Blog Moving

I have moved blogs to Typepad. The new address is

http://andrewengelhardt.typepad.com

Please navigate to this address from now on. Thank you.

Justification and Sanctification - Separate, or Not?

A traditional understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification is one of separation. Within the classical Lutheran understanding (which has greatly influenced many non-denominational evangelicals) these two must be separated. One cannot partake in any sanctifying act(s) as co-joined with justification, for then a work would be involved, but rather as a result of being considered justified (in the forensic sense), one than proceeds to embark on the path of sanctification. Clearly, in this understanding, justification precedes sanctification.

Pastors are concerned about this process of sanctification all the time. After someone comes to "know Christ," (justified – in this sense) and finds grace through faith, they are supposed to embark on a process of bearing fruit and growing in holiness. But pastors are aware that many times this "fruit" is not the effected result of the decision. Unfortunately, understanding salvation as justification by grace through faith as a free gift – not by works – while proclaiming a propositionally true theological concept, finds itself imprisoned within a consumeristic society bent on acquiring the best goods at the cheapest prices: salvation on sale, a one time event, a product to be used and disposed of.

John Howard Yoder, an Anabaptist theologian with an ecumenical approach to theology, says that "evangelism is an invitation to discipleship." When discipleship is not present, the good news has not been proclaimed. Justification and sanctification cannot be separated so easily. Praying the sinner's prayer and believing in some propositional truths about humanity, sin, Jesus, and eternal destinations cannot be separated from the new life offered in Jesus Christ.

Jesus was not afraid to tell people that following him would not be easy. In fact, it would require them to leave their families, their wealth, their possessions, and even their desires. But in doing so the good news of the kingdom of God would become a reality.

Salvation is not cheap. In fact, it calls us to die to those things that enslave us. And it is not simple enough to say that sanctification here means giving up drugs, or alcohol, or sex, or lies. Sanctification and the call to participation in the renewed kingdom actually refers to dying to the desires for selfish gain, idolatry, power, status, and control.

Luther's theology was formed within a society that needed to hear that justification was separated from works. It was not something that could be earned by performing mass, purchasing indulgences, or doing penance. Rather, salvation is the free gift of God for humanity. Luther's revelation of this gift had to be preached and preached passionately.

Our context has changed. We live in a world addicted to the free and the easy and the disposable; a world where "no strings are attached" is the sign of a good economic-transaction. The separation of justification from sanctification can continue to fuel this type of transactional salvation. Justification being required: sanctification being optional.

We should not be watering down the call to discipleship and the reality of the Good News of Jesus Christ simply so that we can count more people as "saved" and feel good about our churches programs of evangelism. We should be embodying renewed lives so brightly in our communities that the good news is not just talked about but revealed in our hospitality, our passion, and our humility. These are not just optional by-products (sanctification) of a clearance rack (justification), but rather are commitments of those who have found the redemptive message of Jesus Christ as a lived-in-reality.

Awake, My Soul!

Psalm 57:7-11

My heart is steadfast, O God,
my heart is steadfast.
I will sing and make melody.
Awake, my soul!
Awake, O harp and lyre!
I will awake the dawn.
I will give thanks to you, O Lord, among the peoples;
I will sing praises to you among the nations.
For your steadfast love is as high as the heavens;
your faithfulness extends to the clouds.
Be exalted, O God, above the heavens.
Let your glory be over all the earth.

I have made too many excuses in my life. Most recently I have complained that I live in a neighborhood without missional hopes. There appear to be no "third places" where people in this neighborhood spend their time (whether that's a bar, a coffee shop, a diner, etc.). It is winter and people stay inside. I am busy. People don't want to talk. I don't speak Spanish.

So many excuses to avoid living out what I so readily preach.

I was challenged last night in a class to awaken the imagination and open my eyes to the ways in which God is already at work in our lives and the lives of our neighbors. It is not something that we are creating, but rather something that we are open towards joining with God in. Dr. Fitch described the way in which he walks through his neighborhood as a rhythm of life, and through this simple act, the way in which impromptu meetings arise naturally with neighbors.

Two of our neighbors have shown generous acts of kindness toward our community. They are not the closed-in-hermits that I oh-so-badly (subconsciously) want them to be, because if they were, then I would have an excuse for not intertwining our lives together. But the truth is that they have acted more Christian(ly) towards us than we have towards them.

I don't know what this will look like in the next six or seven months. I am praying that our community will sing praises among the nations (or at least the neighborhood).

So yes, I am in agreement with the Psalmist this morning in the beckoning for my soul to awake to sing praise and make music and exalt the Lord in our lives. To awaken the dawn to a new day, a glorious day, a day of redemption and peace.

Can Living on a College Campus Replace Witness in a Local Church?

