maybe we could all get there more truly if we skipped the vernacular
or the "approach"
and instead just did what we felt like the spirit was coaching us to do in the moment

'cause that is different

listening to god
is different
than adopting a mandate of "being present"

the former is a kind of spiritual honesty
the latter feels like a new kind of physical fitness craze that you try out
like atkins
or south beath
until it becomes something you used to do.




and, yes, this post does fall into the category of "useful for no one but me" :)

the apostle

last week in fusion we showed a clip from the robert duvall movie, "the apostle", in which 5 pentecostal preachers take turns team-preaching. showing this clip was memorable for several reasons:

1. their style of preaching was very charismatic - there was lots of yelling and screaming, specific invocation of the third person of the trinity [aka the holy spirit], and it took place in a tent revival setting

2. we showed that clip at westwinds, an "emerging" church, which is very UNlike a tent revival

3. though westwinds is not a classically pentecostal church, it began as one and retains many constituents who come from that background [myself included]

4. we showed the clip during a 4 week series on the book of jude, wherein we looked specifically at the concept of "false teachers"


now, our decision to show this clip left people wondering:

a. is westwinds making a connection between "false teachers" in the book of jude and pentecostal preachers?

and...

b. if so, what am i supposed to do about it?


well, in response to these questions i think it's helpful to have a brief discussion about jude. first off, jude is a book warning us against false teachers - but the "false teachers" in jude are people who are orienting christians away from the person and work of jesus christ. they are gnostics [who make a false division between the world of the spiritual world and the material world, a division which the Incarnation specifically de-bunks], the docetists [who believe that jesus was simply an illusion and that - since the Incarnation never happened - our morality is irrelevant], and the marcionists [who, though they weren't identified with the heretic marcion until much later in history, were staunch legalists who discredited the entire old testament via their harsh anti-semitism].

the preachers in "the apostle", on the other hand, did not orient people away from the person and work of jesus christ. in fact [suspending the differences in personhood between the holy spirit and jesus for the time being], their whole performance was explicitly christian.

if we were to criticize these preachers, we would almost undoubtedly criticize them for the manner in which they presented their message; but, particularly at westwinds, this is an extreme example of hypocrisy given that we are regularly accused of being heretical by virtue of our methodology.

but we all know that methodology is not a matter of orthodoxy
it is a matter of style
and, providing our methodology doesn't lead us into errant theology or misdirect our focus away from christ
we ought to have plenty of lee-way for our church services to look as dissimilar as we want.

and as for the difference in personhood between the holy spirit and jesus, scripture tells us that the spirit leads us to christ [john 14.26, 15.26, 16.7-10 plus many, many others]; so, even though the preachers in "the apostle" were speaking specifically about the holy spirit [rather than specifically about jesus] a biblically credible understanding of the trinity means those two emphases are tantamount to the same thing.

so,
if you are looking for a good movie
with a very strange scene in it
featuring some backwater-yet-enthusiastic-and-god-honoring preachers

then
i highly recommend
"the apostle"
starring robert duvall.

p.s. b.y.o tambourine for best results.

cheers!

do what?

as a big fan of abstract theologies and innovative ecclesiology, i realize that i have a personal tendency towards things that make no sense whatsoever to normal people.

i just like weird stuff

i like obscure bible passages and ancient near eastern creation myths
i like angelology and alternate atonement theories
i even like watching stupid movies like ghost rider [which, btw, is stupid x 2 ]

but i also find myself driven to try and refine christian spirituality to its most true version
i want to believe and do and experience what jesus christ intended for me to believe and do and experience

as part of this desire, i've begun to think that those of us who follow jesus need to engage in spiritual practices more than we need to engage in theology
even though i love theology
and even though i recognize there is always a danger of works-based righteousness creeping into our understanding of salvation [which, interestingly enough, we always seem more scared of than useless/listless faith that doesn't compel us to act in any way different than how we're feeling from moment to moment].

so - in response to the ever-ontologically probing question "what should we be doing?"
here is the beginnings of my response
which, of course, i base on my understanding of jesus' life as presented in the gospels


#1. get together.
call it fellowship, mentoring, discipleship, or community - i think we ought to just get together with other people and be exposed to the manifestations of the divine life that are reflected in them and in-between us all. we ought to learn from one another, love one another, and learn to be present with one another even when we don't want to or feel like we don't need to.

