Glocal Christianity

Resurrection?

What is resurrection? What did the apostles mean when they spoke of resurrection? Were they simply referring to life after death? Or by using the word resurrection were they referring to something beyond even that?

I raise this question because there still seems to be a lot of confusion out in the blogosphere, and elsewhere, as to what resurrection actually means. Here is what N T Wright had to say about the resurrection of the dead in "What St Paul Really Said":

"Resurrection is not simply resuscitation; it is transformation, the changing of the present mode of physicality into a new mode, of which Jesus in his risen body is the only prototype, but for which the transformation of a seed into a plant can function as a general analogy. This is the Creator's plan for the future of his human creation." (Wright, 1997, 140)

So, not simply resuscitation, but not simply dematerialization either. Resurrection is far more holistic. Whatever else it involves, it involves leaving an empty tomb behind. 

As such, resurrection is discernably different from Homeric Paganism with its myths of dying and rising gods who, generally speaking, died again and again in endless cycles. It is also discernably different from Platonic Paganism with its notion of soul survival. For the apostles, disembodiment was at most a transitional state prior to resurrection, it was not resurrection in and of itself. This raises some interesting questions about the importance of the body in ancient Christian teaching in comparison to ancient Pagan teaching, particularly in terms of Platonic and Gnostic style afterlife. Which path valued the body more?

Does Global Christianity Equal American Christianity?

Christianity Today is currently running an article which asks the question, "Does Global Christianity Equal American Christianity?" In some ways this is like the article I wrote back in February,"Globalized Christianity and World Christianity: Understanding the Difference," though I'd challenge his suggestion that America represents "the first large-scale effort to found, establish, guide, and nurture Christian communities after Christendom." Interesting all the same, particularly in the way it challenges the missional effectiveness of missionaries.

Who are the Quakers?

Have you ever heard of the Quakers? Every now and then I get people asking me about different kinds of Christianity. What are they like? I have been thinking, hmmm, I would like to oblige, but how? I've often learned through primary source research myself. Then it occured to me, why not just search out some good videos on people explaining their own path? So here is one of Quakers explaining why silent worship is important to them.

The core values of Anabaptist Christianity

Missio Dei explains the core values of Anabaptist Christianity as thus:

1. Jesus is the center of our faith.

2. Community is the center of our lives.

3. Reconciliation is the center of our work.

I was particularly drawn to this comment: 

Many Christians today have what is called a “flat” Bible. They assume that the words of God interpreted by Moses in the Old Testament are as authorative as the words of Jesus in the New Testament. People with this understanding of Scripture downgrade the importance of Christ’s life and words. They often go primarily to the Old Testament for their political and social ethics and to the Ten Commandments for their personal ethics. This way of seeing the Bible determines their stance on such issues as war, capital punishment and social justice.

From the early Anabaptists we can learn that the Scriptures need to be interpreted from a Christ-centered point of view. All Scripture is to be read and interpreted in the spirit of Jesus. This means that sometimes the teachings of Jesus transcend previous teachings. Jesus himself said, “You have heard it said … but I say to you.” Also, the writer of Hebrews says, “In the past, God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days, he has spoken to us by his Son … who is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being ….”

Anabaptist-minded Christians are not strict literalists. They seek to interpret all Scripture in the spirit of Jesus. The written word and the spirit of Jesus must be held in creative tension. Christians get into trouble when they either elevate the written word over the Spirit or raise the Spirit above the word. Word and Spirit need to be held together.

Jesus is Lord over the Scriptures. While the Scriptures are seen as the ultimate source of information, Jesus is nonetheless the fullest revelation of God and the ultimate authority for daily living. Because of this understanding, Anabaptist Christians get their primary guidance and ethics from Jesus rather than from Old Testament codes of law. Missionary Peter Kehler once said, “If all the Scriptures do is introduce me to Jesus Christ, that is enough!”

How "flat" is your bible?

A Guide to Glocal Christianity

One of the things Ive been working on recently is a short guide to Christianity as I understand it.

I am doing this, firstly, as a way of drawing out some of the reoccuring themes in my adhoc writings here at Glocal Christianity, and secondly, as a way of resourcing readers interested in exploring Christianity in the alternative sort of way I do.

I have simply called it My Path and you'll find it under construction via the top menu bar.

You'll see its a work in progress. Feel free to comment, constructively critique, ask questions, suggest additional material, etc, as I continue to add material. You can do that via public comments or private email.

C. S. Lewis on Christianity

I believe in Christianity as I believe in the rising sun; not because I see it, but by it I can see all else. - C. S. Lewis

Is Christianity Inclusive?

