jonathan stegall

Enjoy a previously scheduled post, as we are spending time in the middle of nowhere at Cornerstone Festival.

When I was in college, one of the professors with whom I felt I resonated most was Dr. Mike Rakes, who is now the pastor of Winston Salem First Assembly of God. He is a man with a passion for renewing the church, and helping it engage culture with the presence of God in new, innovative ways. Among all the voices clamoring for the attention of Pentecostals and charismatics today, I believe he is one of the most significant.

In any case, at least some messages from the church are available on their website. Occasionally, we are able to watch live webcasts, and this past Sunday was one of those days. The message given spoke about the story of Gideon, recorded in Judges 6 and following. It is worth a listen when it goes up, and there were a number of things that stuck out and are all worthy of posts, but the one thing that struck me the most ways this: “We are the fleece that society has laid out before God.”

Now, if you are not familiar with the story of Gideon, it is a story in which the people of Israel have turned away from God, who has sent them a judge (Gideon) to deliver them from their enemies. Gideon develops a life of obedience to the God who calls him, and in something of a climax to the story he is given an incredibly difficult task in which he will fight against very large odds. Before doing this, he asks God to assure him by allowing a fleece laid overnight on the ground to be the only moist item, and then the next day he asks God to allow the fleece to be the only dry item. Both signs do occur.

In any case, the message said that society has laid us, as the church, out as a fleece before God. It does not see that God is real because we don’t present significant evidence in our lives that he is. Our task, then, is not to argue with society, or to push ourselves on it, or to try to prolong the death of Christendom, or any number of other things that the church in the West is currently trying to do. None of that will help. The only thing that we are asked to do is live in such a way that we present the presence of Christ. That we present the living God.

Of course, it is very easy for Pentecostals and charismatics to get a thrill out of a statement like this and feel proud of themselves, but the truth is that we in that tribe of Christianity do not, as a whole, make God seem any more real than anyone else does. This is bigger than issues among tribes, or doctrinal stances, or anything else we could use to include or exclude followers of Jesus from responsibility to this idea.

As I’ve said fairly often on this blog, I met Jesus in a Pentecostal church, and went to a Pentecostal college for one of the degrees I earned. One of the really common parts of the Pentecostal and charismatic movements is revival. Seeking revival, predicting revival, announcing revival, and any number of other things.

What is revival?

The interesting thing is that there are as many definitions of what revival is as there are ways of looking for and identifying it. The Old Testament sees (thematically and linguistically) revival as restoring something to life - whether it is a person’s physical life, spiritual life, or the relationship of Israel to Yahweh.

The New Testament uses a word that is often translated as stirring up, or kindling (like a fire), and can also be translated as revival. So, a follower of Jesus can stir up the Spirit within her, and she is revived in this way.

Interestingly, nowhere does Scripture refer to revival as an event. It doesn’t speak of evangelists, or crusades, or altar calls, or anything else that we typically associate with it in modern, Western Christianity. Evangelists and altar calls and nightly meetings are not necessarily excluded from what revival is, but neither are they necessary.

In church history, revival typically comes when the church is at a low point, and a person or group of people begins to stir up the flame, and seek life in the Spirit. In some way, usually a way that is entirely unexpected, God responds.

Examples of this include the various monastic movements (especially the life and effects of St. Francis), the Protestant Reformation (especially the Anabaptists), the Methodist movement, several Great Awakenings, the birth of the Pentecostal movement in Wales and Los Angeles in the early 20th century, and the charismatic movement (and alongside it, the Jesus Movement) across mainline and evangelical denominations in the mid 20th century.

All of these examples, at their beginning at least, had two parts: personal and social. Many of the followers of Jesus in these movements saw visions, dreams, and had powerful encounters with the Spirit. They also experienced a renewal of desire to share their experiences with others, and started innovative churches and ministries, helped the poor and the outcast, and especially in the case of Azusa Street in Los Angeles, they saw that “the color line was washed away in the blood.”

