Comments on: In Defense of a Theology of Cross and Glory: Part 1 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/ The Reign of Christ Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:04:23 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1112 stevez Mon, 02 Jul 2007 20:51:33 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1112 To continue the Venn analogy, when we find ourselves in the middle sphere with hordes of those with whom we likely take considerable issue, which is to say, those with whom we may vigorously disagree (again, Andrew, the charge of being neutral hits me as left-of-center, since I can find plenty to disagree with, and that at times quite vigorously, as I skate around in the middle sphere). bear with me, I have a question at the end. I will bring to light a little more my own vocation, standardized student assessments. Part of my work is to convene and conduct what are called rangefinding sessions. Basically, we have a committee made up mainly of teachers and content specialists from around the given state under contract. The domain may be any variety of subjects from math to science to language arts to social studies. As well, this may be a group of elementary to secondary teachers and content specialists. This can be one of the most interesting aspects of my job for various reasons. One of them is the variance: you get, for example, all of these grade 11 science teachers from one state, and you’d think they’d all teach more or less the same way or at least approach their state-directed benchmarks, etc. in a similar way. And there is a lot of that. But as often as not there are considerable differences in views. And committees can get down-right mean in how they think Johnny should be evaluated; how they understand a given concept; how it should be taught; how it should be understood; and how things should be interpreted at the moment, etc. I have witnessed crying jags between two colleagues who simply couldn’t believe the other saw things so radically different, wondering if they both even taught the same subject (Nicaea or Trent have nothing on a group of grade 8 social studies teachers and content specialists, some even preferring their beards getting plucked in an Athanatian manner!). Beyond having to turn in my gun and badge if I did so, instead of appealing to my experience in this general process, imagine the profound stupidity of raising my hand amidst all the back and forth, announcing that I am a Christian and I think Joe over there is right about the scientific nomenclature at hand and the scoring of all your state's fifth graders ought to be such. Maybe I even pull out my Bible and begin proof-texting things to make my case and Joe’s. It is not as if these temporal matters do not, as it were, matter. The committees with whom I work and help to navigate through these sometimes head-spinning issues all believe the work around which we are gathered matters greatly and for various reasons. Otherwise they wouldn’t be there, nor would I. Yet…it is one thing to profoundly dis/agree over common matters. It is quite another to appeal to one’s eternal belief system to justify those particular beliefs, lend weight to them, in the temporal sphere. You don’t have to lend divine sanction to a temporal belief in order to give it significance. What my eternal beliefs have to do directly with the temporal matters at hand is nothing. That may sound impious to some, but then they’d also have to agree that my hand-raising scenario/comment is not so odd and would likely be a good thing to do. Here is my question: if my hand-raising image is silly, why is Christendom venerable? To continue the Venn analogy, when we find ourselves in the middle sphere with hordes of those with whom we likely take considerable issue, which is to say, those with whom we may vigorously disagree (again, Andrew, the charge of being neutral hits me as left-of-center, since I can find plenty to disagree with, and that at times quite vigorously, as I skate around in the middle sphere). bear with me, I have a question at the end.

I will bring to light a little more my own vocation, standardized student assessments. Part of my work is to convene and conduct what are called rangefinding sessions. Basically, we have a committee made up mainly of teachers and content specialists from around the given state under contract. The domain may be any variety of subjects from math to science to language arts to social studies. As well, this may be a group of elementary to secondary teachers and content specialists. This can be one of the most interesting aspects of my job for various reasons. One of them is the variance: you get, for example, all of these grade 11 science teachers from one state, and you’d think they’d all teach more or less the same way or at least approach their state-directed benchmarks, etc. in a similar way. And there is a lot of that. But as often as not there are considerable differences in views. And committees can get down-right mean in how they think Johnny should be evaluated; how they understand a given concept; how it should be taught; how it should be understood; and how things should be interpreted at the moment, etc. I have witnessed crying jags between two colleagues who simply couldn’t believe the other saw things so radically different, wondering if they both even taught the same subject (Nicaea or Trent have nothing on a group of grade 8 social studies teachers and content specialists, some even preferring their beards getting plucked in an Athanatian manner!). Beyond having to turn in my gun and badge if I did so, instead of appealing to my experience in this general process, imagine the profound stupidity of raising my hand amidst all the back and forth, announcing that I am a Christian and I think Joe over there is right about the scientific nomenclature at hand and the scoring of all your state’s fifth graders ought to be such. Maybe I even pull out my Bible and begin proof-texting things to make my case and Joe’s.