Tell me what you think of this article, "Diversity, Inclusion, and Tolerance. Where do they fit in Christianity?"

I think it makes a number of valid points. For instance, I agree that the intolerance shown towards Christianity by self appointed champions of tolerance is a wee bit ironic and hypocritical. But I think the author overplays his hand, and fails to adequately acknowledge the limits of Christian diversity, inclusion and tolerance. Every paths has its limits after all. That is, if it can be called a path.

Globalized Christianity and World Christianity: Understanding the Difference

I wonder how many Americans understand the difference between Globalized Christianity and World Christianity?

If my experience with American Christian, American Atheist and American Pagan blogs is anything to go by, I would have to conclude ... only a minority. For example, in a recent conversation about Rob Bell, some Emergents said,

"...there are two completely different conversations taking place in Christianity today. One version is concerned with defending the religious assumptions rooted in the all important “either/or” duality that blankets American Christianity. The other conversation has already mourned the death of the previous conversation and has turned to page to a completely different set of questions."

Only two conversations? One exclusively American and the other emerging out of the old American one? Give me a break! These champions of holism and bigger perspectives all seemed oblivious to how dualistic and colonial these comments actually were.

Not that Pagans or Atheists fair any better. "You mean Christianity is different in different countries? You mean even evangelicalism is different in different countries?" After hours of explaining just that. Slaps head against brick wall. Ah, the privileges of empire.

So, to hopefully enlighten at least some folks in America, here is the difference. 

Globalized Christianity is that which you export to everyone else. It's synonymous with global Americanization and cultural colonization. Think Rick Warren. Think Brian McLaren.

World Christianity is the Jesus movement in all its diversity, where you are just one of many voices, and hopefully amongst the many listeners.

The two mutually interact but they are definitely distinct.

Now here is the red pill. When you confuse Christianity, unqualified, with national conversations, you're talking Globalized Christianity, not World Christianity. When you identify Christianity, unqualified, with national voices, national conferences, and  national networks, you're talking Globalized Christianity, not World Christianity. And I don't care whether you're Megachurch or Emergent.

Think I am being harsh? Test youself. How many non-American bloggers do you listen to? How many do you link to? Proportionately? If less than thirty percent come from a country other than your own let me suggest you think seriously before considering your conversation as being informed by World Christianity.

Here endeth the rant. For those of you who do get the difference between Globalized Christianity and World Christianity already, you are precious, you are gems.

No Christian Believes Just These Things

I was reading an interview with Tim Keller where he was talking about Christian diversity and the ancient creeds and said, “All Christians believe all these things, but no Christian believes just these things.” What a wonderful summary of Christian diversity I though, emphasizing both those words. None of us affirm just the essentials.

Most popular posts for 2008

Here are the most popular posts of 2008

1. Hillsong in Trouble Over Mercy Ministries
2. Abortion, Politics and Christianity
3. Personality and PSI
4. Just to explain ... Hopefully
5. Pagan Cynicism
6. Is Interfaith Interfaith Enough?
7. Missional Resources for Christian Engagement with New Religions and Interreligious Spiritualities
8. Religion in Australia
9. What Are Your Favourite Bible Verses?
10. Is Atheism Acultural?
11. Joyce Meyer and Positive Confession
12. Just War Theology as Constantinian Hangover

See also:

Most popular posts for 2007

Most popular posts for 2006

Most popular posts for 2005

Surfing the Christian Blogosphere

Here's what Ive been reading from the Christian blogosphere:

• Jamie Arpin-Ricci interviews Michael Frost about ReJesus
• Glen Scrivener critiques Piper's theology of glory
• Ben Myers on alternative theses on art
• John Morehead announces Volume 3 of Sacred Tribes Journal is now online

What blogs have you been reading lately? Which have stretched your imagination? Your thinking? Your heart?

Meditation and Ethical Transformation

I was just wondering if there were any people out there that were interested in exploring Christian meditation but were nervous about the whole altered states of consciousness thing?

Here is how I see it: I am basically open to altered states of consciousness, I experience them myself, but the value of our meditation practice should not be measured by the depth of our epiphanies but by the shift in our lives. One of the distinguishing marks of Christian meditation down the centuries has been its deeply ethical focus, and on this I draw your attention to 1 Corinthians 13:2.