Current revival issues

In the mid to late 20th century up to the present, the term revival has come to mean a lot less, and also a lot more. Now, it refers to a series of meetings with a guest preacher. Nothing really has to change at all, either inwardly or outwardly. If something is expected to change, usually it is narrowed down to physical healing.

There are still people who talk about revival in a more biblical sense. Graham Cooke is one of these, and defines revival as the restoration of the church’s passion for people who are far from God. Then, he sees a stage of reformation, where the effect of that passion goes out into society and changes people. Changes society, and influences it with the kingdom of God. And this, of course, is that second part of social influence.

What’s going on in Lakeland?

Lately, there has been a lot of talk about revival in Lakeland, Florida. Todd Bentley is leading this, and it has moved to the local (regional) airport, where there is not enough space to hold all of the people who want to be there.

I spent just over five years living in Lakeland, long enough to earn a couple of degrees, and earn some extra money to get out of Florida. When I first moved there to attend college, a group of people formed in a small coffeeshop to pray for revival. We wanted to pray for revival among ourselves, in our school, and in Lakeland itself. We kept this up for at least three years, maybe four, and we saw very little effect outside ourselves.

It’s interesting to look at what is happening in Lakeland (people coming from the outside, reports of miraculous things, and renewed and new passion for Jesus) from a distant perspective, and ponder whether or not this is the answer to our prayers. I have come to extreme respect for the wisdom of Robby Mac, and he has a recent post that I think has a very balanced perspective. In essence, he believes that the Spirit is, in fact, at work in Lakeland, but that his work there does not necessitate his approval of the theology or the methodology that is at work there, and it does not mean that people who want to be part of the work of the Spirit need to ignore their own sense of discernment.

And that’s a beautiful thing that I’ve taught, and have observed in my education and in various experiences in pentecost (referring to Pentecostal and charismatic things). God is less interested in perfecting our theology and methodology before he uses us than he is in using us while he changes us. There is great power in grasping that statement.

So, I would love to join some of my friends who are still in Lakeland, and have been to these meetings to see what God is doing. It’s wonderful to see a prayer like that being answered, regardless of how weird the answer is.

Recently, I was shown the website for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, which is a soon-to-be released documentary claiming that the “intelligent design” community is a persecuted part of the overall scientific community. In other words, Ben Stein believes that scientists are persecuted because they question Darwinism.

I was reminded of it when I saw AdSense put a link to it in the sidebar of my blog, and I want to look at the issues that are present in this kind of discussion.

The issue with this kind of thing reaches far beyond the useless debate of evolution vs intelligent design (news flash: evolution won). It reaches into how people in the scientific community, as well as the broader culture, view the intelligent design community. By association (for positive or negative), it also reaches into the ways that these communities view Christianity. Granted: not all members of the intelligent design community are Christians, and certainly not all Christians subscribe to the tenets of “intelligent design,” but the stereotype does exist.

It also reaches into how both sides of the issue view biblical theology. How one views the Bible dictates, at least to an extent, what one thinks of “intelligent design,” and of course, how one views “intelligent design” can influence how one views the Bible, and specifically how one perceives a theology of creation.

With all that said, I want to address these issues from my perspective.

Perception of the “Intelligent Design” community

I think it’s really important, when evaluating a claim like the one this movie is making, to honestly look at how the “intelligent design” community is perceived by the rest of the scientific community. On a large scale, the “intelligent design” community is seen as trying to bring religion into science. They are seen as trying to push religion onto children in schools, into the court systems, and further into the political structure of the country.

Whether this perception is correct or not for everyone who believes in this way of looking at the universe is really not relevant. It is certainly not the case for everyone in the community, but I think it certainly is the case for some. The scientific community as a whole, when it rejects the “intelligent design” community, may be employing prejudices of its own because of what it has witnessed, but because of vocal voices it is justifiable, even though it’s not desirable.

