There is More to Christ's Life than His Death

It seems to me that many Christians today place too much of an emphasis on substitutionary atonement, while at the same time not allowing other scriptural metaphors inform their theology of the significance of Christ’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Furthermore, there seems to be good scholarship that would point to the fact that even our common notions of substitutionary atonement are misconceived. Daniel Bell connects this common misconception as a misreading of Anselm theology of atonement.

“According to the standard reading [of Anselm],… in the face of human sin, which is an offense against God’s honor, God, as one who must uphold justice, cannot simply forgive sin but must enforce a strict rendering of what is due. Because sinful humanity cannot fulfill its debt, the God-man, Christ, steps forward and fulfills justice, renders what is due, through his substitutionary death on the cross. In this way, redemption is a result of the payment of a debt incurred through sin by means of a compensatory death that satisfies divine justice.”

However, Bell goes on to argue that this is a misreading on two accounts. Not only is it a misreading of Anselm’s articulation of atonement, but it is also (by virtue of that fact) inconstant with the theology present in scripture. As he states,

“[This undertanding] errs by reading Anselm, and thus Christ’s atonement, through the juridical lens of late medieval and early modern theology. As a result, Christ’s atoning work is displaced from its proper setting, which is the ecclesial penitential order understood as a means of grace, an order that transformed or redeemed justice as suum cuique by subsuming it in the divine order of charity. Instead, the atonement is interpreted in an alien legal context governed by a logic of debt, equity, and retribution that leaves the classical conception unredeemed, instead separating justice and mercy, thereby preventing justice from being formed by charity. Hence, making proper sense of Jesus as the justice of God entails recovering the atonement in its correct setting, the divine order of charity…

“When read in its proper context, Anselm’s account of the atonement reveals that Jesus’ death on the cross was not a matter of juridical reckoning and the strict exacting of what was due sin but rather was first and foremost a matter of ontological union, of the taking up of humanity into the communion of love that is the life of the blessed Trinity (theosis, deification)” (“Discerning: Justice and Liberation,” by Daniel M. Bell, in The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics, edited by Stanley Hauerwas and Samuel Wells.)

This is also consistent with how Old Testament scholars are saying the significance of sacrifice is in the Old Testament. The function of sacrifice for the Israelites was not for life to be taken in order for sin to be forgiven, as explained in Walter Brueggemann’s, A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament:

“The gracious role of God throughout makes the phrase means of grace applicable to what happens in the sacrifices. These are tangible means through which God acts in a saving way on behalf of the faithful worshiper; sacrifices are sacramentally conceived. We are stuck with the word sacrifice, however, because it literally describes aspects of the ritual.

“The expiatory aspect of the sacrifices needs further attention. The object of the verb kipper (“expiate, make atonement”) is sin; it is never God. The action effects forgiveness of sin, not divine appeasement. Leviticus 17:11 states: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.” The blood as blood is not expiatory, but the fact that it bears life, and God himself provides this element in the sacrifice. Again, the God-centeredness of the rite becomes apparent. The offers are the bearers of a gift from God. Yet, what the offerers bring is not inconsequential.

“While it is apparently preferred, it is not necessary for life to be taken for expiation to occur (see Lev 5:11-12), nor is any import given to the act of killing. Hence, by definition, expiation does not involve a penalty. The focus is on the rite as a saving event. Moreover, the language of substitution is not explicitly used in these texts; the animal is not a substitute for the bringer of the offering. (The goat in the Day of Atonement ritual in Lev 16 is not understood in substitutionary terms; it is a symbolic vehicle for dispatching Israel’s sins into the depths of the wilderness.)

“…Thus, in the offering the worshipers submit themselves to God. The sacrifice is thus a tangible sign of faith, a concrete way in which one offers the self to God; no theory of how the worshiper is related to the animal is involved.”

