- Reading: 1984, Of Mice and Men, The Way of the Heart, Every Good Endeavor
- Building: Toddler bedframe
- Exercising: Recovering
- Studying: ICT trading, options trading, Financial Accounting Principles
- Listening: Dante Bowe, The Maker Album
- Playing: League of Legends, Guitar
- Writing: 34 Bits of Unsolicited Advice, Essays, Careful Happiness
Author: Enjoy the Process
-
June 1, 2021
-
34 Bits of Unsolicited Advice
- Enjoy the process
- If the grass is greener on the other side, water your lawn*
- Learn to fight well
- It is good to be bicultural
- Ask questions often, offer opinions less (because opinions are the cheapest commodities, everyone has them)*
- New York is not the center of the world, nor anywhere for that matter
- Sharpen your saw*
- Sabbath does not mean Sunday or going to church
- Be the master over your dishwasher, do not let it master you
- Begin with the end in mind, thus you should read Top 5 Regrets of the Dying*
- Everything in moderation, even drinking water
- Do not believe everything that science or religion claims, but do have core beliefs
- Your own child’s poop does not smell like roses
- Being a full-time parent and caregiver is the hardest job you will ever have to do
- Say hello to your neighbors and people in the elevator
- Artificial intelligence is not as scary as you think
- Be extraordinarily ordinary, especially if you do not or can not be a master of one
- Always be learning
- True wealth is being content with what you have, but do not grow complacent
- Do not place all your eggs in one basket, especially with your identity
- You do not live to produce blood, so do not live just to make money*
- It is better to drive a Honda with much joy inside than a BMW with little joy inside
- Everyone can have and believe their own truths, but there will ultimately be only one truth
- Hike up a mountain
- Introversion is not an excuse to be anti-social
- Personality tests are useful, but do not depend on them
- Make your reality better than your fantasy
- Bro, it is okay to cry
- The present is a present*
- There is a fine line between confidence and cockiness
- First world problems. Period.
- It is not that cool to be able to drink a lot
- Beer pong should be played with simple rules, but respect house rules
- Having lots of money does not provide one with a sense of purpose
* Taken or adapted from other sources
-
When I Die
He found himself understanding the wearisomeness of this life, where every path was an improvisation and a considerable part of one’s waking life was spent watching one’s feet.
Ralph, The Lord of the FliesBegin with the end in mind.
When I die.
The finality of the thought put down on paper has an odd peacefulness about the assurance of the event amidst life’s countless unexpected and unknown turn of events.
When I die.
In the West, our modern healthcare and developments have removed death from our sight, and a disillusion has quietly settled over our eyes and mind to believe that death is a far-removed occurrence and it often catches many by surprise. But there is nothing more certain about life than the fact that we will all die. When that will happen to whom, no one can predict (except maybe actuaries working at life insurance companies).
When I die… When I die.
Despite such a finality to life as we know it, the big and dark unknown of what comes next is the big life question that countless philosophers, theologians, and scientists have sought to answer. While I have some speculation on the matter, I only have full confidence to speak on what happens on this side of heaven and earth and from that lens, death is the end and where I shall begin.
When I die.
When I die, I want to die with a strong and healthy body. Despite the odds of getting cancer or the myriad of terminal illnesses these days, I want to do my best to prevent the most common issues, such as hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, and the most overlooked risk factor to a healthy life, stress. I don’t need to look like a body builder, but I want a strong heart, powerful lungs, stable core, and clean blood. I want to die without major complications, without having to be bedridden in a hospital or at home. I want to be able to move freely, enjoy walks, give hugs, and smile with a full set of teeth. I want to die saying, I have honoured and taken good care of my body and the gift it has given me since my youth to whatever older age.
When I die, I want to die with a heart full of peace and love. I want to die without harbouring any resent towards anyone. I want to die knowing that I loved my wife with all my heart, that I have committed myself to her since we first said, “I do.” I want to die having those around me feeling known and loved by me. I want my daughter to not have any daddy issues and grow up being covered in love, balanced with discipline and self-control, and to be a highly functioning person in the society she chooses to be a part of. I want my family members to feel as if they had a good son and son-in-law. I want my brother and brother-in-law to feel as if they had a good brother. I want my friends to feel that I have put them first and loved them before they chose to love me. I want my neighbours to feel loved as how I have loved myself. I want those whom I have come across to have known a little bit more goodness in their lives. I don’t need to be the most liked person, nor be known as the friendliest or happiest. I want to be remembered as someone who has enriched the lives of others within my circle of influence.
When I die, I want to die with a sharp and clear mind. I want to remember all the great memories, both happy and challenging times of life. I want to be able to ponder the greater mysteries of this life. I hope to have answered some of the complexities with greater assurance, yet have a humble curiosity, letting go of the unnecessary pursuits from my youth. When I die, I want to have read all the books I desired. I want to have travelled the many adventures through space, wilderness, and fantasy lands. I want to have met the many great men and women of past. I want to know the powers of the “Masters of the Universe.” When I die, I hope to have left some small value to the next generation, to the ongoing narrative of history, leaving a bit of the culture and perspective of the era I lived in. I hope my thoughts can be transmitted in whatever medium to give inspiration, thought, and challenge to even one other person. I hope the numerous, endless nights of swimming in my own thoughts will not be a waste. Perhaps there are a handful of golden nuggets in the quagmire of opinions. When I die, I hope to still have had an open-mind, not bent on my own ways or become cynical and stale. I want to die, still asking questions and listening to the many stories and experiences others all have.
When I die, I want to die by living a life centred around the rhythm of Sabbath. I want my work to be worshipful and my days of rest to be honouring to the Creator God. I want to die knowing the mystery of God a little more. I want to die with the hope of hearing, “good and faithful servant.” When I die, I hope my theological understanding of life may not be stagnant, but alive and vibrant as the days of my youth. I hope those around me may have benefited from fresh perspective and will have deepened their relation with a living God. When I die, I hope many will be practicing radically, ordinary hospitality. I hope there will be no Sunday-Monday gap. I hope tithing is more than 10% of post-tax income. I hope truncated versions of religion will have more meat around the bones. I hope when I die, at the least, those who have ears to hear would have benefited from the seemingly, meaningless pursuit and journey I am on. I hope when I die, I will not have turned from faith, regardless of the endless ideologies being thrown my way. I hope I can keep my soul pure and centred around Creator God, in anticipation of Jesus to usher in the new creation, and bringing the ultimate finality to death and to new life.
When I die.
I want to have no regrets. And that means now, since I don’t know when I will die. I want to live this way now.
This goal is not a destination. The goal is a direction.
I want to participate in creating a new creation in this manner, with my whole life and at the end of it, to be satisfied, having done my best to live a full life, not taking any of it for granted.
When I die.
Inspirations
- The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
- Mark, Counseler
- Shiyon, Mentor
- Gospel Comes with a House Key
- The Misson of God
- The Mission of God’s People
- Top 5 Regrets of the Dying
- Ender’s Game
- Lord of the Rings
- Hospital Playlist, Netflix
- Tuesday with Morrie
- Bible
- Simplifying the Money Conversation
- Gina, Wife
-
April 20, 2021
- Reading: The Lord of the Flies, Hebrews, Forgotten Ways Handbook
- Building: Toddler bedframe
- Exercising: 22min Hardcore
- Studying: ICT trading
- Listening: The Greatest Showman, Mood Booster
- Playing: League of Legends
- Cooking: Curry, Pizza
- Writing: Essays, Careful Happiness
-
January 13, 2021
- Reading: Devolution: A Firsthand Account of the Rainier Sasquatch Massacre, Max Brooks; On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, Stephen King; Proverbs; Lamentations
- Building: –
- Exercising: 3x/week body weight circuit, stretching
- Studying: ICT trading, Babypips
- Listening: The Daily, Voice of God – Dante Bowe, Calming Classical
- Playing: League of Legends, Catan
- Cooking: Chicken tacos, St. Louis Ribs
- Writing: Essays, Careful Happiness
-
Find Your Purpose in Life Over Resolutions
The beginning of a new year.
It doesn’t really have much intrinsic value or significance. Yet, we look forward to it and celebrate with big countdowns, cheers, and kisses. We reset our mental and emotional clocks and dig deep to find a different will-power to achieve our New Year resolutions. We want to get more fit. We want to be happier. We want to be a better person.
I stopped believing in making New Year resolutions from an early age. It was pointless. The new calendar year did not provide any magical power or motivation to achieve previous resolutions, thus I stopped believing.