#2. engage scripture.
yup - we need to read the bible [brilliant, i know]. these days it's common to talk about differing learning styles and the difficulty for some people to find meaning by reading the words of the biblical text; but, to be honest, if we're serious about christ we should be serious about the primary sources that tell us about him. so, if you don't find anything meaningful out of reading the bible - then buy the cd, or enter into a discussion group, or just read one verse per week over and over again and think about it ad naseum. you just can't be a jesus-lover if you're negligent about engaging scripture.

#3. pray.
again, brilliant [i know - lay off]. your prayers don't have to be intelligent, thoughtful, or even coherent in order to "count." just pray. be honest to god - tell him how you're feeling. ask for guidance and wisdom. pray for strength. shutting up is a pretty good idea, too - in an effort to hear his potential responses, though [if you're like me], shutting up is usually quickly followed by shutting my eyes and falling asleep in a puddle of my own apathy/drool.

#4. help the world.
care about the planet. care about injustice. care about people. care about culture/society. care about government...and then do something - do anything to actually try and make a difference. jesus wasn't divorced from the material reality of his day - he lived in it. he engaged pharisees and zealots, romans and ex-pats, politicians and slaves; he engaged politics and culture, societal norms and religious traditions, and he challenged injustice and evil in every way. we should too.

#5. give money.
generosity is an outward manifestation of gratitude to god. give money to people, to charities, to churches, and to npo's all over the planet.

#6. laugh.
i think we're all a little tired of the dour-religious stereotype. jesus partied, played with kids, had close friends, drank good [and alternately, sometimes cheap] wine, and spent most of the gospels eating. that sounds fun [there's obviously more to the story than "fun", but i think we get the confrontational jesus and the benign jesus much more than we get the loving-life-as-gods-gift-lets-enjoy-one-another jesus].

#7. dream up new ideas.
jesus revolutionized commerce, society, religion, and politics in the minds of his followers. isn't there a part of our followership that ought to do the same?

#8. make things.
scripture teaches us we are co-creators with god, image-bearers of the divine reflecting his nature in our activities. his first act that mattered to us? making the world and everything in it [p.s. john tells us jesus was around at this point, so it seems a good add in this list].

#9. have spiritual conversations.
be intentional about allowing the spiritual nomenclature and experiences of your life to affect your conversations. don't run away from honesty about the supernatural and/or the experience of jesus christ [don't be a weirdo about it either, forcing people into engagement with your religious convictions]. we're often careful not to offend others by virtue of bringing up religion, but i've always found that people are typically interested in a respectful disclosure of faith-based dialogue. we shouldn't be hesitant to welcome spirituality into our everyday lives with other people.

this list is, of course, incomplete/flawed/unsatisfying -as-a-thesis. but it is also a true beginning for how we ought to live. it is a starting point . it is the simplicity that will help to guide us through the complexity of doctrine and debate.

do justice
love mercy

stuff like that

cheers

- dave

The Evolution of Soul: Theosis for the 21st Century PART V

What has affected me most about theosis is not that I might gain additional spiritual reward, but that my life might have additional meaning because of the additional quality of God I carry. I get excited thinking about the ways in which God’s own Spirit is transforming me into an imitation of Christ that is not only pious and affectionate, but also passionate and strong.

It would be a mistake, I think, to dismiss these feelings as boyhood fancy or the ticklings of a new thought; rather, I believe that the expression of faith in Christ for me, indeed the very process of my present sanctification as much as is able, has primarily to do with God’s mission of mercy and justice for the world. This is not to overplay my own importance, but to realize that any and all of us have this access to Christus Victor and the pathways of theosis to order and place our steps.