“Thus it should come as no surprise that, elsewhere in the OT, sacrifices are not considered necessary for forgiveness (as with the Lord’s Supper). Repentance and trust in God are sufficient. This is sharply stated in Psalm 51:17; a “broken and contrite heart” is the crucial human element. In II Samuel 12:13, Nathan pronounces absolution upon David following repentance of his sin with Uriah and Bathsheba, wit no accompanying sacrifice.” (Brueggemann 160).

Furthermore, out of all of the articulations of the significance of Christ’s life in the New Testament, the metaphor of atonement is used only four times. Never is Christ’s life or death associated with atonement in any of the Gospels. In fact, the only sacrifices that are associated with Christ’s death in the Gospels are the Passover sacrifice, and the covenantal sacrifice – neither of which is the death of the animal understood as the salvific element. The Passover sacrifice is particularly important because it had been celebrated for nearly two thousand years before Christ was associated with it. Every time the Israelites celebrated Passover, the sacrifice was no longer associated with the death angel “passing over” but rather an act of remembrance and celebration. What was at stake in the celebration of Passover was not that they would loose their lives if they did not kill the lamb, but rather they would loose their memory of God's deliverance. Not only was Passover a way to nurture the memory and awareness of God's deliverance, but also a way to rededicate their lives to God. Attempting to read Christ's death solely in terms of atonement sacrifice is to overlook considerably all of the other nuances that other NT texts bring.

The significance of all of this is not merely to have a better understanding of Christ’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, but that with a better awareness of God’s grace and love we might more faithfully live and proclaim the inbreaking kingdom of God. As Scot McKnight articulates in his book, A Community Called Atonement, “atonemtent is only understood when it is understood as the restoration of humans – in all directions – so that they form a society (the ecclesia, the church) wherein God’s will is lived out and given freedom to transform all of life. Any theory of atonement that is not an ecclesial theory of atonement is inadequate” (p. 9).

Finding God in Pop Culture is Like…

I’m reading a book that is subtitled, “Finding God in Pop Culture.” This comes in a long line of books geared towards “finding God in Pop Culture” such as: The Gospel According to Lost; Finding God in the Movies; The Gospel According to Oprah; Finding God at Harvard; The Gospel According to Starbucks; Finding God's Truth in TV's Reality; The Gospel According to Bruce Springsteen; Finding God in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: A Spiritual Exploration of the Star Wars Saga. I often wonder to whom are such books addressed? When I hear the conversations of many American Christians I’ve met (who range from Catholic and Orthodox to Protestant Evangelical) I realize that they are all well immersed in pop culture. Most have, at the very least, three television shows that they watch on a regular basis. There is also no shortage of pop culture references in most sermons and Sunday school curriculum, not to mention the fact that most youth curriculum have far more references to pop culture than to the inheritance of the saints.

This leads me to my first question: who exactly is it that needs to be convinced that they can use pop culture to inform their notion of who God is? As I see it, most people are already operating from this premise, and what they are actually looking for is confirmation that the way in which they are bringing meaning to life is right and good.

My second question is, does the fact that something good can be found in a particular place justify the virtue of that particular place? For instance, does the fact that a fast food establishment offers vegetables justify the worthiness of eating at such an establishment for health purposes? Finding God in pop culture is like finding health food at a Bob Evans Buffet – sure you can find it but let’s not kid ourselves. Are you really looking for health food at Bob Evans, or are you trying to justify an activity that is too precious for you to let go?

To say that one can find Christian virtues and theological truths in pop culture and that the presence of these things confirm that God is at work in such places, is not saying much. If people are truly concerned about “finding God,” then pop culture is about the last place you should look. Just because certain kernels of theological truths and virtues have passed through the digestive track of pop culture, and that it looks similar coming out as it did going in, doesn’t mean that I should eat it.