However, finding purpose in life, has been a game changer. It works, not only at the start of a new calendar year, but through the mundane rhythms of life. It works on a macro scale, providing framework and direction. It works on a micro scale to provide daily tasks and goals.
I have searched wide and far for the meaning and purpose in life. I will save that full story for another time. But for now, I want to start this new, calendar year of 2021 with documenting my purpose in life.
Purpose
Participate in creating a new creation.Vision
I want to leave whomever I come in contact with a little more loved,
I want to leave whatever I touch a little more beautiful,
I want to leave wherever I go a little more cleaner,
I want to see a good, new creation.Mission
Participate in healthy living and healthy working.
Participate in loving relationships.
Participate in rich thinking and learning.
Participate in proper reflection and worship.Participation is key here.
Not everyone may share the same beliefs that I do, but for those who claim to worship and love YHWH, Jesus Christ, Father, Son, and Spirit, for those who submit to biblical authority, for those who don the confusing title of Christian, participation is key.
Understanding the biblical narrative, which thus shapes and overarches our own narratives, invites the people of God to participate in the mission of God. It is not our own mission that we devise ourselves. Often times I have found that I tried mixing secular wisdom of finding one’s own purpose with simply participating in the grand purpose of God. The syncretism of these values express itself in modern, Western Christian teaching as, “finding God’s calling for me.” It sounds holy, but in reality it is simply using the holy name of God masked around our own selfish desires and pursuits.
Participation is key, because it reminds me that life is much bigger than my own little ideas and values. It is easy to drink the Kool-Aid of modern, post-modern life and believe that I am the most important person in the world. If that is true, then I determine my own purpose, not the constricting values of society or archaic philosophy of religion. The Kool-Aid tastes good at first, but at the end of the day, it is made up of artificial sugars and false promises. However much we want to believe that we are autonomous, self-enlightened, rationale beings, we all have been influenced and shaped by values bigger than we can see. What we want to listen to, what we want to shape our lives, is our choice. And that is why participation frees us from the tyranny of both institutional oppression and individual self-fulfillment.
One does not have to look far to see that 2020 into the beginning of 2021 has not been a very good year for most. As much as we have advanced as society, we are still plagued by microscopic viruses that make the strongest leaders and people crumble to their knees. Global and local tension highlight a lack of peace and unity, despite all the movements towards harmony. Our earth is being raped of all its goodness by the very people that depend on her. And while Christianity and Christians have not always been the hero, the narrative that God is writing, the author of life and history, is one where there will be a new creation. And this is not a new purpose, a beautiful, good creation was the intent from the beginning, and will be fulfilled in the time to come. It is this story I want to be a part of, it is the story of God that I want to participate in. And the beauty of participation is that I can still be me, I can bring what little I have and offer it as I simply build along side the ultimate Creator.
This purpose, has shaped my vision, and has given me a particular mission. It is a holistic approach to loving and worshiping God. And with it, I am excited to tackle 2021. I am excited about weekly plans.
I am excited about each day that I can participate in creating a new creation.
-
December 9, 2020
- Reading: Evangelical Ecclesiology, Esther
- Building: Christmas ornaments, relationships
- Exercising: 3x/week body weight circuit, stretching
- Studying: ICT trading
- Listening: NPR radio
- Playing: League of Legends
- Cooking: Not as much
- Writing: Planning
-
November 3, 2020
- Reading: The Gospel Comes with a House Key, Acts
- Building: Office desk
- Exercising: 3x/week body weight circuit, stretching
- Studying: ICT trading
- Listening: NPR radio
- Playing: League of Legends
- Cooking: Pork belly three ways
- Writing: NaNoWriMo 2020
-
NaNoWriMo 2020
First attempt at writing a novel with a goal of 50,000 words!
-
Sep 29, 2020
- Reading: The Forgotten Ways, The Gospel Comes with a House Key, Jonah
- Building: Bookshelves, office desk, this site
- Fighting: A sore throat and body ache, for my marriage
- Exercising: 3x/week body weight circuit, tennis
- Considering: Trading course, writing a book
- Watching: Schitt’s Creek, Daniel Tiger
-
Beautiful House, Ugly Home
I recently moved into a new house. What a journey it has been from the initial far-fetched dream to this new reality.
Buying a house has not been the hardest transition in life. Yet, it has certainly brought about significant challenges. Pair that with a marriage tested with one of the hardest challenges of having a kid, then we certainly have one messy recipe.
It has been about three weeks after moving to the new house. There were various reasons for the move, but it was definitely the right decision. The house is absolutely beautiful. The real estate agent said she typically does not desire the houses she shows her clients, but this one really stood out. The inspection agent said that this house falls under the 2% of houses that have hardly any issues considering it is five years old. It is truly a beautiful house.
But what good is a beautiful house, if it is not a beautiful home?
The family that moved in seems like any “ordinary” family. Perhaps that is exactly the problem. We are an ordinary family in the sense of broken mediocrity.
My wife and I have been through one of the hardest years of our lives in 2019. Our beautiful daughter was born in 2018. The following year we had many transitions — motherhood to full-time job; father and full-time student to full-time caregiver. Becoming parents alone is a hard enough transition. Being a primary caregiver as a father is a whole other challenge. Through the transitions, identities were shaken, communication was broken, and “vicious cycles” partaken.
We knew there would be necessary adjustments after having a child. We knew that extra work was needed. Thus, we “tried” to make things better. But then, the dream of the house, communality, and family, took priority.
And now, we have a beautiful house, and an ugly home.
Is it really worth coveting anything that seems beautiful on the outside, but is decaying on the inside? House, car, job, marriage, family, spirituality, friendships, insert whatever.
Perhaps going from a one-bedroom apartment with three adults and one toddler, to a four-bedroom, 2500 square foot house, gives you more space to be in separate rooms to write reflections “in peace” after having another tiff with one another. At the end of the day, all the space in the world will not mend any deeper brokenness that festers in a broken home. It is easy to repair things around the house, build beautiful dining tables, clean and organize so that everything appears to be in order. It is inexplicably harder to repair stonewalled hearts, scars from spoken and unspoken words, or a dull apathy that slowly settles downs as the new norm.
But f*** all that.
As my contrarian self and pursuit to live an extraordinarily ordinary life, here is my stake in the ground to turn an ugly home, to match the beautiful house. I thought it wasn’t worth fighting for anymore, I probably will feel that way at times in the future, but I know this beautiful house will not last, no matter how hard I try to maintain it, if it is not coupled with a beautiful home.
So, let’s go back inside.
-
Family as Salt and Light
The Christian faith has become increasingly implausible in the modern period. This has occurred due to the secularization of society particularly through the decline of the bidirectional influence of family and religion. The deterioration of the traditional family in our age and the current “modern social imaginary,” are reasons why it will be difficult for Christianity to flourish and will be even more challenging for individuals, including Christians, raised in this post-Christian, “family-less” society.
There have been numerous studies on the secularization of society in the modern West. However, many take these theories for granted and simply assume that religion and Christianity, more specifically, will face an inevitable death.[1] Some of the more conventional narratives of secularization predominantly include the impact of the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, with their prized fruits of science, technology, and materialism.[2] While some truth exists in these explanations, Mary Eberstadt provides a different perspective on the secularization of the West, which she argues has been most influenced by the “Family Factor.”[3]
A common theory has been that “religious belief comes chronologically first for people, and that they then tailor their actions accordingly—including their personal decisions about family formation.”[4] Eberstadt challenges this causative assumption and provides compelling suggestions that there is a “double-helix” relationship between family and religion. She identifies that the Family Factor plays just as much of a role in people’s religious decisions. Sociologists have shown that decisions such as “whether to have [a family], whether to marry, how many children you will have” are all “strong predictors of how much time you do (or do not) spend in church”—the studies also show that unmarried people without children are less likely to attend church. [5] An interesting challenge to the unidirectional influence of religion on family decisions is the relation between religion and contraception. A common assumption has been that because of religious restrictions on the use of contraception, religious people have larger families. However, most of the religious modern world no longer has any restriction on the use of artificial contraception, and yet the data reveal that religious people continue to have larger families than the nonreligious.[6] Eberstadt makes another stunning correlation with the dramatic rise of postwar religiosity across the West that accompanied the more commonly known “demographic phenomenon, the baby boom.” As the studies and data suggest, the Family Factor and having more children may lead people to religion.[7]
The Family Factor has a significant impact on religiosity, as Eberstadt has shown, and thus trends have demonstrated that a decline of the family may have impacted the decline of Western Christianity.[8] For example, looking at the French provides circumstantial evidence in that “French religiosity did not decline in the absence of family decline,” but rather, “their spiral fates were historically joined.”[9] Another correlative trend that is often overlooked is how the Industrial Revolution had a direct impact on the family. “The one thing that all scholars will attest is that as a general demographic rule, urbanization leads to falling birthrates.”[10] The Industrial Revolution and the rise of urbanization had a detrimental effect on families, which in turn may have “made it harder for people to believe and practice their Christian faith.”[11] Further analysis has shown that the most irreligious parts of the West tend to have the “smallest/weakest/fewest natural families,” while the opposite also holds true, i.e. religious parts of the West tend to have stronger families.[12] These trends do not indicate, nor does Eberstadt argue, that family alone is the reason for religious decline. However, they do illuminate how much negative impact there has been on the family correlating to the gradual demise of Christianity in the West.