Does living on a Christian College campus replace life together in a local church community? The answer to this question was often just assumed to be positive when I was a student at Judson College. Our needs of worship and community were being met by the regular gatherings in chapel and Upper Room (praise and prayer) and by living together in a dorm setting. If one was liberal enough, then he or she may also see the church as an agent of social action in the world. He or she could then volunteer to help with a children's ministry program in an under resourced neighborhood of Elgin (Clifford Court). These three areas – worship, community, service – were the markers of church that so many had grown up to believe in: therefore, going to a church service on a Sunday morning was then seen as nothing more than an extra work (or more usually, the result of a guilty conscience). To be fair, there were a number of students - or maybe even a majority – whose absence from a local church was not the result of theological motives, but of sheer laziness or stress.

The strikingly obvious problem with this mentality is that "church" becomes about "our needs" and "receiving a product," rather than living as an alternative kingdom under the Lordship of Christ with a passionate and humble heart turned towards the lost, the broken, and the oppressed. When the understanding of "worship" becomes equated with "having an experience with God," or a time where I "feel close to God," then we have lost the sense of worship as a formative event around the saving story of God throughout history. Instead, we become consumers, aching for our next fix of "getting a little more Jesus in our lives."

While a number of programs created and maintained in a college setting may seem to be friendly towards community (bible studies, meals in the cafeteria, late nights in dorm rooms), they are left crippled by their unavoidable makeup of like-people. People on these college campuses are generally affluent, middle-class, similar in age, and similar in thought (of course there are exceptions to all of these stereotypes, but for the most past, this was my own experience). Certainly this type of communal living has advantages over much of suburban isolation. Students are able to fluently move in and out of one another's rooms, share material goods, and be available to one another at a moments notice. But we cannot deny that something is missing when this type of sharing is constrained to like-minded people gathered for like-minded purposes.

Finally, while acts of social action and volunteerism are good things, they are missing a vital aspect of witness when they cannot invite others in. Local church congregations should already be acting as light in the darkest places. I know specifically that, here in Elgin, the local churches have a clear mission towards reaching the lost and under-privileged. And the advantage is not that these actions are done because of a natural moral imperative, but because the gathered community of church has been commissioned to be salt and light to the nations. By standing out as a community with an uncompromising passion for the world, the church's witness to the world is not just in words but in holistic proclamation of our new life in the kingdom of God. College social service programs are great one-time events, but they cannot invite those they minister the gospel to into new life under Jesus' lordship.

Individualism has so plagued our understanding of salvation and ecclesiology that we are left pummeled with self-gratifying and self-seeking worship, community, and even service. It has become an acceptable claim to say that, "I get what I need out of worship, community, and service – and this is enough," while we miss out on the commission of our story to be a city on hill (Matthew 5).

Too many people see college students as a "lost group." It is the age of questioning authority and developing autonomy. Statistics are published every week reporting that the majority of people lose their faith during these years. However, it can also a beautiful time to re-discover the power of the Spirit present in a gathered diverse community, to be shaped by the worship event and story of God for the purpose of proclamation of and invitation into new life in the kingdom of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

An Example of Contextualized Language

Coursework and reading over the past few weeks has sparked an interest in the contextualization of language. My whole life I had just assumed that language existed as one-to-one correspondence. Speaking about a "cup" means I am speaking about a universal and objective item that has come to be known as "cup." "Cup" is the objectively true term used to describe the object that I fill with coffee and drink out of each day. At least I thought…

Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggests that language is actually a "contingent evil," which corrupts a pure and unmediated experience of the world simply as it is. According to this epistemological framework (dominant in most modern culture and most modern churches), language hinders us from speaking truthfully about the experiences of the "really-real." Deconstructionist philosophers like Jacques Derrida have revealed the myths underlying this assumption. The scientific ideal of objectivity – universally available to all people, at all times, in all situations – is viewed to stand naked with an unwillingness to confess the interpretive framework that its very foundation is built upon.

Most of this is very heady stuff, but I experienced an example of the breakdown of language this morning at the elementary school (children, of course, provide analogies all the time for studies in language and behavior). A young kindergarten student was quietly working away at his computer with a program that develops an understanding of the ABC's. He seemed to be grasping the material well and enjoying the experience of learning on a computer. Suddenly he raised his hand and said, "I'm bored." I understood boredom to be a universal-principle for feeling as if we've had enough of something, sensing that it can no longer be beneficial to our engagement. I grabbed the mouse and returned to the home screen so that he could choose a different and hopefully more instructive program.

The teacher in the classroom saw all this happen and pulled me to the side. She mentioned that when Jimmy (not his real name) says he is "bored," he typically does not understand the material and wants to dismiss the feeling of fear. Jimmy and I had a different understanding of the word "bored," which therefore led to breakdown in communication. Neither of us were wrong in a universal-objective way. However, the context in which we live and the agreed upon language that we have accepted would answer that Jimmy has not yet equated the symbol of "bored," with the feeling of tired and frustrated with the lack of activity or challenge.

Communication really is a miracle. It is especially a miracle in the western paradigm of objective reality where language is expected to address realities existent beyond the spoken language. Deconstructionists and their understanding of the interpretation of all texts lead us humbly into communication with one another. It forces us to not "assume" that we know what the other means and it remains open to new ways of communication through story and narrative.