The Crumbling Economy of Signs and Symbols: Part I

Ever since the book Simulacra and Simulation, by the French cultural theorist Jean Baudrillard, made a cameo in the movie The Matrix, I have had a mysterious draw to read what was between its covers. Why is that, I suppose? Well, as I read this philosophical treatise, as well as several other works by this author, I came to realize that Baudrillard himself has an explanation for this mysterious attraction. He would argue that I desired to read the book, in part, because it was participating in a system that gives value to simulated images. I must admit, I had previously seen the book while perusing through the philosophy shelf at a local bookstore. But why was the book not valuable to me when it appeared before my eyes in a form tangible to all of my senses? It was not until Hollywood presented it as a simulacrum (that is, an image or representation of someone or something) that I then thought it was worth reading.

The more I thought about this, the more I saw Baudrillards theories play out right before my eyes.

The first was at a large youth convention that had multiple big screens set up front so that the people in the back could get a better view of the happenings up front. However, I noticed something that was both intriguing as well as comical. Most of the youth who were up front near the stage were not looking at the speaker who stood ten feet in front of them in the flesh, but they nearly all of them had their heads cranked to one side or the other so that they could catch a view of the speaker on the big projection screen. Why was the projection screen more worthy of their gaze than the actual person in the flesh? It obviously had nothing to do with being able to see him. If anything, it was easier for them to simply look forward rather than craning their necks to one of the screens on either side.

I later observed a conference that set up two large projection screens in a significantly smaller arena. Youth in the back of this auditorium would have had no difficulty in seeing all of the things going on up front on the stage. This compels me to ask, with Baudrillards help, are the screens serving a practical purpose, or are they being used so as to enable the leaders of the service to participate the value system of the dominant culture? In other words, in order to give their appearance more credibility, then it must take the form of something that is simulated and one step closer to being mass-produced.

One other observation is the way people, especially youth, value their “image.” What gives their “image” value is the way in which it can participate in the images that get mass-produced and consumed. Given the fact that the images that are “worth” something are the images that are being consumed (consumed either by buying movies and magazines, or simply consumed by the eye of another human being). This is why people try to simulate the style and image of models and celebrities, either in looks or in style, because in the very act of simulating the image, they are participating in the larger value system that is based on the currency of simulacra and simulation. I am valuable because I am the generic version of Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. Most generic versions obtain their value by scamming off of the more valuable thing, and so do many of us in when we attempt bum a particular style. Even our language of “name brand” and “generic” corresponds to our language of “real” and “fake.”

These are but bits and pieces of how Baudrillards observations and commentary play out in our every day lives. He writes at great length trying to locate all of this in what he would call an economy of images, signs, and symbols. Images, signs, and symbols ain’t what they used to be – both how they are used as well as how they are understood. If there is only a thread of truth running through Baudrillard’s observations and commentary on this aspect of our culture, then there are some major concerns that the church must deal with, particularly in the realm of Christian worship where there is a very particular kind of economy of images, signs, and symbols.

Just a few things to throw into the hopper.

Translating Youth to Hear the Gospel

Youth are flooded with a wide array of information that flows through the pipeline of television, internet, telephone, school, billboards, cell phones, iPods and Podcasts, to name only a few. Not only does the information flow through seemingly countless media, it also seems to come in equally numerous forms and at an alarming rate. Youth now have instant access in virtually any location to world news, local news, what color socks their friends are wearing, television shows, movies, advertisements, historical facts, literature, magazines, research papers, and even streaming videos of what people are doing in Kazakhstan. Because businesses make a great deal of money from the media channels our youth tap and consequently guzzle, businesses also devote a great deal of effort to woo to their media.

In light of all this, the church often wonders how she can compete in this fast-paced media frenzy, as well as how she can send the gospel down the same pipelines that all of the other information seems to be flowing. But are these the right questions the church should be asking? There is no doubt that in we need to be able to communicate the gospel to youth in a way that they can understand, but this process does not necessarily mean that we are supposed to transform the gospel so that it fits into a Podcast, or make it light enough to float over the airwaves so that it can reach as many people as possible. I find it a bit disturbing that this often constitutes "cutting edge youth ministry."

