Barthian Ruminations

As our Schleiermacher Reading Group at WTS is currently reading through Barth's Church Dogmatics section on Scripture, I have found myself having tremendous sympathies with his views on Scripture. Now, this is pretty scary and uncharted territory for me since I have it ingrained in me to consider Barth a hermeneutical and Christological heretic even though he opposed the theological liberals of his time (who I was also taught to consider heretical).

But I think that just as many of my fears about critical scholarship were unfounded so were my fears about Barth. For instance, he states:

"The demand that the Bible should be read and understood and expounded historically is, therefore, obviously justified and can never be taken too seriously. The Bible itself posits this demand: even where it appeals expressly to divine commissionings and promptings, in its actual compostion it is eerywhere a human word, and this human word is obviously intended to be taken seriously and read and understood and expounded as such. To do anything else would be to miss the reality of the Bible and therefore the Bible itself as the witness of revelation. The demand for a "historical" understnading of the Bible necessarily means, in content, that we have to take it for what it undoubtedly is and is meant to be: the human speech uttered by specific men at speciic times in a specific situation, in a specific language and with a specific intention. It emans that the understanding of it has honestly and unreservedly been on which is guided by all these considerations...To the extent that it [the concrete humanity of Scripture] is ignored, it has not been read at all."

What I love about this quotation is that it gets at the heart of what makes the Bible so uncomfortable for both theological conservatives and theological liberals: its historical situatedness. For theological liberals history is unimportant because it cannot be trusted to be accurate, so we tear off the husk of situatedness and grasp the kernel of moral truth behind the history.

For theological conservatives history is too concrete and not "transcendent" or "ontological" enough, so we tear off the husk of situatedness and grasp the kernel of "what the divine author really meant." We often read the text as though we want to always be getting behind the history rather than seeing the revelation itself as historical. I am not sure as to the implications of this but I do know that it gels much better with what we actually find in Scripture, that it was written by specific individuals, for specific individuals, for specific circumstances. We should probably then be spending our time figuring out how this fact affects our hermeneutic rather than expending all of our energy brushing this fact under the proverbial rug.

God is the cause of Global Warming

I completely disagree with my friend Art who says that Satan and evildoers (like liberals, popes, people who don't believe in the rapture, et al.) are the cause of global warming. Although he does present some good evidence (click here to see his post), I have stumbled upon some counter-evidence that it's actually God and not Satan.

WTS

My first post on the controversy at WTS. I have not been in the right mind before to post something I wouldn't regret, but I think I have calmed a little bit.

The Board of Westminster Theological Seminary had an emergency board meeting to discuss the orthodoxy and issues surrounding Pete Enns’ book Inspiration and Incarnation.

After the meeting the following announcement was sent to the board, faculty, and students of Westminster:

March 27, 2008
Thank you very much for your prayers for the special meeting of the Board of Trustees that was held on March 26 to address the disunity of the faculty regarding the theological issues related to Dr. Peter Enns’ book, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. After a full day of deliberation, the Board of Trustees took the following action by decisive vote:

“That for the good of the Seminary (Faculty Manual II.4.C.4) Professor Peter Enns be suspended at the close of this school year, that is May 23, 2008 (Constitution Article III, Section 15), and that the Institutional Personnel Committee (IPC) recommend the appropriate process for the Board to consider whether Professor Enns should be terminated from his employment at the Seminary. Further that the IPC present their recommendations to the Board at its meeting in May 2008.”

In order to provide the entire Westminster community with a more complete understanding of the Board’s decision and to offer an opportunity for questions and dialogue, the Chairman and Secretary of the Board will join the President on campus for a special chapel on Tuesday, April 1 at 10:30 am. Students and staff are encouraged to attend and participate. Following that special chapel, they will hold a separate meeting with the faculty.Our concern is to honor the Lord Jesus Christ and assure a faithful witness for Westminster for years to come. To that end, please pray for everyone involved during the next two months.

Jack White

Chairman of the Board

Peter Enns has shaped and formed my theology in ways that I will be forever grateful. I feel that WTS is losing an extremely important asset to their theological relevancy in the academic world. Please be praying for everyone involved.