I am left without the option of disregard for ecology or justice issues or the plight of the poor. I am compelled by the example of Christ’s caustic sacrifice to emulate his critique of the dominant power systems and cultural representations of the world around me. But far from believing myself to be an adversary of the world, I believe that theosis causes me to engage the world with a kind of universal sanctification in mind – I find myself an idealist, believing that I can contribute in some measure to making the world a better place.

May God grant us all the wisdom to be counter-cultural without being abusive, to be engaged in critique without being hateful, and to be passionate about justice without neglecting neither love nor piety.

The Evolution of Soul: Theosis for the 21st Century PART IV

Christus Victor was the dominant theory of the Atonement for the first thousand years of the Christian Church. In contrast to the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement, a highly rationalized doctrine wherein Jesus is understood to be the perfect sacrifice who can atone for all the sins of humanity through his death, Christus Victor is perhaps best understood as a “drama, a passion story of God triumphing over the powers and liberating humanity from the bondage of sin.”[1]

Furthermore, this drama is understood to be subversive. Christ’s death is seen as an “exposure of the cruelty and evil present in the worldly powers that rejected and killed him”,[2] and His resurrection as a triumph over these powers. The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Jesus, then, serve as an indictment of the whole social order at the time – a social order that was based on strength, dominion, and control. This is understood to be much larger than simply the Roman Empire, and might instead be better conceived as the “Way of the World” or the “Kingdom of the Earth.” It is the entire moral bankruptcy of those who misuse power and refuse the demands of justice. Says Gustav Allen, author of the Christus Victor[3] and herald of the reclamation of the subversive gospel, “"The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil" showing that Christ’s victory was not merely over the dominant powers at that time but over all domination systems through all time. This victory likewise empowers and enables us to subvert and criticize these same systems.

I think one important component of theosis may mean an embodiment of Christus Victor.

If theosis means recovering the image of God in our humanity, then it must also mean acting on behalf of God for humanity. If we truly are to share in the divine nature, to participate in the image and moral will of God, than I think that has to be far more encompassing than merely behavior modification or personal holiness and lifestyle.

Theosis, and even the process by which we try and attain theosis, ought to have components of justice, disruption, and critique inherent.

A Contemporary Theosis:

Being participants in the divine nature has to mean more than simply the ability to live a more moral life or enjoy more spiritual blessings afterwards. To be a participant in the divine nature means that we must also fully participate in our human nature – as Christ did – and involve ourselves in human concerns albeit with divine authority and perspective. This means we must be transformed from spectators into activists, from mere worshippers into missionaries, and from prosperous USAmericans into life-giving ambassadors of Jesus.

Spectators v. Activists

I use these terms in reference to the global scenarios of injustice and corruption frequently viewed by USAmericans as something terribles somewhere else; yet, I believe that “somewhere else” is only a reality insofar as we negelct to think of the whole earth as our home and the playground of our commonality. A theosis of Christus Victor is a transformation that unifies our understanding of global concerns and compels us to act on behalf of the disenfranchised and underrepresented, to rise up – not with violence and hatred – but with concern and with a voice that cannot be silenced by politic or economy.

Wesley makes excellent commentary on such a “transformation of the economic and political order”[4] when he advocates for the establishment of Pentecostal commun(al)ism and the abolition of war.”[5] He understood these to be one aspect of the political dimension of sanctification, an aspect that would create a “holy dissatisfaction with the way things are” and becomes a “future hope that the present can become something better.”[6]

Though I am not a fan of the creation of a kind of Evangelical Enclave, I am very much in favor of a Christian church that wants to leave the Enclave of western imperialism and “get its hands dirty” in the waterless, hungry world of the poor.

Worshippers v. Missionaries

In The New Creation Theologian Theodore Runyn claims Wesley “understood God's goal as the transformation of this present age, restoring health and holiness to God's creation.”[7] He points out that Wesley saw our ethic as being that of entering “into the life of the world to renew the creature after the divine image and the creation after the divine will”[8], and I believe that ethic extends not only to the rescue of the poor but the redemption of the entire created order.

This is more than a sanctified ecology or an environmental enthusiasm. The redemption of creation is a biblio-centric emphasis that understands that true salvation is salvation for more than personal atonement, but is a restoration of all that has been lost since the Fall. This, of course, hastens us to be reminded of Ireneus’ recapitulation but with the fervor of Greenpeace and the broadening scope of the United Nations and the Presidential Council on Ecology and the Environment.

