A Man Without A Movement

Andrew Sandlin writes a timely piece about movements and the pros and cons of being part of such. Christianity is not immune from such movements that create "inside circles" and "unenlightened outsiders." There are many within the church. Whether it's weight loss programs, homeschooling movements or theological movements, there are good and bad elements to each. Being on the outside has its pros and cons as well. As Sandlin states, though, "Being part of a movement may be comforting, but some of us are more interested in liberty than comfort." If it's liberty vs. expected conformity, which would you choose?

Ugly Death Leads to Resurrection

Andrew Sandlin argues that death must be viewed as an ugly thing in order to have a correct view of the Resurrection. He uses Grünewald's painting as an illustration. He links to Oscar Cullman's thought provoking piece "Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?" Cullman shows Christ's death was experienced with fully human fear and suffering. Not a piece for sensitive gnostics.

Did Jesus Go To Hell? An Explanation

The Apostle's Creed states that Jesus descended into hell. I've read less common alternate versions that say that he descended into hades, or descended to the dead. But did Jesus go to hell? I've never really heard an adequate explanation of this. I've read several books on the creed, with scores of comments and reference verses for every statement in the creed - except this one. I've also never seen any reference to it in the most important book of all, the bible.

I recently posted my concern on John Armstrong's blog as a comment, with one reply. Just today Andrew Sandlin posted this question with a letter reply to somebody who asked him, giving a different reply than the one on John's blog. Whatever the answer, something was lost in history, and the answer to this isn't cut and dried like the other statements in the creed.

New Blog Links

I've added a new section to my margin titled "other links." These are frequent reads of mine. Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner brings a charismaticesque slant to things. I added Gene because I read his blog, he reads mine, and we have conversations. I'll keep him here in my links - until he says something that I disagree with (inside joke). Not much goes on at Andrew Sandlin's CCL site that also doesn't happen on his blog, so I bumped it down a few notches. Dr. Lenny is a scientist and baseball fan, while his alter ego writes poetry. He's over at The Zone. The group of guys over at Reformed Catholicism talk about the unity of the church and the history of the Reformation. Society Vs hosts Losing My Religion from way up in Canada. He grew up amongst many of the Aboriginal peoples of Saskatchewan. Abu Daoub is a Christian living in the Middle East and has much insight into Islam and how it relates to Christianity at Islam and Christianity. We in the West rarely hear about the types of things he has to say.

Letter on Creation, Dualism and the Weaker Brother

Andrew Sandlin's reply to a letter written to him is posted on his blog. This letter ties the doctrine of creation to Christian liberty in a way that I couldn't have said so myself in such simple terms. He points out that dualism throws a roadblock down in our understanding of Christian liberty. Read it here.

Blogs I Read Daily

I read quite a number of blogs and other websites regularly. I've found that reading views I've never heard or from people I don't always agree with is good for sharpening my own beliefs. I'd like to share the sites I visit most. For quite a while now, four blogs have been absolute daily readings and those authors' views and comments have helped shape not only my beliefs but my way of thinking, while not necessarily agreeing with them. I am thankful to these four just for being in the blogoshpere. Andrew Sandlin, John Armstrong, James Leroy Wilson and Vache Folle.

Andrew Sandlin (blog, CCL ministry site). He is a church elder/pastor in Santa Cruz, CA, and writes extensively on Christianity's place in culture. I hold many shared views in theology, and have gained much insight into our place in God's kingdom. I sense in him a deep concern for how Christianity works in our world. I've corresponded with him a number of times and have met him personally at one of his conferences. We don't see eye to eye on the role of the US in the war on terror or on certain things regarding George Bush, but I'll take our agreements in theology anyday. He's not afraid to ask tough questions or rock the boat, or criticize views of even his allies.

John Armstrong. He's a former pastor and an itinerant preacher and conference speaker. My church used to have affiliation with him in theological circles. I met Dr. Armstrong almost 10 years ago. After quite some time without hearing about him, I re-discovered him through of all places, Andrew Sandlin's blog. He has a great heart for the unity of the church and has been a great example to follow for how I need my attitude changed toward Christians of other traditions. His love for baseball probably equals my own. I've corresponded with him on occasion.

James Leroy Wilson (Independent Country). James is... I'm not even sure what James does, but he brings a libertarian angle to things that has been for me a constant check to my previously held conservative ideas. James is refreshing because he hasn't become a libertarian broken record, and isn't afraid at all to call other libertarians to the mat on certain issues. He doesn't have a one track mind when it comes to politics, and his wide variety of topics and several other websites makes him constantly interesting. The next time I'm knowingly within a hundred miles of him, I'll try to buy him lunch.

Vache Folle (St George Blog). I don't know his real name, but do I need to? He's a character from the keyboard; a libertarian/anarchist in an (correct me if I'm wrong) at least somewhat Reformed church context, originally from the deep South now living in New York as an attorney. He practices laughing at himself, and others, and is constantly engaging in slapstick sociology. He loathes mindless, sheepist conformism, and knows well his place on the Bristol Stool Chart.

I'll write more about other sites I visit a bit later.

Ecclesiology: Should We Walk By Faith Or By Sight?

Andrew Sandlin will shortly be releasing a new book titled, "Un-Inventing the Church: Toward a Modest Ecclesiology." Since I'm not an avid book reader, I'm usually not very excited about new books. This is an exception. I made a comment on his blog about the upcoming book, and I will expand on it in this post. I wrote:

The relationship of Christ to church - as head to body - is foundational to the NT. In my view, one of ecclesiology’s foundational problems is wrangling with the question of the authority with respect to pastor, pastor-teacher, elder, priest, presbyter, bishop, cardinal, pope, etc, in how they relate to the church. Are they members of the body just like everybody else, with special ministerial duties, or are they members of the head, with magisterial duties? Are they servants or are they overlords? A combination of the two?

Answering this question is a must if we are to "do church" according to God's will. Both ideas have been with us throughout church history, and are with us today. If church leaders are members of the body, then they have the same standing before Christ that everybody else does. They have gifts that are employed for the purpose of helping God's sheep. They are imperfect and make mistakes. They need humility just like everybody else. They themselves can be the recipients of exhortation, admonition, rebuke and correction from those who are not leaders.

If church leaders are members of the head, that is Christ, then because Christ is perfect, there will be aspects of church leadership - what they believe, what they say, what they decide, what they instruct - that will be infallible, perfect, binding, final and beyond either criticism or appeal.

I stand on the former view. Church leaders have duties that are ministerial, not magisterial. They are servants, not overlords. This is also very important for the argument that the church holds the keys to the kingdom. Does the church use the keys to open the door for those God would have go in, or does it use the keys to open to only those who it says can go in? Does it get to decide who is in the kingdom?

With regard to "church discipline" in Matthew 18, Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Many use this argument to say that whatever the church decides, Christ has already decided in heaven. They're right. But some would believe that because of their view of authority within the church, that the church is correct. But Jesus never said the church would always be correct. If the church excommunicates somebody, it could very well be that the individual is not in sin, but the church is, and that Jesus already decided for that individual not to remain a part of a sinning church. The blind man in John 9 would be an example. So would Martin Luther.

I think one reason for the view of magisterial duties for leaders is that some people simply cannot fathom the idea that the church's head is in heaven and cannot be seen. He rules His people through His word; He is in control and we walk according to faith. But they need to see the authority in the flesh, so they embody it in an institutional concept of the church.

Should we walk by faith, knowing that Christ rules actively, or should we walk by sight by requiring a human ecclesial political structure?