The impact of the secularization of society through the decline of family persists as an ongoing reason why Christianity has become increasingly implausible in the modern age. Fewer people are getting married, having children, and adhering to the traditional model of the natural family.[13] If the evidence and trends of recent history continue to hold true, the lack of families alone may drive less and less people to Christianity. Further complicating this matter is the growing acceptance of nontraditional or antitraditional families, making the plea toward a Judeo-Christian understanding of family more difficult to accept.[14] Not only this trend, but one does not have to look far to see the mere brokenness in the family structure even within Christian communities. The “mere proliferation of broken homes across the West poses one more problem of its own for receptivity to the Christian message.”[15] Eberstadt warns her readers, “It is in this way that broken and frayed homes not only interrupt the transmission of the Christian message: in some cases, they provide the emotional material for a whole new barrier wall to Christian belief.”[16]
It is evident that society has changed drastically over the past few centuries. There also has been a deeper subconscious transformation of how people in the modern age view their existence. This is not only in theory, as scholar Charles Taylor argues, but is an all-encompassing “social imaginary.”[17] The development of the “modern social imaginary” over centuries has produced a new way of thinking, believing, and behaving and is significant to this discussion because of the way it challenges “the descriptions of God’s providence and the order he has established among humans in the cosmos.”[18] The modern social imaginary has an all-pervasive effect not only affecting discussions among the elite or educated. It changes the mere definition of family itself, as previously discussed, what constitutes the public sphere, the weight of economic reality, the sovereignty of people, and even what fashion means in light of the authority of public opinion.[19] The modern social imaginary has created a new space for God to exist in the secular world, from the once public and enchanted world to the now private and immanent domain.[20] Thus, the traditional forms and expressions of Christianity will continually find it difficult to be a healthy conduit in the modern age for the good news of Jesus Christ and the whole biblical narrative.
All individuals—since that is the modus operandi for any person steeped in the moral order of the modern social imaginary—will find it difficult to have faith in a transcendent God and institutionalized religion. The challenge to believe and practice Christian faith is not just for the harmful distinction of a non-believer, but for the very people who identify as Christian. Faith or skepticism is no longer a simple polar dichotomy in the secular age. We exist in the “cross-pressure” of belief oscillating between “doubt and longing, faith and questioning,” illustrates James Smith.[21] Christians who belong to the modern social imaginary live in a personal tension when their social imaginary is confronted by the biblical narrative and find it unsettling. If they are able to overcome this personal tension, then they must face the public sphere at large and the risks associated with carrying one’s own cross.[22],[23]
The institutional church and the leaders teaching their community of individuals ought to reinforce the biblical narrative and combat the fictitious aspects of modern social existence,[24] reminding followers of Jesus Christ to be in, but not of the world.[25] Identifying and confronting what it means to be in the world, but not of it has many faces, yet one in particular that the church has failed to address is in regards to the family. Eberstadt explains, “In their efforts to reach out to individuals who wanted a softening of Christian doctrine, the churches inadvertently appear to have failed to protect their base: thriving families whose members would then go on to reproduce both literally and in the figurative sense of handing down their religion.”[26] The secular world that promoted “the legalization of divorce, the particularly momentous invention of modern contraception, the consequent increasing destigmatization of out-of-wedlock births,” was given even more support “by related changes in Protestant theology… that unwittingly amounted to more blows against an institution [i.e. the family] already being roundly battered.”[27] The modern individual continues to take a stronger foothold in this age and is less convinced of Christianity and religion as both the secular data and the Christian message preached dismiss—whether consciously or subconsciously—the significance of family.
Family has been an important factor in the history of Christianity, as discussed thus far. There is compelling evidence for the influence of family on religious decisions, and thus a decline of the family over recent centuries has accompanied the decline of Western Christianity. There has been a simultaneous growth of the modern social imaginary during this time and now is the primary lens that Western people imagine existence. The modern social imaginary has redefined the meaning of family itself and esteems the individual to new heights. It has impacted the message of the Western church to cater to these changes, since the very leaders and members of these communities live immersed in and in tension with this imaginary. As we traverse deeper into the ever-evolving modern social imaginary, perhaps a mere focus to become missional families will be enough of a witness as salt and light of the world.[28] Christian families or the lack thereof have been “no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trampled under people’s feet.” Perhaps families can be a light so that the world may see the good work of simply being a family and then people will be open to and welcome the Father who is in heaven, ultimately giving glory to God.[29]
[1] Mary Eberstadt, How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2013) Kindle Edition, 60.
[2] Ibid., see Chapter 2.
[3] Ibid., 21.
[4] Ibid., 91.
[5] Ibid., 93.
[6] Ibid., 100.
[7] Ibid., 122.
[8] Ibid., 108.
[9] Ibid., 110.
[10] Ibid., 117.
[11] Ibid., 115. Also see Catherine A. Brekus, Sarah Osborn’s World: The Rise of Evangelical Christianity in Early America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 45.
[12] Ibid., 118.
[13] Ibid., 169-172.
[14] Ibid., 163.
[15] Ibid., 177.
[16] Ibid., 163.
[17] For a full explanation on social imaginary, see Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004), Chapter 2.
[18] Taylor, 5.
[19] Ibid., 151, 167. In light of recent events, the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the modern social imaginary’s posture toward the power of economic reality, where we commonly find the significance and importance of saving human lives on par with the significance and importance of saving the economy.
[20] Ibid., 193.
[21] James K. A. Smith, How (Not) to be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 14.
[22] Taylor, 182.
[23] Matthew 16:24 (ESV).
[24] Taylor, 183. “We regularly come across ways in which the modern social imaginaries, no longer defined as ideal types but as actually lived by this or that population, are full of ideological and false consciousness.”
[25] John 17:14-18.
[26] Eberstadt, 140 (emphasis added).
[27] Ibid., 168.
[28] Missional understood as and operating in participation with the mission of God. I expound upon this in my essay, “Hey Google, what is mission?” (essay, April 2020). Family as a vocation is “[not] just as a socioeconomic benefit, cultural nicety, or fear of being an idol, but as one expression in the participation of the mission of God, as a church and as a witness to the image of God, dwelling with creation and being a blessing to those around and all nations.” Lee, 10.
[29] Matt 5:13-16. Eberstadt laments, “How can that relationship between creature and Creator be understood when the very word ‘father’ may be associated more with negative than with positive characteristics?” Eberstadt, 176.
-
Culture of Enlightenment Births Evangelicalism
Through its culture of reason and progress, the Enlightenment created a new environment for Christian faith and practice, particularly expressed through the complicated birth of evangelicalism.[1]
The Enlightenment consists of multiple people, events, behaviors, and ideas that stretch across a large breadth of time and place. The eighteenth century in particular has been most notably known as the Age of Enlightenment.[2] This century had seen a greater “push for societies based on reason rather than religious confession.”[3] More legitimacy was given to the separation of church and state and “the will of the people rather than the will of God” was becoming the predominant voice of society.[4] There were significant advancements in science and technology, and new understandings of anthropology, sociology, and the modern economy.[5]
One could say that the “social imaginary” — “the way people imagine their social existence” — was ultimately transforming.[6] This transformation primarily took place through “the public sphere among educated elites in the eighteenth century” and the set of practices developed by the public sphere “gradually changed their meaning for people, and hence helped to constitute a new social imaginary (the ‘economy’).”[7]
These broad trends and cultural shifts were demonstrated in the heart of a local town in Newport, Connecticut. Documented in the life of Sarah Osborn, an eighteenth-century writer, she provides a “unique vantage point” of the changing times.[8] Her story illuminates three cultural tones of the eighteenth-century Enlightenment: consumerism, capitalism, and humanitarianism.[9]
The economic social imaginary that was developing in the eighteenth century consisted of an abundance of material goods that were to be traded in the marketplace. Technological advancements provided a better means to living and thus a “consumer revolution” took place in Newport, where people “could savor the pleasures of buying a new book, choosing a new outfit, or investing in a matched set of Wedgwood plates.”[10] Sarah welcomed this consumer revolution and saw it “as a reflection of God’s beneficence toward his creation.”[11]
With an abundance of goods and a growing marketplace, mercantile capitalism began to take shape. New opportunities were offered by the marketplace and while “[Sarah] and other evangelicals saw nothing wrong with either making money or buying things in the marketplace,” there was a growing skepticism to some of the inherent values supported by capitalism. “Capitalism depended on a commitment to the values of acquisitive individualism, benevolent self-interest, and free choice.”[12] The merchants in Newport, “acted as though they were the master of their own fate” while Sarah fought against this value system that seemed to displace the providence of God.[13]
Related to this new economic reality was the cultural voice of humanitarianism. An emphasis on the will of the people over the will of God changed the narrative of the roles of humans in society.[14] The humanitarian movement was characterized by religious skepticism or even disbelief, viewed happiness as the greatest good, sought to abolish suffering, believed humans could make the world a better place, and ultimately claimed humans as essentially good.[15] These values stood in stark contrast even to the prior century.