Progressive Revelation - "Rein In My Overstatement" Edition

I just re-read my last post and if I wasn't me I would have gotten the impression that I am affirming that Scripture contradicts itself. Now, for obvious orthodox reasons, I would probably want to shy away from that, even if that is where what Levenson says eventually leads. But how do I navigate this tension? Underlying all of this is my return to Calvin and Pete Enns' explication of the same notion in Inspiration & Incarnation:

"For who even of slight intelligence does not understand that as nurses commonly do with infants, God is wont in a measure to "lisp" in speaking to us? Thus such forms of speaking do not so much express clearly what God is like as accommodate the knowledge of him to our slight capacity. To do this he must descend far beneath his loftiness."

-John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book I:13:1.

So then God in the Scriptures "lisps" to us, that is, comes down to our level of thinking. Now, Pete shows persuasively that this includes cultural context. God reveals himself in Scripture in a thoroughly historical way, including cultural context. So then my main question in relation to progressive revelation and even in dealing with how the OT can be normative for us today is,

"What if "our level of thinking" is wrong?" What does it mean for God to "meet us where we are" or more appropriately, for God to "meet the Israelites where they were," if that place is a place of error (in the case of Israel's acceptance of the existence of a pantheon of gods following their fellow ANEers) or a place of myth (in the case of primordial history)?

What are the implications if we say that God 'lisps' to Israel and develops them through their history (of redemption as found in Scripture) to bring them to a place of true understanding of God?

This may bring up some sticky hermeneutical or normativity issues but I also think it helps me to understand more the 'suprising' revelation of Christ. He is in fact the capstone to this true development we find in history as recorded in the Scriptures. Any thoughts?

Progressive Revelation - Extreme Edition

As I have been reading a lot of Jon Levenson one issue that he non-chalantly brings up continually is the progressive nature of revelation. For many in the Westminster camp, this is great, until you really understand what he is trying to say.

In the Vosian view of progressive revelation, as many have taken him, there is an unfolding of revelation where the revelation revealed later in history builds upon and never contradicts or is in tension with previous revelation. This is the view of most Systematicians. Is this because Systematics as is usually defined precludes any notion of true historical dynamic? Does Systematics necessarily flatten history? That's a post for another day I guess...

As it has been explained to me, Vos' view, as interpreted by some faculty, describes the Hebrew Bible as a fully furnished room with no lights on. Everything is there, but it doesn't get revealed to us all at once. Certain pieces of furniture are left in the dark while others are 'progressively' being lit up so that we can see them. After reading Levenson, I realize that this position precludes any notion of true theological development.

One of the basic premises of Levenson's Sinai & Zion is that the Zion tradition inherits the Sinai tradition. Sometimes these traditions are in-step and sometimes they flatly contradict each other.

Within Levenson's Creation & the Persistance of Evil Israel develops historically from a nation of henotheism to a nation of monotheism, as evidenced from within the text itself.

Within Levenson's Resurrection & the Restoration of Israel Daniel 12:1-3 betrays a more developed notion of individual resurrection than the rest of the Hebrew Bible.

Now I haven't yet completely thought through the implications of this way of thinking, but Levenson's arguments on these issues are quite persuasive. It does in fact seem to me that early in Israel's history as we have it in the text they would have affirmed the existence of other gods. This is actually quite obvious if we would start to realize that we've been taught to gloss over these pericopes and assume that when the text says, "You shall have no other gods before me," we should read, "Of course, there are no other gods, they are only idols, so obviously you should have no idols before me."

My point though is not to argue these points, I might do that in another post, my only point is that I think Vos is right. And I haven't read enough of Vos to see how far he takes his idea of progressive revelation, but from what I hear, I think I am becoming more Vosian than Vos...

The Difference Of Perspective

December of last year I was required to read a book by Gerhard Hasel called Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate and I was its most vocal critic. Not of course for any substantial theological or philosophical reason, but because I just didn't like the book. I thought it was dry, over-detailed and to be honest, I just wasn't really interested in the topic.

However, when this semester rolled around I was required to read it again, something I was not at all interested in doing. But after my initial class with Pete I have really learned to love the deep contours of Old Testament Theology. I devoured Hasel after that in about 4 days and I loved every minute of it. For me it was a matter of perspective. Pete showed me how these issues really affected how I viewed my Scriptures and how important it was for me if I was going on in my studies to know them and know them well. It was very interesting for me how my attitude towards the book could change so quickly and dramatically, but I am glad it did.