We can no longer be content to worship in our churches. We must now redeem all of the world as an act of worship, becoming missionaries who not only save souls but also save the planet, the animals, the cultures and the ethos of our world. It is a more comprehensive calling, more noble, but also more in line with theosis as it was perhaps understood by the Fathers.

Prosperous Americans v. Life-Giving Christ-Followers

The final movement I see required in a contemporary understanding of theosis is that we learn to see ourselves as a resource for the rest of the world, rather than the idolized playboy of the third-world and/or crumbling communism. Where once Christianity was the author of the American Dream, now I think we have to understand that – for many, many people – the acquisition of the American Dream comes at the expense of never waking up to the reality of the Bolivian Nightmare or the Rwandan Insomnia.

Our orientation must shift somewhat from primarily carrying a gospel of democracy and freedom to the leaders of the world, to carrying a gospel of things like clean water and public education to their children. I realize it is presumptuous to assert that more money from American tax dollars is the solution to the unfortunate economies of less-priveliged states, but I also believe that many Evangelical churches buy their way out of concern for those states with one-time gifts of charity and a short-term mission trip.

We must make larger, longer, investments in places where the time and attention of our finances can be seen to literally create a new world for villages and towns racked by natural disasters, former dictators, and the absence of infrastructure. If used correctly, our money can be a significant step towards solving a significant amount of the problems faced by isolated groups of people and I believe that a contemporary theosis has inherent within it that we try.

When we begin to see theosis in this light, the light of our embodiment of Christus Victor, then I think it has different implications for us than just personal holiness. Without downplaying the significance and worth of piety, allow me to say that I was raised in a holiness tradition and understood faith for many years as primarily good behavior motivated by affection for God. Now, however, the more of the scriptures that I read, the more I became convinced that the world is overrun with injustice and a significant portion of my reflection/embodiment of the divine nature has to be concern for the concerns of God.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor Accessed 7/31/06

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christus_Victor Accessed 7/31/06

[3] Gustav Allen, Christus Victor (London: Macmillan, 1969).

[4] Theodore W Jennings. Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical Economics, (Abingdon Press, 1990), 153

[5] Theodore W Jennings. Good News to the Poor: John Wesley's Evangelical Economics, (Abingdon Press, 1990), 153

[6] Cf. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:kEdjTupOIvQJ:www.methodist.org.uk/downloads/emtc-paper-holiness_and_the_wider_ecumenical_perspective.doc+wesley+moral,+political,+natural,+image+of+god&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=4 Accessed 7/31/06

[7] Theodore Runyn. The New Creation: John Wesley's Theology Today, (Abingdon Press, 1998), 169.

[8] Theodore Runyn. The New Creation: John Wesley's Theology Today, (Abingdon Press, 1998), 169.

The Evolution of Soul: Theosis for the 21st Century PART III

Because of my previous lack of familiarity with the doctrine of theosis, I have found it helpful to trace the origins of thought surrounding it through the Patristic Period and into the Middle Ages. In no way is this a comprehensive look at the development of theosis doctrine; rather, this section will serve as an overview of the material contained within The Story of Christian Theology as pertaining specifically to theosis and its development in order to supply the reader with the foundation for my interest in it.

Ignatius of Antioch, d. c.110-115 A.D.?

Theosis – or some precursor of it – seems to come first into the theology of Ignatius and his understanding of the sacraments. Ignatius believed that each time one participated in the Eucharist, he was transformed by the sacrament as a means of grace. Though his thoughts were not fully recorded or developed along the eventual implications of this belief, he did “mean to emphasize that by partaking in the bread and wine of the Lord’s meal, a person is gaining a participation in the divine immortality that overcomes the curse of death brought on by sin.”[1] Centuries later, this basis of belief became the understanding for believers in both Catholic and Orthodox traditions that each time they participated in the sacrament they were given increasingly more of the divine nature.

Ireneus, c.120-202 A.D.