Due to Sarah’s existing faith in God, she lived in tension when these economic and humanitarian values intersected with her beliefs and thus embodied the impact of the Enlightenment with Christian faith and practice.
Consumerism and the increase in material goods and standard of living created a temptation for the “the Powerful Love of the World and Exorbitant Reach after Riches.”[16] The tension that arose was not with the materialism itself. When “people participated in the consumer economy, they were encouraged to imagine themselves as free agents who could fashion their identities however they pleased, gratifying their desires instead of repressing them.”[17] It was this kind of choice that Sarah saw sinful and the emphasis on the autonomous individual over and against her sovereign God.[18] While eighteenth-century ministers condemned the sin of covetousness, they were ironically “pioneers in using commercial techniques to spread the gospel. Like merchants who advertised their goods in local newspapers, they publicized their meetings in order to attract as many people as possible.”[19] While there was a prophet-like condemnation on luxury and corruption, ministers of the time “knew how to ‘sell’ religion.”[20] The effect of consumerism impacted both personal and public expressions of Christian faith and practice.
The capitalistic values of individualism, self-interest, and free choice may have had one of the biggest impacts on Christian faith and practice. This is most evidently seen by the evangelical emphasis on personal experience and one’s choice to believe. Catherine Brekus explains that
Enlightenment philosophers defended the right of the sovereign individual to … worship according to the dictates of his own conscience… Evangelicals were ambivalent about the individualism that was enshrined by the Enlightenment, but in response to the challenges of their time they crafted a new form of Protestantism that was based more on the converted individual than the covenanted community… [Even] though evangelicals agreed that both personal and communal transformation were important, they put their pronunciation more on the individual, arguing that one could not be a Christian without a personal experience of grace.[21]
While Sarah and other “evangelicals did object… to the model of selfhood that formed the bedrock of the emerging capitalist order,” the influence of the Enlightenment may have given greater significance to Sarah Osborn’s story and personal conversion, especially during a time where the female voice was a minority. Evangelicalism “gave women a new vocabulary of individual experience to justify their authority and leadership.”[22] This was clearly evident in Sarah Osborn’s life.
Another impact of individualism and the larger socioeconomic changes were on the family dynamic, which as Mary Eberstadt argues, has a correlative effect on religious practice.[23] In the seventeenth century, ministers viewed the family as a “hierarchical ordering of both church and state.”[24] This began to change as the institution of the family began to have less influence on its members. “[Whether] or not evangelicals understood the underlying historical forces that were changing the family, they were disturbed by their effects.”[25]
The humanitarian movement had a more direct effect on Christian faith and practice, as one of its characteristic traits is religious skepticism. The view of the essential goodness of humanity inevitably brought the doctrine of sin into question. “Ordinary Protestant” believers found the language of total depravity, corruption, and evil “extreme, perhaps even absurd.”[26] As seen in her writings, Sarah did not adopt this particular message of humanitarianism and in numerous occasions highlights her sinfulness. Nonetheless, there was a growing popularity in “a new gospel of human goodness.”[27]
A very complex dynamic that arose between humanitarianism (and the broader changes of the Enlightenment) and Christian faith and practice is through their birth of the antislavery movement. Interestingly, it was neither of these two forces alone that ultimately addressed the inherent wrong of owning and selling another human being. First century Christians up until the early eighteenth century have coexisted with slavery.[28] While Sarah had a tremendous heart to welcome slaves and free blacks into her home to sing, pray, and listen to their stories, she was more concerned with their salvation than their bodily freedom.[29] Most Enlightenment philosophers “imagined reason as the sole property of white European men, denigrating all other peoples as ‘racially inferior and savage.’”[30] Historians have studied how the antislavery movement picked up particular strength in the late eighteenth century. Explanations include how “it emerged in tandem with the humanitarian movement, revolutionary rhetoric, and mercantile capitalism.”[31] It was this complex dynamic of these cultural forces along with a strong Christian ethic that gave breadth to “a powerful indictment of slavery.”[32] For Sarah, because of “her zeal to save sinners she sometimes turned a blind eye to the entrenched evils of her time, especially slavery.”[33] However, through the radical change in the late eighteenth century and the influence of abolitionist Samuel Hopkins, she also had a change of heart seeing the “horrid sin” of slavery.[34]
One other particular impact of the Enlightenment on Christian faith and practice, worth mentioning in brief, is how the overall trend toward reason and knowledge as well as the evangelical emphasis on personal experience may have both contributed to the demise of the authority of Scripture. “[Evangelicals] did not view conversion as an intellectual assent to the truths of the Bible or as a slow, imperceptible turning to God; for them it was a ‘new sense’ that was as real as the physical senses of seeing, hearing, or tasting.”[35] And through the elevation of scholarly study, the Bible became like any other ordinary ancient text examined for its truthfulness and usefulness to contribute to the broader pool of knowledge.[36]
It is clear that the Enlightenment and its cultural values had a significant impact on Christian faith and practice, particularly seen through the eyes—or rather words—of eighteenth-century writer, Sarah Osborn. Although it was a brief review of the complex interactions occurring at the time, this exploration of history provides, as John Fea argues, “one small way of cultivating the virtues necessary for a thriving democracy.”[37] He continues, “We can attend religious services with people who share our socioeconomic status, skin color, theological beliefs, and style of worship… ‘How can we take responsibility for our society if we remain in such a state of isolation, growing fat in our ideological enclaves?’[38]
While Sarah Osborn—nor any person in history for that matter except Jesus Christ—was not perfect, she did exemplify a life that most definitely reached across different skin color and socioeconomic status, and attempted to live a life most pleasing to God as she wrestled within the tension of the growing values of the Enlightenment and her own expression and practice of Christian faith. She reminds modern day Christians to do the same.
[1] Catherine A. Brekus, Sarah Osborn’s World: The Rise of Evangelical Christianity in Early America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 9.
[2] Iain Provan, The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017), 391.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid., 392.
[5] Ibid., 391-2.
[6] While outside the scope of this essay, there is a strong case for the argument of an eighteenth-century social imaginary, as presented in Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004).
[7] Taylor, 30.
[8] Brekus, 5.
[9] Ibid., 7. While these words and the modern understanding of the concepts did not develop until later, “language often lags behind reality” as demonstrated through the life of Sarah Osborn.
[10] Ibid., 193.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid., 213.
[13] Ibid. 193.
[14] Provan, 392.
[15] Brekus, 218.
[16] Ibid., 44.
[17] Ibid., 193.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Brekus, 187. Charles Taylor corroborates this point in his analysis of the “disembedding” of individuals. He notes that Protestant—or perhaps more specifically, evangelical—churches “operated, where one was not simply a member by virtue of birth but had to join by answering a personal call. This is turn helped to give force to a conception of society as founded on covenant, and hence as ultimately constituted by the decision of free individuals.” See Taylor, 62 (emphasis added).
[22] Brekus, 183.
[23] See Mary Eberstadt, How the West Really Lost God: A New Theory of Secularization (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Press, 2013).
[24] Ibid., 45.
[25] Brekus, 45.
[26] Ibid., 46.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Ibid., 287.
[29] Ibid., 269-70. E.g., Jonathan Edwards did not view slavery as a sin even referring to Scripture. See Brekus, 268.
[30] Ibid., 267.
[31] Ibid., 284.
[32] Ibid., 287.
[33] Ibid., 219.
[34] Ibid., 287.
[35] Ibid., 94.