So far this semester, this class has been by far my favorite (although also my most time-consuming).

The book itself is used most helpfully as a historical resource into basic theological history of OTT. Hasel does offer his own input on the situation but I didn't find them that helpful. This book really is a great introduction into the 'current issues' in OTT.

Tired of the Bible?

This week I have been thinking about the Bible. For whatever reason I grew up in a tradition that emphasized reading my Bible and going to Church. What Christian tradition doesn't? But as I look back and I look around even today, I see a bibliolatry and a misplaced emphasis. First, we worship and serve a Person, not a book. This I think has many implications for how we look at and read Scripture, but my thoughts this week have really centered around the idea of a "misplaced emphasis." How often does Scripture talk about the importance of reading Scripture? Don't get me wrong, it's there. Most of the NT presupposes a thorough knowledge of the Hebrew Bible. How often does Scripture talk about the importance of "going to church" in order to be a "good Christian?" Now this one is actually harder for me to find reference for, besides of course the old Hebrews passage every pastor uses, "Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing..."

My point is not to say these are bad things or that we shouldn't be doing them on a regular basis, only that we've made them ends in themselves when they are only a means to an end. Scripture doesn't give nearly the emphasis on these things that we do in American Christian sub-cultures. Meditating on the Scriptures and meeting regularly with believers are necessary conditions for spiritual growth but they are not sufficient conditions. What does this end up looking like? Well, to the world, it looks like we are smug in our traditionalism, we couldn't care less what happens to the world as long as we are "saved" by reading our Bibles and going to Church.

It's like me proclaiming myself to be an amazing cook, since of course, I have read all the best cookbooks. This is silly. No one will hire a chef because they have "studied and memorized the best cookbooks." No, they have to have actually cooked before. For me, I am tired of "studying the Scriptures" as though that is an end in itself. I realize I know more recipes (read: Scriptural "understanding") than most people but I haven't even really began to cook. I know perfectly the recipe for an amazing dinner, lamb racks in garlic sauce, etc, but all I ever make is a PB&J sandwich.

As students of Scripture it's easy to think that our knowledge of Scripture qua knowledge actually means something, but it is only meaningful in so far as it is the impetus to action.

Gratitude

Tonight I went to a church service, and it was good. There was one thing in particular that made me really think. At the end of the time of singing (sorry for the lack of a better word, I refuse to call it "worship") the music leader prayed, "God, I wish there were words big enough to show our gratitude." For whatever reason, it hit me. We kind of do have 'words big enough to show our gratitude.' They are called 'actions.' Of course the leader didn't say this intentionally but I understood those words in my own life as giving lip service. It's much easier for me to say, "I wish I had words big enough to show my gratitude" while I am missing enormous opportunities to show my gratitude by loving my neighbor as myself, by letting my neighbor borrow my lawn mower (even though I know I won't see it again for 6 mos, or ever), by giving up on the lame excuse "I just don't have time" so that I can volunteer at a homeless shelter, so that I can take time to pray for the less fortunate, by giving up my vacation time at work to go to help Katrina victims. That is gratitude. Now even those might not be gratitude enough, but I have to say it's much better than cop-ing out with a "I wish I had words..."

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go visit you?"

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." [Matthew 25:37-40]

Ehrman on Inerrancy

I just finished Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus. It was a pretty basic book but his main point raised some very good questions for me. His main beef about inerrancy is that it is a vacuous word. Almost all evangelicals affirm in their creeds innerancy but only in the autograph. But the problem, Ehrman rightly contends, is that we don't have the autograph. For me, the only thing I thought was "now we have something to work towards." The fact that we don't have the autographs at least gave us something to do, but I never actually thought through what it meant for innerancy. And I haven't thought through all the implications but one thing I know, inerrancy as its classically been defined has become for me a vacuous term. I can completely agree that the Bible is inerrant in its autograph but that doesn't get me anywhere. In what sense then can we talk about the Bible as inerrant?