It is very similar to the perception many people have that American evangelicals are trying to combine the church and the state in a great big conservative, pro-war, pro-rich, pro-American Empire. There are vocal voices out there who make it seem that way. Until we prove, on a large scale, that evangelicalism is not a poster for the Republican Party, people will have a justifiable (though, horriby undesirable) case for thinking that we believe it is.

Biblical theology of creation

For many years, conservative and fundamentalist Christians have dug in their heels and fought a losing battle against most of the scientific world, trying to justify their interpretation of the biblical creation narrative: namely, that God created the world in six days. Often, the belief goes something like this: “If we give in to the liberals on literal creationism, it’s a slippery slope to denying the deity of Jesus.”

Certainly, if this was a valid statement we would have cause for concern. But the issue is, it’s not a valid concern at all. Scripture is not interested in being a science book. It is a theological statement, and it is not interested in explaining the details of creation.

Viewing the creation story in Genesis in this way takes the view that the author was not interested in a literal chronology of events, but in presenting the themes and issues that God was addressing, and who in fact God is, especially in contrast with other Near Eastern creation stories that have similar literary structures. Thus, the structure is very similar, but the means, and the reasons, for what is occurring are very different.

For more on this, consider the Genesis chapter of Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical Theology, which goes into a good amount of depth on this issue, and others.

Effects of a biblical theology of creation

There is a lot of good in this view of creation, aside from the fact that it appears to be much more faithful to ancient Near Eastern culture. It is also much more faithful to postmodern Western culture. It allows for creativity, mystery, and a poetic structure to what is going on. Postmoderns are not opposed to this kind of thing, and are often able to find great beauty and truth there.

In addition to this, it allows us to get past the useless debates against the scientific world, and the horrible effects they have on how people view Christianity. Evolution is all but proven beyond doubt, and while it is not an exhaustive explanation of everything, in all likelihood it will only be proven more and more as science advances.

When we are faithful to the literary nature of scripture, we have not surrendered to any kind of slippery slope. We are being faithful to the people that, we believe, were used by God to record his interactions with the world. We can express his nature in a way that transcends the Enlightenment mindset, and this is a good thing.

In evangelical Christianity, there is a concept that was fairly common during the 20th century called the “Roman Road.” Essentially, a Christian who is speaking to someone (who may be) far from God will present several single verses from the book of Romans, in an attempt to show the hearer several points about God, and about him or herself. It attempts to show:

1. God’s creation as evidence
2. universal human sin
3. the death of Christ to address human sin
4. the need to believe in one’s heart, and confess with one’s mouth, the person of Jesus and his resurrection from the dead

Common usage

If the hearer assents to these things, typically the speaker will lead in “the Sinner’s Prayer,” in which the hearer will tell God about his or her new belief in the above points, and ask for forgiveness of sin.

This technique has been very common in certain denominations, and in certain methods of evangelism by those denominations, including youth ministry, door-to-door ministry, and public “street ministry.” Its effectiveness over the last century (roughly) is debatable.

Issues

There are a number of issues with trying to reach people this way, both theological and methodological. In method, obviously the main issue is that it doesn’t work very well. It depends entirely on a conversation that occurs without nuance. It depends on the hearer accepting every point in succession.

And, of course, it typically depends on a lack of relationship. Not necessarily a lack of caring, because many people who have used this method do actually care about people. But having a relationship with someone makes an actual conversation about spiritual things move in a different way. They just don’t follow that kind of process.

Theologically, it devalues the context of what is going on in Romans. Romans is an amazing book. In various times in church history when the established church has entirely lost its way, revolutionaries (Martin Luther, Karl Barth, etc.) have re-discovered Romans and the message of the immanent grace of God.

But Romans is not written to people that don’t know God. It’s not written to people that are not interested in whether he is there, or what he has to say. It’s written to people that are already following Jesus. It’s written to teach them about the nature of the God they have met.