It is not as if these temporal matters do not, as it were, matter. The committees with whom I work and help to navigate through these sometimes head-spinning issues all believe the work around which we are gathered matters greatly and for various reasons. Otherwise they wouldn’t be there, nor would I.

Yet…it is one thing to profoundly dis/agree over common matters. It is quite another to appeal to one’s eternal belief system to justify those particular beliefs, lend weight to them, in the temporal sphere. You don’t have to lend divine sanction to a temporal belief in order to give it significance. What my eternal beliefs have to do directly with the temporal matters at hand is nothing. That may sound impious to some, but then they’d also have to agree that my hand-raising scenario/comment is not so odd and would likely be a good thing to do. Here is my question: if my hand-raising image is silly, why is Christendom venerable?

]]> By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1107 stevez Mon, 02 Jul 2007 13:46:56 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1107 bear with my stupidity a bit longer, andrew; i don't want to leave town quite yet. the church is made up of individuals. if "i" can't do algebra better than "the pagan" sitting next to me, how can "we" order society any better than than "them"? what exactly happens in the translation from individual member to corporate existence that isn't magic? if i can't do math any better than joe unbeliever, it becomes folly and arrogance to suggest that 3.4 billion of me know how to order society than 73 billion of him. let's save some time and i will now deny that i am an individualistic evangelical who sees the "church as merely a group of individuals." that is part fo what i deliberately rejected about my past evangelicalism. what i say above has no one-to-one correspondance to how i view the organic corporateness of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. that's another question altogether. phil, i am not talking about mathematics and poetry strictly speaking. i am only making a point by locating mathematics in the temporal and common sphere. to continue my weird penchant to make mathematical analogies: in my mind, i actually see things working a lot like a venn diagram. in my line of work (standardized student assessments) the Venn has been something i recently had to grapple with. as you may or may not know, the classic venn is two intersecting circles. one circle contains things only proper to one group, the other only proper to another; in the middle, where they converge, is common ground. in the left circle we could say exists unbelievers and all the things proper to them eternally speaking is contained therein (judgment, and all the related properties) and in the right circle the same for us (redemption and all the related properties); but in the middle is where we all exist under natural law and its related properties. zrim bear with my stupidity a bit longer, andrew; i don’t want to leave town quite yet.

the church is made up of individuals. if “i” can’t do algebra better than “the pagan” sitting next to me, how can “we” order society any better than than “them”? what exactly happens in the translation from individual member to corporate existence that isn’t magic? if i can’t do math any better than joe unbeliever, it becomes folly and arrogance to suggest that 3.4 billion of me know how to order society than 73 billion of him.

let’s save some time and i will now deny that i am an individualistic evangelical who sees the “church as merely a group of individuals.” that is part fo what i deliberately rejected about my past evangelicalism. what i say above has no one-to-one correspondance to how i view the organic corporateness of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. that’s another question altogether.

phil, i am not talking about mathematics and poetry strictly speaking. i am only making a point by locating mathematics in the temporal and common sphere. to continue my weird penchant to make mathematical analogies: in my mind, i actually see things working a lot like a venn diagram. in my line of work (standardized student assessments) the Venn has been something i recently had to grapple with. as you may or may not know, the classic venn is two intersecting circles. one circle contains things only proper to one group, the other only proper to another; in the middle, where they converge, is common ground. in the left circle we could say exists unbelievers and all the things proper to them eternally speaking is contained therein (judgment, and all the related properties) and in the right circle the same for us (redemption and all the related properties); but in the middle is where we all exist under natural law and its related properties.

zrim

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1105 Phil Mon, 02 Jul 2007 01:43:49 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1105 Poythress wrote this about teaching "Mrs. Post's Algebra class": "Pedagogically, then, I am in favor of the reintroduction of the writhing dirty masses of applications into mathematical explanation. One can still keep the abstract generalizations with their Apollonian beauty. But the particular examples are not to be 'reduced' to the generality. We ought to revive our wonder for the fact that the generality actually holds for this case, and for that case, and for this other case. Each discovery of a new application can he seen as a development of mathematical truth, the writing of a new line to the poem" (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 35(4), December 1983, pp. 65–71). Note how unlike most is his view of mathematics: instead of a mass of disconnected procedures, mathematics is "poetry." The significance of this is that W2K folks tend to think of mathematics as those disconnected procedures (or occasionally as the Apollonian structures). But it's more useful to think of it as a human endeavor, as models of God's good creation. But then these models, this human endeavor, is susceptible to sin and the Fall, and the W2K approach begins to deteriorate. Poythress wrote this about teaching “Mrs. Post’s Algebra class”:

“Pedagogically, then, I am in favor of the reintroduction of the writhing dirty masses of applications into mathematical explanation. One can still keep the abstract generalizations with their Apollonian beauty. But the particular examples are not to be ‘reduced’ to the generality. We ought to revive our wonder for the fact that the generality actually holds for this case, and for that case, and for this other case. Each discovery of a new application can he seen as a development of mathematical truth, the writing of a new line to the poem” (Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith: Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation 35(4), December 1983, pp. 65–71).