“If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

For the Christian mystic, moral transformation takes precedence over phenomenological experience as a gauge of how well your practice is going. You may have experienced all sorts of things, but if you experience no discernable impact in the way you relate to people, no restoration of justice in your relationships, then chances are you’ve just being fooled by a glamour. Chances are you’re just being an experience junkie. I think this explains the Christian reluctance to say much about techniques down the centuries – mere reproducing of phenomenal experiences is of secondary concern only. So my advice is, be open to the experience but don't get fixated on it or make too much of it.

Christian Diversity

The other evening I was thinking about Christian diversity and how to explain the differences between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions to new believers and interested enquirers. Now, I am sure there are many ways to approach this but after some reflection I am inclined to suggest that the critical difference comes down to different understandings of apostolic authority. What is authoritative for the church? Who is an authority within the church?

In contrast to Buddhism, where different traditions within it literally have different scriptures, within Christianity different traditions still affirm the same scriptures as authoritative, at least for the most part. We all affirm the same New Testament scriptures, and even the same ecumenical Creeds. The differences don’t arise from there. Instead the differences arise through differences in the way we interpret scripture and tradition – What part does tradition play in interpretation? What part does the church play in interpretation? Who has authority to interpret?

The context in which revelation is interpreted shapes how we understand it.

Catholic Christians have a very hierarchical approach; they emphasize Papal authority and link apostolic authority to Papal succession. Orthodox Christians have a more consensus approach; they emphasize the authority of the ancient ecumenical councils and link apostolic authority to the church acting as a whole, within parallel jurisdictions. Protestant Christians have a more tradition-critical / individualistic approach; they emphasize the Bible’s authority over later tradition and accord apostolic authority to any church or Christian acting in harmony with the apostle’s teaching in scripture.

How does this work out in practice? Well for starters we all agree with the Nicene Creed, but for different reasons. Catholic Christians accept its authority because the Pope presided over it. Orthodox Christians accept its authority because it was ecumenical (except for the filoque bit). Protestant Christians accept its authority because, while it goes beyond the Bible, it is fully consistent with it.

Where the traditions disagree, it is often for similar reasons. Protestants will disagree with other traditions where there is insufficient New Testament support for them. At its best this can be a useful check against cultural accretations and theological drift. Orthodox will disagree with other traditions where there is insufficient consensus with the wider church over its long history. This can be a useful check against overly ahistorical or eccentric readings. Get the idea?

But what this led me to consider is the shape of the church in a post-Christendom world. You might recall that I have previously suggested that the distinction between clergy and laity is not nearly as significant as the distinction between disciples and non-disciples in a post-Christendom environment. I am inclined to extend this and say the distinctions between Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox pales into insignificance when compared to the distinctions between Christians and non-Christians – and its time we start remembering this forgotten truth. Whatever our differences, we all worship Jesus as God, we are all disciples of Jesus.

An Evangelical Manifesto

I have finished reading An Evangelical Manifesto and am pleased to say I found it refreshingly moderate. It positions evangelicalism between opposing Protestant tendencies towards liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism, has some very interesting things to say about the public square and engagement with other religions, and overall does a good job at clarifying evangelical Christian identity. This is a declaration I would put my name to. If you are not a Christian, read it, be informed. Actually, if you are a Christian, read it too.

Christianity and Science: Damned Either Way?

In “Humble Apologetics”, John Stackhouse highlights some curious inconsistencies with how Christianity is viewed in popular consciousness:

Another sort of widespread belief regarding other religions is particularly ironic in the light of the supposed opposition of science and Christianity. Those of our neighbours who are in fact disaffected with science, technology and modern life in general – and their numbers are growing – often include Christianity in that contemptible package. Western civilization, so the story goes … has brought us sexism, racism, environmental degradation, imperialism, and a huge gap between the rich and the poor. Christianity has enabled these disasters with its domineering God, its licence to exploit nature, its privileging of males, its motifs of God’s chosen people rising above all other nations. Because Christianity has been part of this destructive complex, it should be set aside in favour of religions that have kinder gods, or none; religions that cooperate with nature, or at least ignore it; religions that make no gender distinction, or perhaps even privilege women; and religions that no longer elevate one nation over another. Thus Christianity is not condemned as the enemy of “good” modernity but is implicated as a conspirator in “bad” modernity.

I am indebted to Stackhouse for pointing this out, because in the past I had this happen to me on a number of occasions without realizing what was going on. The typical scenario: person with grip against Christianity starts castigating it for its Dark Age mentality and opposition towards science … but by the end of the conversation is castigating it as responsible for all the evils of science. The shift is sometimes hard to pick when you’re in the middle of such conversations, but lay it out like this and self contradiction becomes absurdly apparent. Ever experienced this yourself?