Consider the issue that that raises. For example, if someone tries to lead me through a succession of the platforms of the Republican Party, but I’m a liberal Australian, is that going to have any relevance to me? More unfamiliar still, what if a conservative Australian wanted to explain their platforms to me? Like most Americans, I don’t even know the names of Australia’s political parties (now that I mention it, I’ll have to go look it up). People who get the Roman Road treatment probably don’t agree with our theology. They won’t care about our platforms.

I’ve been reading unChristian, which of course does look at the methods we use to communicate God to people. It recounts the effects that our methods have on people through large amounts of data. These methods include the Roman Road, as well as any number of other things, and they include the way we interact with people on a normal basis as well. These things don’t work. They come across as judgmental, shallow, and irrelevant, or worse. They make people feel that Christianity does not care about them, and that it just wants them to agree with it.

We are not known by our love, and because we are not known by our love we are missing the point.

Last night, I went to see Rob Bell’s the gods aren’t angry tour. If it comes to your city, go. It’s worth the $20 many times over. I may write a post or two about the things that stuck out to me, but at the moment I want to address one particular thing. It comes up in Rob Bell’s books, and it comes up in his talks.

The fact of the matter is, when we read the Bible, or anything from an entirely different worldview than our own, we don’t get the full extent of what is being said. In the Protestant Reformation, a radical idea arose that everyone should be able to read the Bible for themselves, in their own language, because at that time, the existing church hierarchy prevented the common people from reading it and understanding it. And this was an admirable thing. It was essential, with the point where the church was at the time.

But. As we have taken this radical idea and run with it, and as Western culture has spent the last ~500 years becoming more individualistic and more consumeristic, we have entirely neglected reading the Bible as it was intended to be read, and have taught others to do the same. We have entirely isolated it from its cultural context outside of the academic world, and we’ve relegated the study of its cultural context to optional gatherings and events. We only read it to support what we’ve already been told, and we only want to be told what we already think.

We have entirely forgotten to read and interpret the Bible the way the communities that wrote it did: together. In community. We as American evangelicals have gotten so wrapped up in trying to prove that Moses wrote the Torah all by himself, even the part about his own death, and that all of it is literally true and that if we don’t believe that our country is formed around it our country will no longer be formed around it and we might actually have to tell people who God is and why he matters…

In our individualism, we have made the Bible individualistic. We repeat this for the rest of the Bible. We put it into a vacuum where the names and demands of the Sumerian deities don’t matter. Then we wonder why Leviticus makes God look like a bloodthirsty tyrant. We wonder why our religion is viewed as backward and irrelevant. And then we lash out, saying, “Look at us. We love you. God loves you. Read the Bible and live by it, but don’t live by the parts that we don’t talk about. They don’t matter.”

None of this is new to be said. We know that we do this. People have occasionally tried to put in different ways of teaching, and there are churches and groups where these tendencies are not the case. I find that many people feel that they don’t need to know, or can’t know without going to seminary or whatever, the context of the Bible. That it is an optional thing, and that they’re not ready, or smart enough, or educated enough, or whatever it is. This, of course, only serves to further entrench the divide between “clergy” and “laypeople” that is a terrible part of most churches.

As I’ve watched this happen in my church experiences, I’ve often wondered if I’m right in thinking that everyone should know the context of the Bible. I’ve wondered if my lenses are colored because I have a degree in this stuff. If commentaries and theological dictionaries are items that shouldn’t be read by people with medical degrees. Things like the gods aren’t angry confirm my thoughts. We need to learn these things. We need to teach these things.

In another introduction to the forthcoming series, I want to look at the problem that exists in most conservative and liberal versions of biblical interpretation.

This problem is that we are both putting God into a box. We’re saying, “Ok God, this is what you were saying, and those people who think you’re saying this are wrong. They’re reading it wrong, because this is how they should read it.”

This is a vast simplification of a number of different issues and methods and theories, but I believe that the reason we can’t ever come to a consensus on much of anything is something similar to this root issue.