Note how unlike most is his view of mathematics: instead of a mass of disconnected procedures, mathematics is “poetry.”

The significance of this is that W2K folks tend to think of mathematics as those disconnected procedures (or occasionally as the Apollonian structures). But it’s more useful to think of it as a human endeavor, as models of God’s good creation. But then these models, this human endeavor, is susceptible to sin and the Fall, and the W2K approach begins to deteriorate.

]]> By: Phil http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1104 Phil Sun, 01 Jul 2007 19:22:28 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1104 Regarding "Mrs. Post’s Algebra class," the problem here is that algebra is usually regarded as procedures or virtual artifacts. But mathematics is much more than that. It also involves social practices (human practices in need of sanctification) and even ideals (or thoughts about the ultimate, hence religious thoughts). We miss that point when we do not distinguish instrumental/procedural aspects of culture from social practices and cultural ideals. Limiting our vision to the instrumentalities seems to be a problem with individualists and Baptists. Regarding “Mrs. Post’s Algebra class,” the problem here is that algebra is usually regarded as procedures or virtual artifacts. But mathematics is much more than that. It also involves social practices (human practices in need of sanctification) and even ideals (or thoughts about the ultimate, hence religious thoughts).

We miss that point when we do not distinguish instrumental/procedural aspects of culture from social practices and cultural ideals. Limiting our vision to the instrumentalities seems to be a problem with individualists and Baptists.

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1100 D Hart Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:28:38 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1100 Who is this "we," white Calvinist man (read: Andrew)? Could it be that the we is Roman Catholicism? And could it be that all those good things in Rome came with the cost of missing what was most important -- how we are saved and how we respond to God in worship? Who is this “we,” white Calvinist man (read: Andrew)? Could it be that the we is Roman Catholicism? And could it be that all those good things in Rome came with the cost of missing what was most important — how we are saved and how we respond to God in worship?

]]> By: Andrew Matthews http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1097 Andrew Matthews Sat, 30 Jun 2007 18:50:40 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1097 I absolutely argue for the Church's, not individual Christians', competence in social matters. To cite some examples: We preserved (and humanized) Roman law, we invented just war theory, we invented the University, we preserved the remnants of ancient culture in our monastic libraries, we gave the world a weekly day of rest. The list goes on and on. The Church as an institutional-social body has existed for a long time. Along the way it has developed an accumulated tradition, a collective wisdom, that continues to bless the world. The world would be much worse off if the Church was socially isolated & only private Christian individuals exercised social responsibility. Get outta town with your stupid "Christians can't do better math than pagans" argument. It is beneath your dignity to keep raising it. I absolutely argue for the Church’s, not individual Christians’, competence in social matters. To cite some examples: We preserved (and humanized) Roman law, we invented just war theory, we invented the University, we preserved the remnants of ancient culture in our monastic libraries, we gave the world a weekly day of rest. The list goes on and on.

The Church as an institutional-social body has existed for a long time. Along the way it has developed an accumulated tradition, a collective wisdom, that continues to bless the world. The world would be much worse off if the Church was socially isolated & only private Christian individuals exercised social responsibility.

Get outta town with your stupid “Christians can’t do better math than pagans” argument. It is beneath your dignity to keep raising it.