While there is a definite need to translate the gospel into the mother tongue of all the peoples of the earth, the work is only half done. In fact, the main act of translation has yet to take place. To assume that the gospel is the only thing that has to change in order to bring reconciliation is erroneous. We too must be translated. We too must be changed in order that we may express and be communicated to God. And the media through which we are translated and communicated is Christ – not a virtual Christ, with a virtual body, but a physical Christ, with a tangible body.

One of the definitions of ‘translate’ is to move from one place or condition to another. This is part of what the gospel is – to move people from one place or condition to another. Sometimes it seems as though Christians hand their youth over to be formed by the dominant culture, and then they wonder why their children are not responsive to the gospel. One reason is because the gospel is not information to be enjoyed or mentally known, as if it were a television series or a documentary. For too long have we believed that as long as we are careful about the type of information that flowed into our youth through these various media that they would be alright. But while we questioned the information, we neglected to question the activity of consuming this kind of information in this sort of way.

To address the problem is not a matter of being “educated consumers.” The problem goes much deeper. We don’t save the lives of people playing Russian roulette by teaching them better techniques. The issue is not about the technique but the activity. Likewise, the church needs to reconsider the ways in which youth’s lives are shaped by the activity of consuming information in all of these ways. We as parents and mentors need to live in such a way that we are able to demonstrate the gospel of Christ is worth changing your life for. We translate the gospel to our youth by showing to them that the gospel is worth the radical transformation of our lives.

What's Your Story?

“…liberalism can be characterized as the presumption that you should have no story other than the story you chose when you had no story. A society constituted to produce people who get to choose their stories[, however,] cannot help but be caught in perpetual double-think. For what it cannot acknowledge is that we did not choose the story that we should have no story except the story we choose when we had no story.” (bold and italics mine)

⎯ Stanley Hauerwas quoted in Virtue Ethics and Moral Knowledge By R. Scott Smith (p. 69)

Once this noodle-baking concept is comprehended, it is actually quite refreshing. Quite often we are in the habit of thinking that accepting Christ is to assume subservience, while saying no to Christ we maintain an autonomy of freedom. Hauerwas reminds us that no such autonomy exists, and that we are always in a “metanarrative” that gives meaning to our choices and actions. The question then becomes whether or not we are satisfied with the story that engulfs us. Do we want to become characters in a story where we are manipulated into being slaves to systems of power, or do we want to become characters in a story where we are invited to serve the one who serves us? But one thing is sure, we cannot be presume to have no story other than the story we chose when we had no story.

A Proclamation about the Proclamation

By Frederick Buechner

When the preacher climbs up into the pulpit, switches on the lectern light and spreads out his note cards like a poker hand, maybe even the vacationing sophomore who is there only because somebody has dragged him there pricks up his ears for a second or two along with the rest of them because they believe that the man who is standing up there… has something that they do not have or at least not the same way he has it because he is a professional. He professes and stand for in public what they with varying degrees of conviction or the lack of it subscribe to mainly in private…All of this deepens the silence with which they sit there waiting for him to work a miracle, and the miracle they are waiting for is that he will not just say that God is present, because they have heard it said before and it has made no great and lasting difference to them, will not just speak the word of joy, hope, comedy, because they have heard it spoken before too and have spoken it among themselves, but that he will somehow make it real to them. They wait for him to make God real to them through the sacrament of words as God is supposed to become real in the sacrament of bread and wine, and there is no place where the preacher is more aware of his own nakedness and helplessness than here in the pulpit as he listens to the silence of their waiting. Poor, bare, forked animal in his [suit] with his heart in his mouth if not yet his foot. What can he say? What word can he speak with power enough to empower them, waiting there?

Excerpt from Frederick Buechner, Telling the Truth: The Gospel as Tragedy, Comedy, and Fairy Tale, (p. 39-40).

Our Culture of Dysphoria

The following post has been brought to you in part by:


Click here to find out if Havidol® is right for you!

What aspects of western dominant culture are the most insidious and pose the greatest challenge to the church? I often hear that it is evolution, gay rights, abortion, and the prevailing doctrine of "tolerance." Someone with more patience than me can wade through the ocean of misconceptions and erroneous interpretations at work in the current debate over these issues. However, I would like to suggest an often overlooked aspect of our culture that seems to be a greater challenge than the above hot-button issues, and that is this this culture's cultivation of dysphoria (A state of unease or generalized dissatisfaction with life. The opposite of euphoria).