[36] Provan, 401.
[37] John Fea, Why Study History? Reflecting on the Importance of the Past (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 117.
[38] Ibid. Fea quotes Nicholas Kristof, “The Daily Me,” New York Times, March 19, 2009.
-
“Hey Google, what is mission?”
A Google search for “what is mission” returns the top two definitions: “1. an important assignment carried out for political, religious, or commercial purposes, typically involving travel. 2. the vocation or calling of a religious organization, especially a Christian one, to go out into the world and spread its faith.”[1] This understanding of mission has shaped much of modern Christian faith and practice and evidently the world—or at least Google—has taken note as well. Merriam-Webster provides an additional definition: “a preestablished and often self-imposed objective or purpose.”[2] This definition of mission may help us better understand the mission of God.
I argue that the mission of God is to create and dwell with all of creation, including the people of God and the nations. This understanding of the mission of God shifts my perspective on personal and ecclesial identity and gives shape to my vocation.
What is the preestablished and self-imposed objective or purpose of God? A good place to start would be, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”[3] The creation narrative illustrates whom, what, when, and where God created, however, it does not explicitly explain the reason why. I have often heard that the purpose of God is to save people or to redeem creation, yet I never found these answers satisfying as to why God created anything in the first place, if the sole objective was to see it fail in order to redeem it.
What if the purpose of God in creating was to simply enjoy the very act of it as well as the end product? When God creates light, water, land, vegetation, fruits, lights to rule over the day and night, sea creatures, birds, living creatures on the earth, and ultimately humankind, God sees each creation as good and when God sees everything that was made, “it was very good.”[4] Afterwards, “God rested from all his work that he had done in creation.”[5] It could be said that the mission of God, the preestablished and self-imposed purpose, was to create good work and when it was finished, to rest and enjoy the good creation. Like an artist who paints a picture, a cook who prepares a feast, a coder who designs a website, and a parent who raises a child, there is something beautiful and meaningful in the very act of creating and in the creation. When many in the modern age view their work simply as a means, most often to make money in order to provide a living, God demonstrates that work ought to be good in and of itself. That was and continues to be the mission of God.
Placed within the story of creation, is the introduction of humankind. An interesting note to make, particularly when we as humans are inclined to make ourselves the center of the story, is that the creation of humankind did not even encompass a “day” of its own. We shared it with the creation of the beasts and livestock of the earth.[6] The special trait that humankind did receive is that we were created in the image of God, a motif I will explore in more detail. [7] Humankind was given a purpose as well. On the indicative of being blessed by Creator God, humankind was to be fruitful, increase in number, fill and subdue the earth, have dominion over the living creatures, and eat.[8] Humankind was placed in the good creation and was given the same enjoyable purpose of working and taking care of it.[9] Yet, as most interesting stories go, there are always characters who mess things up.
God dwells with creation and with humankind as initially intended.[10] However, instead of fulfilling the simple and enjoyable purpose set forth by God, humankind disobeys by doing the one thing they were not supposed to do. Like one who vandalizes a painting, a server over-seasoning a meal, a hacker inserting a bug, or a child disobeying a parent, the good creation was ruined. Instead of issuing the initial consequence from disobeying, God formulates a new purpose for restoring what had been marred.[11] God executes this specific purpose through a covenant with Abram, through whom “all peoples on earth will be blessed.”[12]
The Bible takes its readers on a complicated journey of how God will fulfill this new purpose. In contrast to most self-imposed objectives where the work is ongoing and the end result uncertain, we are fortunate to know how this story will end. Through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God restores the broken relationship with humankind and will fulfill blessing all peoples on earth. Bible readers have a glimpse into the ultimate reality God has planned.
“Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.”[13] The people of God are found in the new creation, where the gates and foundations of the city have the names of the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles of the Lamb, respectively.[14] The nations will walk by the light of God and their glory and honor will be brought into the city of God.[15] “And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.”[16] Once again, God is at work creating a good creation, “a new heaven and a new earth.”[17] God is fulfilling the purpose of redeeming the people of God, through whom all nations will be blessed. God is ultimately continuing the purpose of creating good work and to enjoy good creation. God states, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment.”[18] What a masterpiece.
This framework, or missional hermeneutic, is imperative for understanding the Biblical narrative, as Christopher Wright argues in The Mission of God.[19] The Bible itself is a “missional phenomenon,” providing within its own texts and as a whole (as demonstrated above) the mission of God.[20] “In short, a missional hermeneutic proceeds from the assumption that the whole Bible renders to us the story of God’s mission through God’s people in their engagement with God’s world for the sake of the whole creation.”[21] This “missional basis of the Bible” can only be properly understood when there is radical shift in one’s preconceived ideas of mission.[22] The story of God’s mission, according to Wright,
begins with the God of purpose in creation, moves on to the conflict and problem generated by human rebellion against that purpose, spends most of its narrative journey in the story of God’s redemptive purpose being worked out on the stage of human history, [and] finishes beyond the horizon of its own history with the eschatological hope of a new creation.[23]
I owe much of my own “missional hermeneutic” to the argument presented by Wright, with a particular emphasis on the beginning of God’s purpose in creation. Understanding the historical and “grand metanarrative” of the Bible and fully capturing the mission of God affects all other aspects of mission, including the mission of humanity, Israel, Jesus, and the church.[24] The mission of the church, which has often been the primary or only study of “missions,”[25] “means the committed participation of God’s people in the purposes of God for the redemption of the whole creation.”[26] In order to do proper justice in our participation, it requires—and I quote at length—“a missional hermeneutic [that] means that we seek to read any part of the Bible in the light of
- God’s purpose for his whole creation, including the redemption of humanity and the creation of the new heavens and new earth
- God’s purpose for human life in general on the planet and of all the Bible teaches about human culture, relationships, ethics and behavior
- God’s historical election of Israel, their identity and role in relation to the nations, and the demands he made on their worship, social ethics, and total value system
- the centrality of Jesus of Nazareth, his messianic identity and mission in relation to Israel and the nations, his cross and resurrection
- God’s calling of the church, the community of believing Jews and Gentiles who constitute the extended people of the Abraham covenant, to be the agent of God’s blessing to the nations in the name and for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.[27]
Adopting this missional basis of the Bible, will allow Christians to sing more richly,
Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost,
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be,
World without end, Amen.[28]
“This is not just a liturgically conventional way to end prayers and canticles.” Wright explains, “It is a missional perspective on history past, present and future, and one day it will be the song of the whole creation.”[29]
Wright references this short Trinitarian hymn to capture the whole breadth of the mission of God.[30] The Trinity, as Eugene Peterson explains, “is the theological formulation that most adequately provides a structure for keeping conversations on the Christian life coherent, focused, and personal… If God’s presence and work are not understood to define who we are and what we are doing, nothing we come up with will be understood and lived properly.”[31] This understanding of God may seem like mere abstraction and some aspects certainly are, however, Peterson argues that the Trinity ought to be “a witness that God reveals himself as personal and in personal relations,” and thus is not understood as intellectual categorization, but rather and only through relation.[32] Miroslav Volf corroborates this notion in his work, After Our Likeness. “[These] brief and abstract considerations concerning the one and the many indicate that the way one thinks about God will decisively shape not only ecclesiology, but the entirety of Christian thought.”[33] This relational understanding of God, which Volf explains theologically as the perichoretic personhood of God,[34] aligns with the mission of God, to dwell with all of creation, the people of God, and the nations.
Volf interacts with two leading voices from the Catholic and Orthodox tradition to assess how different understandings of the Trinity has led and continues to lead to different understandings and expressions of the church. Different traditions and theologians have emphasized and have an affinity towards universalization or pluralization, depending on their Trinitarian theology.[35] While older traditions have been steeped in Trinitarian thought and practice, the Trinity “has remained largely alien to the Free Church tradition.”[36] Volf aims to place the “cry of protest of the Free Churches — ‘We are the church’ — into a trinitarian framework and with elevating it to the status of an ecclesiological program… that is dogmatically fully orthodox.”[37] The focus of his work is on the inner nature of the church and he explicitly states that he does not directly address how the church should “participate in God’s mission in the world.”[38] Thus, it would be unfair to respond and critique his work specifically in regards to the mission of God, but there are two aspects of ecclesiology worth mentioning.