]]> By: stevez http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1083 stevez Wed, 27 Jun 2007 18:13:50 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1083 Popular Reformed transformer Tim Keller wrote a brief proposal called “The Missional Church.” There is much to be lauded in it, I must admit. He takes to task this thing called Christendom, which I am all for. Yet, I still find these odd presuppositions fixed in transformationists minds, namely that Christians somehow transcend common humanity. If only people were “born again” or regenerated by the Holy Spirit, only then will things begin to look up. “Though people were ‘Christianized’ by the culture they were not regenerated or converted with the Gospel…the disadvantage [of Christendom] was that Christian-morality without Gospel-changed hearts often led to cruelty and hypocrisy.” The implication here seems to be that, a-ha, if we just get folks converted and place them into the varied cultural slots we will have transformed the world. Much as it is commendable that Keller in his tract castigates forms of arrogance that are inherent in the tenets of Christendom, what he gives with one hand he takes away with the other; simply replacing the presuppositions of objectivistic, hard-law Christendom in which all we have to do is get the world to play externally by the rules with more subjectivist, soft-edged and palatable dictums that sell well to a burned-over populace weary of the former is only different play on the same kingdom collapsing theme. And what is still bothersome is this idea that all we have to do is become Christians and “infiltrate culture.” The assumption seems to not only be that the world is to be redeemed by the hand of man, but also that “Gospel-changed hearts” are somehow magic and are the antidote to a fallen world. What Keller is trying to sell is this yet arrogant idea that we Christians know how to order society, etc. better than anyone else by plain virtue of being Christian. Somehow we transcend our own humanity in ways unbelievers do not. Want to know how to best educate children, decide labor laws, thread a needle, make a business plan, execute a project, punish criminals, improve transportation, do math, raise children, care for the elderly, program television, change a headlight? Ask the Christian. Huh? I would love to believe it to be true (especially during grade 9 in Mrs. Post’s Algebra class), but if this were I wonder why neither I nor any other Christian I know ever has transcended in any common endeavor enough to actually “do earth” any better. I consider myself to have been born form above by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. But how that translates into transcending my humanity in the here and now—versus the age to come—simply boggles me. Seems like we should all be confounded to be called “a royal priesthood” in light of honest self-reflection. The latent connections of transformationalism to health and wealth gospels are not a little discomforting either. Maybe I couldn’t grasp Algebra better than the pagan sitting next to me because I wasn’t “thinking Christianly” enough about numbers…speaking of which, Keller again… “…in a missional church, the laity needs theological education to ‘think Christianly’ about everything and work with Christian distinctiveness…renewing and transforming the culture through distinctively Christian vocation [lifting] up as real ‘kingdom work’ and ministry along with traditional ministry of the Word.” zrim Popular Reformed transformer Tim Keller wrote a brief proposal called “The Missional Church.” There is much to be lauded in it, I must admit. He takes to task this thing called Christendom, which I am all for. Yet, I still find these odd presuppositions fixed in transformationists minds, namely that Christians somehow transcend common humanity. If only people were “born again” or regenerated by the Holy Spirit, only then will things begin to look up.

“Though people were ‘Christianized’ by the culture they were not regenerated or converted with the Gospel…the disadvantage [of Christendom] was that Christian-morality without Gospel-changed hearts often led to cruelty and hypocrisy.”

The implication here seems to be that, a-ha, if we just get folks converted and place them into the varied cultural slots we will have transformed the world. Much as it is commendable that Keller in his tract castigates forms of arrogance that are inherent in the tenets of Christendom, what he gives with one hand he takes away with the other; simply replacing the presuppositions of objectivistic, hard-law Christendom in which all we have to do is get the world to play externally by the rules with more subjectivist, soft-edged and palatable dictums that sell well to a burned-over populace weary of the former is only different play on the same kingdom collapsing theme. And what is still bothersome is this idea that all we have to do is become Christians and “infiltrate culture.” The assumption seems to not only be that the world is to be redeemed by the hand of man, but also that “Gospel-changed hearts” are somehow magic and are the antidote to a fallen world. What Keller is trying to sell is this yet arrogant idea that we Christians know how to order society, etc. better than anyone else by plain virtue of being Christian. Somehow we transcend our own humanity in ways unbelievers do not. Want to know how to best educate children, decide labor laws, thread a needle, make a business plan, execute a project, punish criminals, improve transportation, do math, raise children, care for the elderly, program television, change a headlight? Ask the Christian. Huh? I would love to believe it to be true (especially during grade 9 in Mrs. Post’s Algebra class), but if this were I wonder why neither I nor any other Christian I know ever has transcended in any common endeavor enough to actually “do earth” any better. I consider myself to have been born form above by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit. But how that translates into transcending my humanity in the here and now—versus the age to come—simply boggles me. Seems like we should all be confounded to be called “a royal priesthood” in light of honest self-reflection. The latent connections of transformationalism to health and wealth gospels are not a little discomforting either. Maybe I couldn’t grasp Algebra better than the pagan sitting next to me because I wasn’t “thinking Christianly” enough about numbers…speaking of which, Keller again…

“…in a missional church, the laity needs theological education to ‘think Christianly’ about everything and work with Christian distinctiveness…renewing and transforming the culture through distinctively Christian vocation [lifting] up as real ‘kingdom work’ and ministry along with traditional ministry of the Word.”

zrim

]]> By: Anthony Cowley http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1075 Anthony Cowley Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:53:54 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/06/26/in-defense-of-a-theology-of-cross-and-glory-part-1/#comment-1075 Excellent! Excellent!

]]>