And this is why people like Brian McLaren, N. T. Wright, and a number of other scholars and writers and so on, are attempting to find a third way of looking at things. We in postmodern, emerging culture, are not as big a fan of the either/or dichotomy as people have been for the last few hundred years. We want both/and. We don’t want conservative or liberal. We want both (or maybe neither). We see this in ministry, politics, spirituality, theology, and any number of other things. This is a good thing, and it’s a bad thing.

The question to be asking isn’t, “Should this change happen?” Either/or was a good thing, and it was a bad thing. The question to be asking is, “What does this mean?”

So, when I speak of “a third way,” with regard to the Bible, that’s what I mean. Both sides are putting God into a box, and both sides need to learn something from the other side. I’ll leave you with an example.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1

Liberals love to use this verse to prove that Jesus is the Word of God, and that the Bible isn’t. Fine. Jesus should be viewed as the Word. But come on. They’re using a prooftext to prove their point, ignoring countless other things in scripture that suggest that scripture is also the Word, which is the same thing they accuse conservatives of doing.

Lest we leave conservatives looking better than they deserve:

Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD. - Leviticus 19:27-28

Conservatives love to quote the second verse in support of their dislike of tattoos. But, you’ll never see a fundamentalist with peyos (the Jewish sideburn-looking curls).

There are lots of devotional Bibles that take the reader through the Bible in one year. Usually, they’ll assign a daily reading that contains something from the Old Testament, something from a Psalm or Proverb, and something from the New Testament. The faithful reader will have read all sixty-six books after 365 days. Typically, the selections are not particularly related to each other, or in context with each other, so they are not a good way to learn to study the Bible.

The other day, Newsweek posted an article about a man who took this a lot further, and decided to live according to every rule in the Bible for one year. In teaching, I’ve often used the figure of 613 laws in the Torah, or the first five books of the Old Testament. Some argue that there are 615, and there are probably other opinions, but regardless, there are a lot (and people think it’s a good idea to put 10 of them up in courthouses?). And, of course, the New Testament has some rules of its own. So basically, this man attempted to structure his life around more than 700 laws, for an entire year.

There is a book about the experience called “The Year of Living Biblically,” that will be released in a few days. It will talk about the issues, good and bad, that an agnostic experienced trying to live according to a literal reading of the Bible. All of it. Everything from no shaving, to throwing little rocks at adulterers. Interestingly, there are almost no Christians, even fundamentalists, who attempt to do this. When people like this guy look at some vocal members of Christianity who ask for a literal reading and literal interpretation of scripture, we all look like idiots and hypocrites.

When I teach, I try to make it clear that the Bible isn’t being taken seriously when it is treated this way. Context is not taken seriously, genre is not taken seriously, and the understanding and knowledge possessed by the writer is not taken seriously. It’s not necessary to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are worth taking seriously; it’s necessary to take it seriously enough to evaluate what is being said and why it is being said and to whom it is being said. When I start my little series, I plan to go further into this, with regard to specific things in scripture.

I’m planning to begin a series of posts. I’ve never done a long series of posts (longer than two or three), but I think this one might be a wise thing to do. I’ve written and talked often on the idea that there is often a higher way of looking at things than the typical conservative vs liberal divide, or the typical whatever vs whatever divide. We see this in the writings of N.T. Wright, we see it in writings of Brian McLaren, and many others; but why not discuss some stories? I’ll present views from many different sources, I’m sure.

What stories to tell?

I have several stories in mind, and would like to really delve into this idea over the next few months. Some of them are these:

• Creation
• the Exodus
• formation of the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament)
• Job
• Wisdom Literature (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes)
• Jonah
• the Virgin Birth idea
• Weird things Paul wrote
• Revelation

Send me stories

I’m very open to other ideas, but these are things that I’ve had conversations about, thoughts about, and questions about. If you have other ideas, please, post a comment. It may be a few weeks before this little series begins. Ideally, I’d like to be able to release posts on it at intervals; maybe once a week, or once every two weeks (thankfully, WordPress allows bloggers to schedule posts).