Volf argues that the church is the image of God and must be understood in light of God’s new creation, “as the anticipation of the eschatological gathering of the entire people of God.”[39] If the church is the image of God, then the mission of the church is the mission of the triune God, to be in communion with the entire people of God in the new heaven and new earth.[40] If the church is understood strictly in this manner, perhaps then we will be better equipped to understand the mission of God. Having a proper understanding of God and “the church as community is therefore simultaneously a missiological dispute concerning the correct way in which the communal form of Christian faith today is to be lived authentically and transmitted effectively.”[41] While the “decentralized participative structure and culture” that Volf presents seem like a more plausible expression and form of church, one must remain grounded in theocentric mission and worship, rather than a predominant ecclesiocentric view.[42] Volf reminds us that “[successful] participative church life must be sustained by deep spirituality. Only the person who lives from the Spirit of communion (2 Cor. 13:13) can participate authentically in the life of the ecclesial community.”[43]
Understanding more of who God is and the mission of God in the world, continually shapes my identity and vocation. The tendency, as we saw from the beginning, is the desire to make ourselves the primary character and author of our lives. I do not believe this is solely a modern dilemma of extreme individualism, but can be a tribal flaw as well, such as the role and emphases of the institutional church. Wright argues that a “shift in paradigm” is necessary, from “our human agency to the ultimate purposes of God,” from “mission as ‘missions’ that we undertake, to mission as that which God has been purposing and accomplishing from eternity to eternity,” and from “an anthropocentric (or ecclesiocentric) conception to a radically theocentric worldview.”[44] I believe my personal identity has been greatly impacted by fully understanding the mission of God. However, having been shaped by the “modern social imaginary” and the evangelical emphasis of personal experience in salvation, I believe we in the modern West will continue to live in this tension, until the new creation.[45]
In the Fall of 2019, my wife and I rested from attending a local Sunday gathering of a Free Church. We were in search of what it means to be the church, instead of being a mere consumer, lay participant, or even a devoted member to the various programs of churches. We were unsure of what we were looking for, but wanted to avail ourselves to the possibility of a new rhythm that the Spirit of God would reveal. By understanding the mission of God and the church as the anticipation of the eschatological gathering of the people of God, Volf provides a strong theological dogmatic to our ecclesiology, even expressed within a family unit, another important growing theme.[46] While I do not believe I have landed anywhere concretely, I certainly have a strong platform to jump off and claim, “We are the church!”
According to the biblical narrative, who we are is shaped and defined by our relation to God and who God is and our vocations ought to be shaped and defined by our relation to what matters to God and what God is doing.[47] It is important to understand this grand metanarrative, but Steven Garber reminds us, “To have good lives, we cannot spend much of life talking about utopian fantasies, about ‘wouldn’t it be nice’ worlds.”[48] In order to combat the tendency to veer towards a utopian ideal, we can “live proximately” and one way to do so is through the vocation and calling of family. Not just as a socioeconomic benefit, cultural nicety, or fear of being an idol, but as one expression in the participation of the mission of God, as a church and as a witness to the image of God, dwelling with creation and being a blessing to those around and all nations.
“For eternity, all my heart will give, all the glory to your name.”[49]
[1] Lexico, s.v. “mission,” accessed April 14, 2020, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/mission (emphasis added).
[2] Merriam-Webster, s.v. “mission,” accessed April 14, 2020, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mission.
[3] Gen 1:1 (ESV).
[4] Gen 1:3-31. I use the translation of “adam” as humankind, taken from the NRSV translation and explained further by Iain Provan in Seriously Dangerous Religion (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2014), 80-1.
[5] Gen 2:3b.
[6] Gen 1:24-26.
[7] Gen 1:26-27.
[8] Gen 1:28-29.
[9] Gen 2:15.
[10] Gen 3:8-9.
[11] Gen 2:17.
[12] Gen 12:1-3; 15.
[13] Rev 21:3.
[14] Rev 21:12-13.
[15] Rev 21:22,24.
[16] Rev 21:5a.
[17] Rev 21:1a.
[18] Rev 21:6.
[19] Christopher J.H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006). This book deserves its own space for reflection and response, yet I will do my best to briefly summarize the main points in this essay.
[20] Wright, 48-50.
[21] Ibid., 51.
[22] Ibid., 62. I will return to this shift as it deeply resonated with me personally.
[23] Ibid., 63-4.
[24] Ibid., 63, 66-7.
[25] Ibid., 33-4. Most studies of or rather for Christian missions is “to find appropriate biblical justification and authority for the mission of the Christian church to the nations.”
[26] Ibid., 67.
[27] Ibid., 67-8.
[28] Ibid., 64.
[29] Ibid., 65.
[30] The appearance of this hymn has declined drastically since the late twentieth century. See Hymnary.org, s.v. “Gloria Patri,” accessed April 14, 2020, https://hymnary.org/text/glory_be_to_the_father_and_to_the_son.
[31] Eugene H. Peterson, Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places: A Conversation in Spiritual Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 6.
[32] Ibid., 7.
[33] Miroslav Volf, After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 193.
[34] Ibid., 208-9.
[35] Ibid., 193-4.
[36] Ibid., 196. Volf associates Free Church as “churches with a congregationalist church constitution” and secondly as those who affirm the separation of church and state. See Volf, 9.
[37] Ibid., 11, 20. The study presented by Volf is far-reaching especially for the modern society and church. I believe it is crucial to understand how he defines the church, the mediation of faith, and the “polycentric-participative” model, however, space will not permit me to fully engage with his material here.
[38] Ibid., 2, 7 (emphasis added).
[39] Ibid, 128, 197.
[40] Ibid., 257.
[41] Ibid., 11. Through the Trinitarian understanding of ecclesiology expressed through the Free Churches, I believe the model that Volf presents is better equipped to engage with modern individualism and human rights, sociological hierarchy and structures, and roles and responsibilities of the individual and community. See Volf, 220, 226, 228.
[42] Volf, 257 and Wright, 62.
[43] Volf, 257.
[44] Wright, 62 (emphases added).
[45] See Charles Taylor, Modern Social Imaginaries and Catherine A. Brekus, Sarah Osborn’s World.
[46] Volf, 17-18, 36.
[47] Steven Garber, Visions Of Vocation (Downers Grove: IVP Books, 2014), 161.
[48] Ibid., 220.
[49] Listen to Hillsong Worship, “You Hold Me Now – Hillsong Worship,” YouTube, accessed April 15, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ldX-5y8ulM.
-
Loving God with a Social Imaginary of Expressive Individualism
What does it mean to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength?”[1] I have pondered this question numerous times in my journey of faith. Loving God with all my strength was “easy” to practice as it meant faithfully attending Sunday gatherings, tithing, and generally living with a decent moral compass. Loving God with all my mind had brought me to Regent College to wrestle with some of the skeptical questions I have had, prior to which have either been dismissed with juvenile responses or left unanswered. Despite all the good deeds and contemplation thus far, ironically, it seems that at this juncture of my journey I am reminded once again, to have faith like a child and to love God like a child. I believe this disposition is most crucial to the Christian and to the church. Simply put, love God with all your heart.
Loving God with all your heart is crucial to the Christian and the church because it is central to the greatest commandment, referenced above. Our hearts contain our identity, character, and attitude, thus loving God in this manner requires our whole selves, which I believe is the very essence of being in relation with a living and dynamic God. And being in relation with God further reveals our identity, shapes our character, and aligns our attitude. It is from this foundation that all other expressions of love and action ought to take place.
This disposition is crucial to the Christian because a deeper understanding of our identity helps clarify and fulfill our purpose. Understanding ourselves and discovering a purpose is ubiquitous in the narrative of the modern West. For the Christian, we may rephrase this as identifying God’s purpose for me, hearing the call of God, living a life honoring to God, being faithful witnesses, or searching for a vocation, to name a few. Despite any criticism of contemporary culture, this is the main thread that weaves through the lives of countless individuals, Christian or not. Without a proper understanding of one’s identity, it will be difficult to live a life of purpose that is distinct from someone who does not have a relationship with God. Self-centered, consumeristic, and immanent lives plague the Christian in the modern West.[2] Perhaps loving God with all our hearts will move the Christian to a God-centered, giving, and transcendent life that will be a blessing to those around him or her.
The church being the body of Christ, made up of different members, ought to consist of these individual Christians and as a whole, love God as a community. I believe that without the first commandment being exercised fully, it will be exponentially more difficult to follow through with the second commandment, that is, love your neighbor as yourself.[3] While simplistic, perhaps this definition of church is ever more necessary in an ever more increasingly complex society. Church is more about going to church or doing church and is being pulled in endless directions of identifying with either a tradition, political party, or particular stance. Perhaps the foremost identity the church ought to reestablish is to love God with all our hearts. This may seem too philosophical for those who do not sit in academic institutions or too airy for those who are busy standing in the corner of marketplaces, but I would argue that bridges must be built across all gaps of Christian communities to affirm a unified identity.