If anyone could most rightly be called the father of theosis doctrine it would be Ireneus. His understanding of the Incarnation-- a metaphysical “do-over”, so to speak-- lay the groundwork for his vision of humanity’s participation in the divine nature. For Ireneus, God’s “purpose and goal in redemption is to reverse the sin, corruption and death introduced into humanity by Adam and lift humanity up to life and immortality.”[2] He saw this as being accomplished through the union of Christ’s two natures – divine and material – which make provision for believers to follow suit. Theosis asserts the complete restoration of all people, in principle, through the recapitulation of Christ by which He “provided redemption by going through the entire scope of human life and at each juncture reversed the disobedience of Adam.” Thus, anyone who now chooses to accept Christ as their “new head” [hence, recapitulation] will trade their old, corrupt “head” [born of Adam – the first head of humanity] and be able to find repentance and transformation with the hope of participating in the divine nature.

For many fathers, theosis goes beyond simply restoring people to their state before the Fall of Adam and Eve, teaching that because Christ united the human and divine natures in his person, it is now possible for someone to experience closer fellowship with God than Adam and Eve initially experienced in the Garden of Eden, and that people can become more like God than Adam and Eve were at that time. Some Orthodox theologians go so far as to say that Jesus would have become incarnate for this reason alone, even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.[3]

Nevertheless, it is from Ireneus that most of the latter theologians take their cue. He was the first one to truly follow the implications of Ignatius’ thoughts to their practical conclusions and make use of the doctrine in such a way as to help our understanding of soteriology.

Origen of Alexandria, c.182-251 A.D.

Origen understood theosis as the ultimate goal of every believer’s life. For him, theosis was the journey and the struggle of faith that was the centerpiece of Christian living, and he encouraged his adherents to scour the scriptures for the “most important level of meaning in the scripture”[4] which often revealed how believers ought to live in order to further their divinization.

Origen conceived salvation as a “process of transformation into the image of God”[5] which would eventually lead believers into a partial participation in God’s own nature, though he did value human free will in the midst of this transformation alongside the “absolute necessity”[6] of God’s grace. In this way, we might conceive of his soteriology as a kind of synergy, wherein human thoughts and will and emotions cooperate with the Spirit of God to gradually reflect more of His nature.

Origen’s thoughts seem most consistent with the contemporary Evangelical notions of “working out your salvation”,[7] or even of the process of sanctification or holy living. He steps into contentious territory in the tension between grace-and-behavior/law, but with the intention of encouraging theosis-transformation rather than simply behavior-modification.

Athanasius, c. 298-373 A.D.

Next in line was Athanasius, though his orientation on theosis was more of a defense versus Arianism than it was an assertion of Christ’s humanity. Athanasius believed that Christ’s union of the divine and the material was the soteriological bridge that allows people to be saved; and, if that union were in some way compromised – i.e. if Jesus were not “truly God” – than the salvation of humanity was impossible. So Athanasius’ rationale was that the “human problem was death because of sin”[8] and the solution was “deification by means of humanity and divinity being joined in the Incarnation.”[9]

Athanasius also supplied one of the most oft-quoted references regarding the doctrine of theosis, which – though it was cited in the introduction – is printed here.

For He was made man that we might be made God; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the Unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality.

Note that Athanasius makes careful mention of the duality of Jesus’ existence: He is both “manifested” and is able to give us an “immortal” inheritance. In his fight against the Arian heresy, Athanasius was very clear about the fact that the gospel was about Jesus Christ, and “if Jesus Christ was not God and human, then he could not bring the two together…[and] salvation would be reduced to living a good moral life…”[10]

Gregory of Nazianzus, c.329-389 A.D.