The Evolution of Language

A while back I posted a blog entitled "Beowulf & Moses" where I compared the language evolution of Biblical Hebrew to English. However, a friend of mine wrote me an email about how this probably isn't a proper comparison. She is a well-educated teacher and Jewish, so I thought I should listen. Here is what she said:

Anyway, about Biblical Hebrew and Old English, there is a vast difference in purpose and culture here. We believe that the Beowulf poem was written in the vernacular or vulgar tongue of the Anglo-Saxons. There you already have the melding of two people groups, cultures and languages. We also think the original poem may have been recited in Old Norse, a very similar language to modern Icelandic. Even though Britain and Iceland are two island nations, Britain's culture and its language suffered many invasions by other European peoples, the Danes the Norse, the Norman French. Its original languages have not fared well because of this.

Several of the old languages of the Celts, most notably Cornish and Manx are no longer spoken as a first language by anyone, though that may be changing thanks to Cornish radio and TV. They are following the Welsh strategy to reintroduce the language. The only reason I know this is because I am a member of the International Reading Association and attended one of their World Congresses in July of 2002 in Edinburgh. There I met teachers from these areas who told me how they were trying to revive speaking, reading and writing in the ancient languages.

English, as Leah likes to say, is a Creole, a mixture of many languages and cultures. Because of politics and trade, the language seems to be constantly changing for the last 1,000 years. England has never had an isolated culture. According to Robin McNeill, Iceland has a very different history. It traded almost exclusively with Norse peoples for several hundred years. It also has never been invaded like England. Its language has changed very little in all that time. This point was made in a recent indie film named "Beowulf and Grendel." The writers and producers of the film were mainly Icelandic, and in an interview I read, said they could read the old English pretty easily, unlike us.

So, the point is well taken. How much a language changes really does depend on its exposure to other cultures and languages, whether through invasion or trade. In any case, I found this information very interesting.

The Language We Use - Part 2

1. A lack of concern for our spirituality outside of the buildings we go to

This actually goes back to a post I put up a few months ago where I discussed our compartmentalization in our spiritual lives and I find that our language of "going to church" emphasizes that even more. In a sense we oftentimes believe that the place we go to worship has a more "spiritual" aspect to it, that it is more "holy" than other places.

I worked at a very small church in Virginia while I was finishing up college as the worship pastor/college pastor and it was a very sweet time. But Sarah and I were the youngest people by 10 years and that was only one other couple. Everyone else was at least 2-3 decades older than us. In any case, I was often reprimanded for hurdling the altar railing to get to the stage or for wearing my hat in the sanctuary (it was okay downstairs, but not "the sanctuary"). I was not allowed to wear shorts or t-shirts, etc. Of course I complied respectfully but I just didn't understand at all where they were coming from.

This is what I want to warn against. When we begin to exalt a space, we forget that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit, not any building. Working with the youth group I often hear the term "you can't do that in church!" But by saying such things, we are saying that there are things that are okay outside the church but not okay inside, as though the building somehow is where God dwells, instead of seeing that it's within us that God dwells. We can't get away from "the sacred space", it is always with us because it is us. If our conscience says not to wear a hat inside a church because it's somehow "sacred" we should never wear a hat because we ourselves are a sort of "sacred space". Is this not what Paul means when he says (albeit in response to sexual immorality but applies here), "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. Therefore honor God with your body (1 Cor 6:19-20)?Of course there are many issues that offshoot from this but my main point is that instead of bringing our idea of "church" down to the level of our daily lives, we should exalt our daily lives to the level of "church", since that is who we are.

The Language We Use - Part 1

This is from a post I did on my church's blog, I thought it might be thought provoking:

We have all heard it said, "The church isn't the building but the people". As much as we "know" that, we still have the "building" concept still embedded in our thinking. Just look at the words we use on a weekly basis.

I am going to church tomorrow.

What did you learn at church today?

Do you go to church?

What seemingly amounts to harmless semantics I think actually affects how we view our spirituality in general. By using such phrases (which shows how we really still think about things, even if on the surface we deny it) we are making it harder and harder on ourselves to not compartmentalize things. My thought is that such language breeds two things (although there is probably more):

1. A lack of concern for our spirituality outside of the buildings we go to

2. A passivity in our engaging in spirituality and our worship, especially when we gather on the weekends at our gatherings.

The Inferiority of Women

Oftentimes one reason given for the subordination of women to men is taken from the biblical text of Genesis 2:21-22 where the woman is created from a rib of Adam. So, goes the argument, since woman was taken from man she is therefore derivative and subordinate. However, Phyllis Trible in her classic work God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality has a humorous and very good argument against such reasoning. She very insightfully recognizes that the same language is used in the relationship between the man (ha-'adam) and the ground (ha-'adama). Man was taken from the ground (cf. Gen 3:19, 2:7).