While important in a local setting to be an example of love and peace to the community, it is equally important to establish this identity in the broader biblical narrative and global context. It is crucial to understand the history of the people of God represented through Israel as well as in the early church. The current narrative engrained into most is Western Christendom, however a retelling of the Christian story is critical particularly for those in the modern West. I believe this must start from academic institutions that emphasize this particular narrative over the lost Eastern Christianity and of even more relevance, the burgeoning Christianity in the Global South. Without a humble, unified identity, there is no hope for a global ecumenism to flourish.
Without a renewal of the heart to and for God, without a proper identity, redeemed character, and humble attitude, I believe the church will no longer have any relevance in the modern West. Just like the empty cathedrals in Western Europe serving as tourist attractions to ancient days, it is only a matter of time before church and Christian would become irrelevant to the fast-paced, changing culture. Whether in Vancouver where folks are mostly politely ambivalent to any religious overtone or where the bright lit crosses littered throughout the city of Seoul hold little to no meaning of hope, the need for a renewed love for God is ever more necessary.[4]
This change of heart is very much needed in the modern West and quickly wherever modernity and affluence reach next. It is particularly more pressing where Christianity was once fruitful but now is becoming more secular. Growing up in the Greater New York area, I have certainly felt the cross-pressures between faith and questioning.[5] Raised as a nominal Christian by parents who were “first-generation Christians,” it was easy to become an atheist once I learned about evolution and science in my early years and later in my adolescence mostly living between either as an agnostic or Moralistic Therapeutic Deist.[6] This was the foundation that I stood on, albeit being shaky, and the lens that I saw the world through. Inevitably, I became a product of the secular age.
Plagued by a “profound dissatisfaction with a life encased entirely in the immanent order,” whilst faithfully attending Sunday gatherings and participating in mid-week communal activities, I began my own quest to search for a deeper meaning than what I had known thus far.[7] This journey began with exploring a myriad of “meaningful activities,” from volunteering at soup kitchens to joining professional student organizations and because of my religious background, an attempt to read the Bible seriously with an open heart and mind. What remained were the tugs of the transcendent. In Evangelical terms, the grace of God. While my personal spirituality was growing and the relationship with a living God blossoming, I was still dissatisfied with the status quo of Christian belief and activities, oscillating between a self-righteous attitude and a “holy discontent,” as some have described. After relocating to Vancouver in an attempt to explore God not only in an academic manner, but also at ground level in the “real world” of downtown, I am still on this journey that started years ago.
This past summer, my wife and I took the time to explore what it means to be the church without strictly defining it to a tradition or local gathering. Personally, I am still asking God what it means to be a good and faithful servant,[8] and in tandem feeling the pull of asking what it means to be the faithful church. While we were so accustomed to having a regular rhythm on Sundays, which demarcated our weeks, I wanted to challenge ourselves to worship God not only on Sunday with the gathered body of believers—although that no longer is the case as most churches accommodate to the non-believer, seeker, or whoever else—but to live a life of worship every single day without having the crutch of the rhythm of Sundays. This season of exploration has led us to encounter so many different expressions of communities attempting to live faithful lives. There are a select few who voluntarily choose to live in an impoverished area to see greater flourishing to those in the margin, without treating mercy as a ministry program. There are those who want to engage with their local community through housing refugees and aiding them to be assimilated into a foreign country, without any stipulation of first believing in the same belief. There is a leader who seeks to be deeply embedded in rich traditions, however does not want to be limited to be congregation focused, but rather community focused. There is another leader who realizes the urban context and culture they are centered in and thus seeks to be a resource ministry to all those who come by and alongside them.
Clearly, there is a desire for change in various capacities with a common theme of focusing on the larger community. It is encouraging to see these glimpses of impact of faithful churches. However, most of these efforts come from the “institutional community”. While I believe that the traditional models of church and the work that the institutional church does is necessary, in the Age of Authenticity,[9] in a culture of growing distrust of centralized power, in the spirit of innovation and disruption, perhaps there can be new expressions of being the church.[10] But more than creating a new model, more than assessing what may be the most efficient missional strategy, more than discussing what tradition or doctrine is right or wrong from debates over centuries ago, more than attempting to determine what political party or stance is righteous, more than anything else, it is to first and foremost be certain that there is a genuine love of, for, with God with all one’s heart. I believe this is most relevant in our day and age, where authenticity of the individual and the whole is at stake.
Love God with all your heart may seem subjective and my very proposition is one that has already been doused with “the social imaginary of expressive individualism.”[11] And there is a plethora of arguments against this spirit from traditional religions and institutions.[12] But what if we can be open to a different “take” rather than assuming the existing ‘“spin” – an overconfident “picture” within which we can’t imagine it being otherwise, and thus smugly dismiss those who disagree’?[13] How can this disposition be cultivated and encouraged?
First, it is a simple, yet difficult question of asking what do you truly believe? What do you truly love? If we were given the space to slow down, if we were given the space to be frank with ourselves without fearing any judgement or the need to go along with a herd mentality, maybe then there will be a clearer identification of what our hearts desire. Equally important is studying our own culture and language. Without leaders realizing the limitations of the language they have assumed and used, it will be impossible for anyone else to see the blinders they may have put on. Scholars such as James Smith and Charles Taylor provide such a rich contribution to this conversation, but there is a need to make this available to the masses in a way that is engageable and understandable.
A practical application for the leadership for the church is to teach the biblical narrative in light of an exilic motif.[14] As secularity and its ideologies continue to grow at rapid rates and Christians, their language, place, and values are being pushed further to the margins, there is an abundant source of wisdom and hope in forging an identity rooted in exile. From the literal exile of the people of Israel, to the exile and diaspora in the early centuries of the church, adopting this identity as our own in the modern West may give us the right lens to correct our posture and attitude in our culture and society. A change of heart, a “conversion of the church” is core to the vast amount of issues facing Christian witness and living.[15] “While many traditional churches will never be able to make some of the radical shifts necessary to thrive in the new cultural reality, they can participate in the renewal of the church by supporting these kinds of initiatives.”[16] Hopefully, traditional churches will have the ears to hear and listen carefully to the changing tone and landscape of this modern age.[17] With a humble heart and child-like faith and love for God, perhaps then the Christian and the leadership of the Church can exercise a “prophetic imagination,” which “leads us to recall that exile is a time for people to consider where they have come from and to discuss what traditions and practices from the past no longer function effectively as ways of doing ministry or articulating faith in a new contextual reality.”[18] With a renewed love for God, the Christian and the Church can then practice new skills and competencies that provide effective witness of God and perhaps then can any real ecclesial unity flourish with global participation and cooperation.
This brief reflection on the contemporary age and the church may seem urgent and necessary, however I must frankly conclude that this concern is a far second priority compared to the immediate influence I have as a Christian—first, knowing that all must begin with my own love with God and second, to my wife, my toddler daughter, and my immediate communities.[19] The wisdom from exilic prophets are rich, yet, I am also aware that it is not a prophet’s duty to change the hearts of the people of God and it is ultimately the work of the Spirit.[20] Prophets are held to a higher responsibility to obey, they are tasked with doing ridiculous acts to speak to the people of God, and even sometimes have the love of their life taken from them.[21] I am glad that there are a few who find this concern a noble call and I hope that it is rooted in a deep desire to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.”
[1] Mark 12:30 NIV.
[2] The concept of immanence and secularity in this essay is adapted from James K. A. Smith, How (Not) to Be Secular: Reading Charles Taylor (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014).
[3] Mark 12:31.
[4] South Korea is an interesting case study of the dramatic rise of Christianity in the early 20th century followed quickly by modern advancements, and now facing the challenges of secularity only a century later. See Robert Lee, The Influence of Economic Prosperity on Religious Flourishing: A Case Study of South Korea (Research Paper, Regent College, 2019).
[5] Smith, 14.
[6] The term “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” comes from Kenda Creasy Dean, Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers Is Telling the American Church (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).
[7] Smith, 89.
[8] It is interesting to do a careful study of the parable of the talents where this commendation is found. While preachers may use this passage to distinguish different “talents” of individuals doing the work of God, it is primarily a parable couched in economic terms, found in the greater Mount of Olives discourse, regarding the end times.
[9] Smith, 85.
[10] While weighing out the pros and cons of the necessity of institutions and traditions is outside the scope of this brief reflection, I do believe that they are necessary. But just like the Hilton hotels did not become obsolete with the disruption of Airbnb or taxi medallions with Uber, I believe there ought to be more room for the institutional and traditional church to accommodate the changing the times.