Much of Gregory’s thinking about theosis had to do with combating Apollinarianism, which denied that Christ’s “spirit”[11] never fully entered human experience and/or limitations, but instead wore His humanity like a suit which was ultimately discarded. For Gregory, this constituted a threat to salvation, for if Jesus Christ’s humanity was not complete, then neither could we be saved wholly through it. Apollinarius’ theology, on the other hand, “could work whether one believed the Son of God who dwelled in Jesus Christ as his rational soul was eternal God or created demigod”,[12] which many heretics had already begun to teach. Yet this teaching was ultimately condemned as heresy because of the reality that Gregory foresaw, which was that no true bridge between the wholly divine nature of God and the wholly material nature of humanity could be made without Jesus Christ having wholly become human. The incarnation was the bridge between these two natures, and theosis was the “process of grace transforming humans into partial participants in the divine nature through the wonderful exchange of the incarnation.”[13]

Gregory of Nyssa, c. 334-394 A.D.

Perhaps this Gregory’s most significant contribution to the doctrine of theosis is that of epektasis. Epektasis, or “constant progress”, was Gregory’s way of understanding the perpetual climb of humanity out of our fallen nature. It was the way in which he chose to represent theosis as “constant progress in godliness and virtue” and noted that it is the goal of humanity to “become more and more perfect, more like God, even though [we] will never understand, much less attain, God’s transcendence.”[14]

This doctrine particularly rubbed with the Platonic philosophy that immutability is perfection and any ability to change constituted an imperfection; hence, many Platonists neglected to see the spiritual nature of progress in the same way that Gregory did. In Gregory’s view, however, he understood God to be immutable – because He was/is already perfect – but insisted we must change [ergo voluntarily be imperfect] in order to become more like God, who is supremely Perfect.

Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274 A.D.

Arguably the greatest theologian since the Apostle Paul, Aquinas’ was a welcome voice in the conversation about the significance and meaning of theosis, particularly in our understanding of how theosis brings together both justification [the judicial/satisfaction side of salvation [and] sanctification [the internal side of personal holiness]. For Aquinas, “grace is a work of God in human beings raising them above their human nature to the point where they become sharers in the divine nature.”[15] Significant to Aquinas’ line of thought was his belief that human nature was not ruined by the Fall in Genesis 3; rather, the Fall destroyed “original righteousness” but not human nature. Human nature, according to Aquinas, retained the image of God during the Fall and that nature is revitalized through transformation by God’s supernatural grace into the nature of the divine.

As we have traced theosis through these theologians, it becomes clear that the doctrine is morphing somewhat in its scope. Whereas some of the earlier writers might have thought theosis in more mystical terms, we begin to see in the latter ones the idea that we are returning to something from which we have been taken; or, more accurately, something is being returned to us. Aquinas in particular seems to suggest that our theosis is a re-entry into a pre-Fall Edenic identity that is more truly, more authentically, human insofar as we define humanity as bearing the image and likeness of God.

It is this notion of our true humanity that I would like to put forward as a beginning for a contemporary theosis. I believe there may be great benefit to our evangelistic efforts and our spiritual conversations with the world if we frame things in this light. I will explore these ideas later on in the article.

---

[1] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 48.

[2] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 77.

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis Accessed 7/31/06

[4] Cf. Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 106.

[5] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 112.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Cf. Philippians 2.12b

[8] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 169.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 170-171.

[11] In reference to the Platonic distinction of the three components of being: body, soul, spirit.

[12] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 189.

[13] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 189.

[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa Accessed 7/31/06

[15] Brian Davies, The Thought of Thomas Aquinas (Oxford: Claredon, 1992), 264.

The Evolution of Soul: Theosis for the 21st Century PART II

Theosis is the name of a doctrine that originated in the Patristic period. It concerns the claim that Christians are able to be transformed through the power of the Holy Spirit to become more morally and willfully intact; that is, believers are given a co operant grace to participate in the restoration of the moral image of God. It is the “call to man to become holy and seek union with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in the resurrection”[1] and, though often equated with Eastern Orthodox or Catholic theology in contemporary thought, is frequently conceived as something akin to sanctification in Protestant theology.