So, even though man was taken from the ground that doesn't mean that man is subordinate to or inferior to the ground, actually the opposite is the case. "By strict analogy, then, the line "this shall be called 'issa [woman] because from 'is [man] was taken this" would mean not the subordination of the woman to the man but rather superiority to him" (101). I love it!

If we wanted to take the language strictly then the woman is superior to the man. Trible does say that superiority is not at issue so she is not arguing for woman's superiority but she does do a good job of dismantling an argument for male supremacy in this text. Bravo Phyllis, bravo. I found this very thoughtful and helpful.

A Little Clarification Please?

Schleiermacher in his Hermeneutics & Criticism very importantly distinguishes between a philological reading of the text and a dogmatic reading of the text. The philological reading isolates every text of every writer while the dogmatic reading regards the New Testament as One work of One writer. Importantly, he places these in opposition.

"In the application to the N.T. the philological perspective, which isolates every text of every writer, and the dogmatic perspective, which regards the N.T. as One work of One writer, are opposed" (52, #22).

Now Schleiermacher will go on to posit that these are in a dialectical relationship (mutually dependent although in opposition). He does however say that the philological explanation must precede approaching the N.T. as a whole.

Translation (while running the risk of nuancing and oversimplifying): We cannot lose sight of the individual writers in the New Testament (with all their idiosyncrasies and different 'theologies' if you will) by saying that it is all written by the Holy Spirit in some way. In fact, we must first start with understanding what Paul meant (not just broader theologies, but also individual words) and take that seriously before we broaden out to understanding a general "NT theology".

This also seems to play into our understanding of the role of Systematic Theology. Most scholars would agree that if a Systematic Theology is even possible (which many in the non-conservative camp deny) it has to rest on a good grammtico-historical exegesis of the text. In the words of Richard Gaffin, "Systematics rests on good exegesis".

My problem is when these lines are blurred. When we talk of things like a "Two-Adam Christology" in Paul or a Kline-ian reading of the "theophanic glory-cloud" or possibly even an "abeyance of eschatological judgment" found in Genesis 3 (although this is a little different in my mind), how much can we call this reading "Pauline"? When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 15 did he in fact have in mind a 2-Adam Christology that he was trying to get across to a new and morally immature church in Corinth? I am not in any way denying the validity of such a reading, I am only saying it falls under the realm of a dogmatic reading rather than a philological one and by calling such a system "Pauline" we might be blurring the distinction.

The Paradox of Death & Life In Christ

I thought may I had over-emphasized in my last post, but I randomly opened a book on the shelf by Rodney Clapp called Tortured Wonders: Christian Spirituality for People, not Angels. The page I happened upon said this:

As we learn to acknolwedge and admit the reality of death, rather than deny it, we can prepare for our own death by familiarizing ourselves with it while it remains (probably) at some distance...We should not downplay or suppress the reality of death in our worship. Every occasion of worship, after all, harks to the death of Christ on a cross. Every baptism is a death, a drowning, and we should not gloss this.

Where then is the paradox? That this death brings life. It brings life now, but only insofar as its hope is in the future, not in this life. To grasp your own death as a Christian is to truly "hide your life in Christ" (Colossians 3; II Corinthians 4:18; Hebrews 11:1). You are dead to what goes on in this world and alive only to the Kingdom of God. Everything we do in this world is worthless unless it translates into eternity, unless it impacts the Kingdom. And I am sorry to say, even most of what we do at church doesn't impact the Kingdom and will eventually waste away with the rest of us.

The Royal Consciousness

Walter Brueggemann rightly speaks of the "golden age" of Solomon as a time of spiritual decay. Times of satisfaction are never good for the Spiritual life. It is in the passion and the longing for something more just and right that we thrive as spiritual people. Those times where we are in no danger and have become "established", Brueggemann calls "the Royal Consciousness" (more or less, although I am summarizing and editing a bit).