In the early years of the church Christians would actually prepare themselves for various kinds torture in order to confess Christ even under the most grueling of circumstances. Such stories of Christians resisting threats of excruciating torture stands in stark contrast to the stories of many western Christians who find it almost unbearable to be in a state of discomfort.

We do not have to look far to find examples of the fact that our current economy is contingent upon a society that is compelled to buy products that avoid discomfort and promise a life of ease, comfort and convenience. This compulsion to buy such things is provoked by the cultivation of dysphoria. Why else would I be compelled to buy a remote control that does much more than merely control my tv from a remote distance?

So what? you might ask. Well, this might sound redundant, but if we continually make choices that avoid discomfort, then it seems to follow that we are going to be predisposed to make choices that avoid discomfort. This cannot be good. Again, this is in stark contrast to early Christians who put themselves in positions that made them endure discomfort, pain, and even the threat of death so as to predispose themselves to not be as influenced by those things. That is to say that while the early Christians were predisposed to resist coercion even under torture, contemporary Christians are predisposed to be persuaded to do some pretty stupid things with nothing but the threat of discomfort.

If western Christians were transported to the time of Nero, what would it take to get us to deny Christ - threaten to withhold a side item from a the menu; threaten to withhold drugs for our attention, mood, or weight disorder; threaten to make us be seen in clothes from 80's?

The Truth Project: Simply a Bad Way of Talking

The more I listen to how the Truth Projects talks about truth, the more I come to realize that it seems they have an urge to separate truth from Jesus. Of course they proof-text that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life, but they isolate verses that cast truth in the abstract rather than intimately connected with the incarnation (which in turn is intimately connected with the church). Then they make the declaration, “This scripture reveals that salvation is a result of a person's belief in God's truth claims.” This statement is irksome because scripture doesn't reveal that "salvation is a result of a person's belief in God's truth claims" but a life lived in the fullness of Christ.

It is also interesting that out of all of the proof-texts offered, they leave out Ephesians 4:21, which reads, “that is not the way you learned Christ! For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus.” It seems that they do not want to associate truth with the living community of Christ, as it is implied in Romans 10:8-10:

‘The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart’ (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.

The problem with how the Truth Projects talks about truth is that the confession that “Jesus is Lord” will no longer suffice. Now, we must confess that this confession is a truth that exist regardless of us and outside of us.

Does Jesus want truth to exist apart from us? It seems that the message of the incarnation is that the truth is near us, that God is wrapping all of creation into Godself. Granted, we need to guard against the danger of making truth whatever we want it to be (which is usually called a lie), but we also must confess that, by the grace of God, truth is with us, and indeed in us. If truth corresponds to God, and hell is separation from God, then why would we want to assert a particular kind of confession that emphasizes the separation of God/truth from humanity rather than a confession that emphasizes Emmanuel, “God with us”?

Other Posts on The Truth Project:
1. The Truth Project?
2. Wariness of The Truth Project

I also want to include this link to Hackman's Musings. He has honored me with a link to these pages, and I would be remiss not to link back to his thoughts on this topic. He makes numerous spot-on critiques and observations, as well as facilitates a much larger conversation in his comment section.

1. The Truth Project: Part 1

2. The Truth Project: Part 2

The Truth Project?

The people at Focus on the Family have launched a full-frontal assault upon an evil that lurks behind every corner that waits to suck the brains out of its next prey. This evil has many names, but Focus on the Family has dubbed this vile beast “postmodernism” (cue the creepy music). Apparently, the way the church is to live and dialogue within this postmodern “present” cultural climate is to dig in its heals and hold onto a theological and philosophical way of talking that has not only become nonsensical to the very people the church claims to bring the Good News, but it has stifled dialogue and turned otherwise interested "seekers" away from the Church. I used to be slightly annoyed and mildly amused by this organization’s presumption to speak authoritatively on highly complicated theological issues. Now, I’m just pissed off. The reason being is that they are going around the world pushing people to think in ways that are downright asinine.