The word theosis literally means “ingodded”, though it is often translated as deification or divinization. The doctrine is understood to be grounded in Scriptures (Psalms 82:6, John 10:34-35, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:1-2) and in the Apostolic Tradition according to its principal proponents (Origen, Clement, Ephrem, Macarius, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor). Over time, the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of theosis became defined as a "union (of energies) without confusion (of essence)" in which the essential distinction between Creator and creature eternally remains.[2] As Orthodox Bishop Kalistos Ware writes: "In the Age to come, God is 'all in all,' but Peter is Peter and Paul is Paul."[3]

The doctrine began to gain credence with the axiom-driven support of such enthusiasts as Ireneus, who claimed that “if the Word was made man it is that men might become gods”[4], and Athenasius, who marked the purpose of the Incarnation that “God became man so that man might become God.”[5] Ireneus, in particular, saw “salvation as transformation of humans into partakers of the divine nature”[6] and in later days his thoughts were often accompanied by scriptures such as 1 Peter 1.4 (“Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature and escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires”).

The transformation brought about through theosis is multi-faceted, and theosis itself furthers our image and understanding of God. Through theoria, the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus, believers will “come to know and experience what it means to be fully [in the created image of God].”[7] This is a restoration of the moral image of God in humanity. Through communion with Christ, “God shares Himself with humanity in order to conform them to all that God is in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness,”[8] which is the process by which believers are made holy in their character. St. Maximus the Confessor, a proponent and defender of the doctrine of theosis c. 580-682, wrote:

"A sure warrant for looking forward with hope to deification of human nature is provided by the incarnation of God, which makes man god to the same degree as God Himself became man. For it is clear that He who became man without sin (cf. Heb. 4:15) will divinize human nature without changing it into the divine nature, and will raise it up for His own sake to the same degree as He lowered Himself for man's sake. This is what St. Paul teaches mystically when he says, '...that in the ages to come He might display the overflowing richness of His grace' (Eph. 2:7)."[9]

The contemporary view of western Catholics differs slightly from this perspective, however, and sees theosis as a “specific and advanced form of contemplative prayer,”[10] while that of modern Protestants, with the exception of Methodists and some pietists, tends to ignore the term theosis in favor of some version of the doctrine of sanctification or, more commonly, entire sanctification.

Yet those who hold to the doctrine of theosis would mark a distinction between their understanding of divinization as substantively more than the Protestant doctrine of sanctification. For, while theosis boasts no ontological change – i.e. humanity actually becoming fully divine in nature – there is an ontological participation by which there is a “very real participation in the divine life.”[11] “The Orthodox hope of salvation,” says scholar Ross Aden, “in its broadest sense is more than hope of a divine sentence of 'not guilty' or even of a beatific vision; it is `human participation in the being of God . . . a total sharing in the Triune life.”[12] According to some scholars the western churches come closest to this kind of understanding through the use of the phrase “the imitation of Christ”[13], the “imitation”, however, is of a different quality than the “manifestation of the energies of the Holy Spirit.”[14]

Theosis is, perhaps, one way in which Protestants [and particularly Evangelicals] may rediscover a healthy emphasis on the ongoing progress of the Christian life which seems all-too-absent from our popular teachings. Though to some it may seem like simply a “re-branding” of Wesleyan sanctification doctrine, I believe there is a richness to this theology that may not be fully represented in our understanding of sanctification; and, one in which we find great meaning and encouragement to follow Christ.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis Accessed: 7/31/06

[2] Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1995), 168.

[3] Bishop Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way (New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1995), 168.

[4] Against Heresies, Bk. V. Pref. col. 1035

[5] On the Incarnation of the Word, Bk. IV. par 65

[6] Roger E.Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1999), 77.

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis Accessed 7/31/06

[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis Accessed 7/31/06

[9] PHILOKALIA Volume II, page 178

[10] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis Accessed 7/31/06

[11] http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/THEOSIS2.html Accessed 7/31/06

[12] Ross Aden, "Justification and Sanctification: A Conversation Between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 38:1 (1994):96-98.

[13] Cf. http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/THEOSIS2.html#23 Accessed 7/31/06, who also cites G.L. Bray, "Deification," in Sinclair B. Ferguson, David. F. Wright, J.I. Packer, ed. New Dictionary of Theology (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity, 1988) p. 189.

[14] http://www.bethel.edu/~rakrob/files/THEOSIS2.html#23. Accessed 7/31/06