He says:The royal consciousness leads people to numbness, especially to numbness about death. It is the task of prophetic ministry and imagination to bring people to engage their experience of suffering to death (Prophetic Imagination, 41)

How true this is! We, as Christians, HAVE to learn to take the advice in Ecclesiastes, "Meaningless (or better translated, Stupid!), Meaningless, all is meaningless!" The world does not work the way we think it should. We can't keep putting that fact under the rug and keep our happy faces on all the time. The quicker we can come to grips with the fact that we will all die and that the good people oftentimes get screwed in life while the swindlers and thieves get rich, the quicker we will give up this nonsense of security.

You will not be remembered. A sobering fact indeed. No one, I mean no one, will even know you ever existed except for some name on a list, in a hundred years. We have to face this fact. But we still try don't we. Why? Because we cannot face our own death. We cannot imagine truly a time when we will no longer be. But if we can do that, if we can move as Heidegger calls it, into Authenticity, then we are free. We are free to serve God because we truly understand, not just with our mouths like we like to do, but with our lives, we will understand that everything is futile in this life, everything.

Beowulf & Moses

Although many might believe that somehow God gave us a "holy language" and a "Bible dropped from heaven", for the rest of us we have to wrestle how it is that we came to have the Scriptures we have today. Now, if we believe in at least essential Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch (the Post-Mosaica adequtely barring the notion that Moses wrote all of the Pentateuch) and a Post-exilic writing of at least some of the Hebrew canon, there is around 1000 years between Genesis and Malachi. Now, the question is this. How is it that we have a fairly unified Hebrew throughout the Hebrew Scriptures even though the writing supposedly spans a thousand years?

In case you don't think that languages change significantly over the years, I have posted an image of a Beowulf manuscript in English from around the year 1100 (around 1000 years). Let me know if you can read it.

So then, do we accept what many would suggest, that most of the Old Testament was written in the Post-exilic period or do we allow for substantial linguistic updating (along with some evident redaction)? Or is there another option?

Calvin on Encouraging Words

John Calvin on Roman Catholics who deny justification by faith alone:

I forbear to say what sort of zealots for good works they are who thus carp at us. Let them rail with impunity even as they wantonly infect the whole world with their own foul lives! (Institutes, III, 16, 1).

I literally laughed out loud when I read this paragraph. What was it about these guys that just did not allow them to play nice?

This one is for you Dave Williams, here is your anti-papist rhetoric back in full swing.

Secular Space (continued thoughts)

I have done more thinking on what the emerging principle, transforming secular space, includes. As I thought, I remembered the oft-quoted saying by Abraham Kuyper, "there is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry: mine!" This truth is at the heart of what it means to transform secular space. It is the recognition that God does not just rule at church and among church folk but that he is active in all of creation and has invited us to join. We are so self-absorbed in our own "getting saved" that we miss the whole point of redemption. The good news is not that we "get a ticket to heaven" for when we die but that we are given invaluable insight into what it means to truly live and that life involves bringing heaven to earth, transforming the secular space.

This concept of "bringing heaven to earth" is key to understanding the believer's role in the realized eschatology of the Kingdom of God. It is not just a future, hope-oriented reality but has broken into this age in the death and resurrection of Christ. We, as those united to Christ, are called to bring this new age, this renewed creation, to our worlds.

But this isn't the type of thing that people like to hear because it consumes everything you are. Like CS Lewis said in his book, The Weight of Glory "We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased." This goes for Christians too (if not especially).

Secular Space

In the excellent Gibbs/Bolger book Emerging Churches, they identify 3 core practices of emerging churches. These are (1) identifying with the life of Jesus, (2) transforming secular space, (3) living as community. Now, I understand well the implications of 1 and 3, but what about transforming secular space? What is it and is it something we should care about? I haven't read that far in the book yet and have decided not to until I can think through those two questions. I want to know for myself if it's something I believe in or should be believing in. When the modern movement began, it became important to separate the realms of the sacred and the profane. Religion became privatized and also became oil to the water of science (they never mixed). However, recently Christians have bought into this compartmentalization and applied it to their own lives. Sunday morning "going to Church" becomes all-important to our Christianity while going bowling on Friday night or having dinner with the family becomes much less a religious ordeal. We have bought into the separation of the realms of the sacred and the profane. That somehow Sunday morning comes with it an extra boost of spirituality and that a pastor or someone who works in a local church is a "good Christian" or worse "a better Christian". They are somehow more spiritual because they work in the area of the sacred.But such cannot be the case. Maybe this transforming of secular space isn't such a bad idea.