Obviously, there are a lot of things that that they are saying that are praiseworthy – like loving Jesus and all that good stuff. But when they presume to give an authoritative critique of culture, philosophy, and theology, as well as offer responses to those critiques, you better be sure you bring your A-game. And these guys obviously have no A-game when it comes to theology and philosophy. They are naive charlatans delivering complex theological and philosophical issues in an oversimplified and erroneous package…bless their hearts.

So what exactly is my problem? It’s too massive to address. It’s like trying to mend a decapitated elephant with a box of Band-Aids. Maybe I’ll try to articulate a more general response to what bothers me so, but for now, I’ll leave you with this gem of how The Truth Project defines “postmodernism.”

Here at Focus on the Family, we understand the noun "postmodernism" to refer to a philosophy or mindset that rejects the value of rational thought, denies the existence of moral and spiritual absolutes, and affirms the right and power of the individual to invent his or her own "reality." This way of thinking is incompatible with the Christian perspective because it denies the existence of a truth that is valid for all people at all times. In other words, it rejects the claims of the Gospel on principle, without even granting it a hearing. It's precisely this kind of thinking that Focus on the Family's The Truth Project® is designed to counter

If you are going to “counter” something, it might help if you knew what it was you were countering, otherwise you playing war with a straw man. It’s funny; I don’t remember any self-professed postmodern philosophers or theologians staking their claim on "the rejection of rational thought." This is so off the mark that it doesn’t even count as a caricature. The other painfully misinterpreted aspect of postmodernism is that it "affirms the right and power of the individual to invent his or her own 'reality.'" Again, no postmodern thinker I've read would say this. While they might affirm the existence of different "realities," they also qualify that by saying that each person's reality is connected to a particular culture, language, practices, and shared stories of a particular community, not individual. In fact, it has been predominantly postmodern thinkers that have commented on, and analyzed the existence of various worldviews or paradigms that shape the way the individual lives and understands reality. The would also say that the individual is incapable of "inventing his or her own reality" because of the fact that we have such a symbiotic relationship with a particular worldview or paradigm.

Now it is fine to critique this aspect of Postmodernism, but this would entail a much different critique than the one that The Truth Project is offering. I applaud their efforts of attempting to help the church be more faithful to the worldview of the people of God. However, the education that they are offering is, in many ways, gagging the church from fruitful dialogue with people in this postmodern age.

Other Posts on The Truth Project:
2. Wariness of The Truth Project
3. The Truth Project: Simply a Bad Way of Talking

I also want to include this link to Hackman's Musings. He has honored me with a link to these pages, and I would be remiss not to link back to his thoughts on this topic. He makes numerous spot-on critiques and observations, as well as facilitates a much larger conversation in his comment section.

1. The Truth Project: Part 1
2. The Truth Project: Part 2

Houses Built with Human Hands

As I walked through Christ’s Church United Methodist on Park Avenue in Manhattan, I was struck with amazement by two converging facts: 1. This church was grand, beautiful and fostered an awareness that you stood in a space that had been hallowed for the public gathering of Christian worship. The doors were unlocked and anyone could wander in off the streets and dwell in this stunning space. 2. The grandeur of this place was financed by poor immigrants during the Great Depression.

As I walked through a mega church from my own tradition, I was struck with wonder by two parallel converging facts: 1. This church was big, functional, and spared no expense in lighting and audio/video technology, but spared every expense when it came to art and architecture. 2. The underwhelmingly enormous building was financed by upper class citizens during one of the wealthiest time periods of American history.

Since I grew up in a church like this, I heard first hand the rational for building a church in such a way. The rhetorical question was continually asked, why spend so much money on superficial things when all we really need is a building that can shelter as large a group as possible for occasions ranging from worship to basketball. After all, we do not need a building to worship God. Like Judas, we often wondered why anyone would waist money on such a senseless act of worship when that money could have gone to the poor (John 12).