For Christians, this is how we should be treating the Word of God as an authoritative text. We do not search it in hopes of "getting beyond" the genres of narrative to get at what it is really trying to say. We do not use it as a book of facts or even of moral imperatives. Rather, we are invited like the New Testament authors themselves to allow the story of God to become our own. We are invited to experience hope, love, compassion, grief, passion, and concern. We do not live as people continually looking backward, though our history forms us, but rather we look to how we are now in the present people of that same kingdom of God under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This requires humility and a trust in the Holy Spirit to guide and direct her church in and for the world.

Starbucks and Liturgy

James A. Smith sketches the major thrusts of post-modern thought and the subsequent implications for the church in his book, "Who's Afraid of Post-Modernism?" At the closing of the third chapter he includes an analogy between the church and Starbucks by Quinn Fox. Fox says:

At busy times an orderly (if slow) procession of the faithful crowd toward the counter: An order may be something like "I'd like a grande, non-fat, triple shot, 2 pump peppermint latte with extra whip cream." The money changer loudly relays the request. And one should not worry if the strangeness of the terms causes a stumble. The temple assistant mediates these early morning "sighs that are too deep for words" by translating them into flawless coffee Italian. The Barista (it even sounds a little like "priest") who feverishly prepares coffee drinks behind the espresso bar repeats the petition verbatim, as if by uttering the words s/he speaks them into being. At the more relational franchises, the customer's name will be attached to the order. When the brew is ready, complete in all of its uniqueness, the Barista chants the request once again, just to indicate that the unction is complete."

Starbuck's culture and language is an interesting and revealing case study for looking at a societies willingness to learn a language. Most people do not resent the fact that they are forced to use unknown language when ordering at Starbucks: rather, they submit themselves to learn the language because it is the language of a particularly appealing culture: dating, relaxation, relationships, discussion, escape, etc.

For many years I served as a worship leader in a variety of contexts. There were normative elements to the liturgy (gathering, song, offering, preaching, sending), but within the traditions that I was a part of, there also existed a great deal of openness and artistry. The danger and the temptation was always to make these "liturgical elements" appealing. Evangelism seemed to always be (consciously or subconsciously) a motivating factor for the design of the service. You need not look far to discover a massive number of churches (or churches with massive amounts of people) whose philosophy of worship is to make the service comfortable, relative, inviting, approachable, etc.

This mentality of trading in our story of the God-of-Israel-climatically-revealed-and-incarnated-in-Jesus-the-Messiah, in order to make it comfortable and accessible, actually faces its death of being the story of redemption, from death to new life. May we not "sell" or cheapen the story that we proclaim to more user-friendly/consumeristic/individualistic "experiences." May we be bold in using the language of the God revealed in Scripture, yet humble enough to live as if it is actually our story.

Baptism - Missing the Point

The practice of Christian baptism has for a long time been a topic of internal and external controversy for me. I was baptized as an infant and raised in a Lutheran church until high school. The debate between whether we should baptize infants or adults was completely unknown to me until 2001, when my family then switched to an Evangelical Free Church. It was then that I heard the teaching that baptism was for adults who had professed belief in a personal savior. Those “believers” then came before the church, told the story of their conversion, and were immersed in a pool of water.

Both of these churches set the others’ practice on the heretical end of the orthopraxy. Adult baptizers are seen by infant baptizing churches as purely focused on the individual through an ordinance that has no significance in itself; only on what the believer in their “believer’s baptism” makes of it. Infant baptizers are seen by “believer’s baptizers” as missing the point of real belief. They get caught up in a work or in a false belief that somehow this act will bring salvation for life, without any real belief.

Both of these stances seem to miss the passing from old life into new life signified by dying to self and rising to new life in community under the reign of Christ. Both sides use the silver bullet of the Reformation, sola scriptura, to make their defense not only understandable or rational, but absolute. One must be right, and one must be wrong. Defenses are built around stories of individuals such as Philip (Acts 8) who are baptized immediately upon belief as adults or households like Lydia’s (Acts 16) who must have included children in the baptism. The life giving and life transforming participation of the individual and community in death and resurrection are then lost to the debate, each side acting as antagonist over-and-against the other.

Many people have asked me where I stand on baptism. What they usually really mean has nothing to do with the holistic transformation of people through the event and the discipleship leading up to the event, but the process itself. What I see as very clear, from either perspective, is that Jesus’ message of the kingdom of God as here-and-now means that we are released from living under the dominion and control of sin and evil. Our freedom in this kingdom is not an “indulge your every desire,” but a freedom to actually have that desire reshaped towards God’s mission in the world. When we are baptized, or when we stand as sponsors for children who are baptized, we acknowledge that our lives (plural) are lived in this new and ultimate reign of God in the world.

May we become people who are willing to humbly speak with one another, across the spectrum of belief, as we submit ourselves to God’s presence, his manifestation, and His mission in this world.