But these questions rattled around in my head as I wondered through the church built by poor immigrants during the Great Depression. “Why was this money not given to the poor?” Well, these people where the poor, and what did they do with that money? They built a public space that could house a king. But not just any king, their king – a king that that shares his space with the poor. It goes without saying that these poor immigrants devoted their money to create a space that was the worlds apart from their private homes.

But what about the rich upper class mega church? Was this functional building worlds apart from their private homes? Yes, but in the opposite ways it was s

There seems to be an interesting tension between churches built by a predominantly poor community and churches built by a predominantly rich community. The poorer community will devote a higher percentage of their income to provide a space for worship that far exceeds the grandeur of their own homes. But the richer community will give more money, but less of a percentage of their necessary income, to build a space for worship that is “functional” because, as Judas says, this money could go to the poor.

How is it that the rich can have a problem with devoting too much money to a church building, seeing it as superficial or not a good investment or that it could go to the poor, but have no problem buying and living in $500,000 homes? It seems that if we have a problem with one, we should have a problem with the other? It is interesting how we pose such questions to a church building, but we do not pose it to our own lives.

I have now lost count with how many people who see it as their right to spend as much money on themselves, as long as they have given their “tithe” to the church. I have posed a specific question to numerous people in countless conversations:

If a Christians makes $200,000 thousand dollars a year, and has tithed $40,000 (which is 20% annual income) as well as devote time 20% of their weekly time for service in church ministries, then is it acceptable for them to buy a $60,000 Ferrari, make payments on a $500,000 home, and spend $50,000 on clothes, as long as they are not in debt (other than the home lone)?

The answer I get is always a resounding yes. In fact, many of the people I’ve posed the question to look at me like I’m crazy for even implying that there would be a problem with this.

Wariness of The Truth Project

Unlike my previous statement, I’ll try to ratchet back my sour tone. To be sure, I do not think the people at Focus on the Family are a bunch of ninnies looking to make an extra buck by pawning off clever lesson series on overeager churches willing to buy anything that glitters with their logo. They do care for the church and have rightly pointed out the need for the church to reconsider her identity within our current cultural context. As they quote from Romans 12, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.” And as they highlight in The Truth Project series, part of the way Christians renew their minds is by reapplying and reinterpreting scripture into our current cultural context. In other words, how can scripture help us to discern what is the will of God in the here and now?

However, the fact that they have some helpful insights and suggestions concerning the church’s faithfulness today does not exempt them from critique of several glaring problems in their presentation. I think that it is obvious that there is a great deal of solid Christian teaching found in The Truth Project, and I don't feel the need to point those out. What is not obvious are the pitfalls, dangers, and errors found in this project. So here a just a few observations that should give Christians pause before taking the teachings of The Truth Project at face value.

1. Faulty Assumptions
An example of the type of fallacy at work throughout The Truth Project is the way they will base an argument and a solution on an erroneous observation. For instance, if I were to say that Darwin’s theory of evolution states that God is a monkey. Then, based on this observation, I go to great lengths arguing how Darwin is wrong, as well as state all of the important reasons why we as Christians should not consider God as a monkey. While my argument might be sound, and my reasons my be important, all of this is for not because it based on a false understanding of Darwin's theory. How helpful would that be to anyone? I’m not suggesting that we not critique Darwin, but in order to give the best critique of Darwin, we must first be so well acquainted with his theory that we are able to give it a fair summary that even Darwin would agree with.

Postmodernism
One faulty assumption at work in the Truth Project is their notion of what postmodernism is. But I’ve already blabbed about this one in my previous post. Needless to say, but I’ll say it anyway, you can disagree with and critique aspects of postmodernism, but this must done out of a solid understanding of what it is you are critiquing.

Unhelpful Categories
Another faulty assumption is they way they categorize the conversation on truth, namely that all of reality can be located in two eternally consistent categorical columns – True vs. False; Fact vs. Fiction; History vs. Myth. This sort categorization is a living monument to naiveté. Contrary to popular belief, the people of God have not categorized reality in this way for thousands upon thousands of years. But don’t take my word for it, take the fairly conservative historical theologian Thomas C. Oden and his book After Modernity...What?. In short, he critiques both modern and postmodernism from the perspective of a multimillennia old community called the church. He also points out from this perspective that the tendency for the church to categorize in this two-columned fashion is relatively new (200 years old) and definitely not a perspective that is grounded in either scripture or historical theology. This, compounded with the fact that this sort of categorization does not take into account the ways in which fiction can be true, while cold hard facts can be misleading and even meaningless.

2. Ignorance of the Broader Conversation in Theology and Philosophy
Cartesian Categories
If they were truly acquainted with a broader scope of theology and philosophy they would know that when they break down reality into two categories, they are perpetuating a way of thinking and talking that was formulated by Rene Descartes and further developed by countless other Enlightenment thinkers. While this might seem to be a simple and helpful way to understand reality, it oversimplifies the highly nuanced way God’s people have understood what is good, right, just, and true. In the process of this oversimplification they have actually created a distorted understanding of how we come to know things as true. Descartes wanted to ground all truth in one foundational concept. While that is very appealing, it is fundamentally misguided. We come to know that 2+2=4 is true differently than how we come to know that a friend loves us with agape love. We are using the word “true” in both instances, but we come to that knowledge in very different, but valid ways. Both Descartes and the Truth Project assume that we validate and ground all truth in one foundational method of discernment that can help us on the grail-like quest for certainty. In short, the way in which the Truth Project claims to validate truth is one that is found neither in scripture nor in the historical development of theology, but rather in a philosophical view that was born in the 17th century.

Veritology?
Another clue that The Truth Project is not all that well acquainted with the very philosophy they attempt to teach is their use of Veritology. They mention in their study guide:

Those of you who are very astute will recognize that “veritology” does not exist in the dictionary. The reason for that is simple: I made this word up. I was in need of a word for “the study of truth” or “the truth about truth”… So, I decided I would do some combining as well. I took the Latin term for truth, “veritas” and combined it with the derivation of the Greek suffix, “logos” and the merger resulted in “Veritology”, the “study of truth”.

This is all well and good. The only thing is that there is already a word used to describe that activity. It’s called epistemology:

Epistemology – (noun) The theory of knowledge, esp. with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

The fact that this is a well-known branch of philosophy coupled with their obliviousness to its existence makes me dubious at best as to their competence in presenting this material.

3. Stifling dialogue
People have the choice to accept or deny Christ and his body, the church. However, we have a responsibility of making sure that all people taste, see, hear, smell and touch Christ. It has been my experience, on countless occasions, that the focus-on-the-family way of talking and presenting Christ has not only disgusted people who are looking for God, but even worse, they have given people a distorted understanding of Christ. I find that they disagree not with the way of Christ, but rather a false understanding of Christ. As I mentioned before, everyone has the freedom to accept or deny Christ, but they can only truly do that once Christ has been clearly embodied before them. And how can Christ be truly embodied before them if they cannot understand him. The Truth Project might present Christ in a nice-and-tidy way to believers, but to many non-believers it is not only unintelligible but also repellent.

Christians can do better (and are doing better) at asking these two monumentally important questions:
1. What does it mean for Christians to be a faithful embodiment/incarnation of Christ in the current cultural context?
2. How can we faithfully dialogue with people who are otherwise lame, mute, blind, or deaf to the "good news" of Jesus Christ?

Other Posts on The Truth Project:
1. The Truth Project?
3. The Truth Project: Simply a Bad Way of Talking
I also want to include this link to Hackman's Musings. He has honored me with a link to these pages, and I would be remiss not to link back to his thoughts on this topic. He makes numerous spot-on critiques and observations, as well as facilitates a much larger conversation in his comment section.

1. The Truth Project: Part 1
2. The Truth Project: Part 2