[11] Smith, 85.
[12] Ibid., 90.
[13] Ibid., 94.
[14] I am indebted to the vision presented by Lee Beach, The Church in Exile: Living in Hope After Christendom (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2015).
[15] Beach, 148.
[16] Ibid., 152.
[17] Ezekiel 2-3.
[18] Beach, 144.
[19] In reference to the Circle of Influence and the Circle of Concern found in Steven Covey’s, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change (New York: Free Press, 2004), 81-91.
[20] Ezekiel 2:2.
[21] Ezekiel 3:18-21; 4:12; 24:15-27.
-
An Intractable Amount of Intractable Issues
Intractable.
“Not easily governed, managed, or directed. Not easily relieved or cured.”[1] “It is a hard word, and one we wish wasn’t. Whenever we find ourselves needing that word, we are in a miserable place. Sometimes marriages seem like that, and we can see no way other than more sorrow. … Then sometimes the issues are more social and political, even global, ones that pit people against people, histories against histories, and hopes against hopes.”[2] In the era of the information age and late globalization, we are forced to face an intractable amount of intractable issues. This makes it exponentially harder to respond to the question, “Knowing what you know, what will you do?”[3]
What I know is that I know too much. Our society has access to a gluttony of information. While it initially seemed that the democratization of information was for the benefit of mankind, “most of daily news is inert, consisting of information that gives us something to talk about but cannot lead to any meaningful action.”[4] Not only is the amount of information leading us to inertia, but our habits shaped by the “info-glut culture” compounds this effect.[5] “When you’ve spent twelve, fourteen, or eighteen years in school, your habits form in a non-reflective way. And it isn’t school’s job to make us reflective. We need to learn information. We need to pass examinations and be able to read and retain. But most of us have never been taught to read and listen reflectively.”[6] Adding another layer to this dilemma is globalization. Our modern society has never had more access to information and the global society has never been more connected. Our societies have been able to engage with other cultures with increasing ease, thus inviting more people to this intractable amount of information adding even more to it along with even more issues. And every culture has its own issues and its own response. While cultures maintain a certain level of distinction today, one has to wonder how the narrative of cultural globalization will unfold.[7]
There are currently 193 “cultures” who have agreed upon the most pressing global issues.[8] Known as the Sustainable Development Goals, they represent 17 intractable issues such as ending poverty, gender equality, sanitation, climate action, and peace and justice to name a few.[9] The United Nations states that each goal “interconnect and in order to leave no one behind, it is important that [they] achieve each Goal and target by 2030.”[10] However, how does a society and or individual prioritize or discern which issue needs their attention? It seems that most Westerners have dialed down the “barometer of their hearts” due to the gluttony of information and issues.[11] Millennials frequently say, “it is what it is” and have resorted to a “culture of whatever.”[12]
It is not for a lack of capability to engage with these global issues, but rather the culture of whatever is faced with its own intractable issue of finding purpose and meaning. We are in “the battle of purpose in a world of confusion,” states Bruno Roche, Chief Economist of Mars Inc.[13] Professor Steven Garber phrases it, “The most interesting questions, the most important questions always are, ‘Who or what is our reason for being? Why do we do the things we do? What does it all mean?’”[14] Even acclaimed scientist and atheist Stephen Hawking acknowledges that people “have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world. Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.”[15]
The challenge of this search for purpose and meaning is how many voices compete for everyone’s attention. And for better or worse, it is not economists, scholars, scientists, or pastors who are heard first, but rather it is culture.[16] Modern culture consists of the FAANG companies—i.e. Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google—who dominate their respective fields and represent the future.[17] They embody the importance of the social network, technology, consumerism, entertainment, and information, respectively. And the harrowing condition of our time is the speed in which values change. In the late 20th century, the elite and wealthy were the first to own and display their newest gadgets, such as the first Apple Mac. However, “What we are seeing now is the luxurification of human engagement,” said Milton Pedraza, the chief executive of the Luxury Institute.[18] “Screens used to be for the elite. Now avoiding them is a status symbol.”[19] The use of screen time and the effects of digital technology is another intractable issue altogether and all this developed just within a couple decades. A brief analysis of social media reveals our most common interests, which consist of sports, music, TV personalities, and entertainment.[20] All this to say, despite the amount of power these technological companies have or the clout of social media influencers, neither are a rich source for discovering purpose and meaning. Once again, our society faces an intractable amount of information, including content for purpose and meaning, that is consumed with little to no reflection.
Knowing what we know—or what we may think we know—can we still believe in a gospel which claims to be true, in a society and world with an intractable amount of intractable issues?[21] Can we hear the gospel amidst all the noise? In light of what has been discussed thus far regarding information gluttony, it would only be appropriate that there would be multiple voices proclaiming various emphases of the gospel and in respect to globalization, the conversation only gets more complicated when examining theology in the context of world Christianity.[22] For those who have been “evangelized by truncated versions of the biblical gospel,” the dire effect is that they “have little interest in the world, the public square, God’s plan for society and the nations, and even less understanding of God’s intention for creation itself.”[23]
Regent College, an innovative graduate school of theology, seeks to combat this grave danger by equipping students with the full biblical gospel narrative. The global mission of Regent College is to “cultivate intelligent, vigorous, and joyful commitment to Jesus Christ, His church, and His world,” and in doing so, “preparing students to engage with their culture as thoughtful and prayerful Christians, sharing in Christ’s creative and redemptive mission to the world.” [24] The challenge for Regent College and perhaps most other academic institutions is the amount of issues discussed and the amount of information disseminated. Some of the issues and topics may overlap with those of culture, however, many are matters relevant to a select few. The reality of our day is most students who step into academic institutions have already been shaped and formed by the aforementioned info-glut culture, non-reflective primary education, and pluralistic society, that when discussing issues with others, it seems we once again run into that intractable amount of now relativistic, intractable issues. This becomes even more problematic when the language of scholars is so far removed from the language understood by the majority of culture.
It is hopeful that most teachers, by the words of Simone Weil, “teach what it means to know,” and in a school of theology, hopefully to know God, not just know about God.[25] “The problem of the academy in every generation,” is the tension of “getting all A’s and flunking life.”[26] It is this tension Regent College seeks to address, preparing students to tackle “the perennial challenge of the gospel and culture—in but not of.”[27]
So now we have the difficult task of primarily determining what is the gospel and second if this gospel which claims to be true, is true to the intractable amount of issues expressed in various global cultures, including the culture of whatever. This is certainly no easy task and while the temptation may be to say, “it is what it is,” we are the “first generation who will not be able to say, ‘I didn’t know.’”[28]
It may seem daunting to truly pay attention to the intractable amount of intractable issues. It is difficult to determine what is the purest, most authentic form of the gospel. And it is equally challenging to have a firm handle on an elusive, evolving culture. However, if we hold to the proposition that “the household is the basic unit of culture and society, where persons are formed and loved,” perhaps then we may have a universal starting point to engage gospel and culture.[29] It is certainly not a sexy solution in comparison to innovative companies making a global impact, but perhaps it is one that will make substantial, incremental change.[30] It is a way to “sing songs shaped by the truest truths of the universe in a language the whole world can understand.”[31]
While many search for their purpose or “calling” in regards to their profession or occupation, few seriously consider the “calling of marriage.”[32] If one is called to marriage, perhaps this is one of the best examples of “living proximately.” “To have good lives, we cannot spend much of life talking about utopian fantasies, about ‘wouldn’t it be nice’ worlds. In the end they are fictitious, false fictions, and therefore have very disappointing ends.”[33] It is easier to turn down the barometer of one’s heart regarding work or peripheral concerns, but it is much more difficult to do that to someone whom you love, without having an issue quickly become an intractable one. “‘Nurturing trust and commitment is a hell of a lot more hard work, but what choice do we have?’”[34]
When we take our vocation of marriage and household seriously, or what I call a vocational dishwasher,[35] can we then clearly demonstrate the truths of the gospel, directly engaging with the existing culture and possibly shaping it into a better one. The marriage between a husband and wife is the only comparison to the mystery of the relationship between Jesus Christ and His Church.[36] If we are called to marriage and take that vocation seriously, perhaps that will be enough to shine the light of Jesus Christ in a “globalizing, pluralizing, and secularizing world.”[37] Within a vocational household, the best formation and demonstration of love can take place. There is no textbook on hamartiology that can convict me to the core about sin than when my full self is revealed in the heat of what seems like an intractable fight. There is also no other tangible demonstration of grace than when my wife forgives me and accepts me despite knowing all of me. A vocational marriage speaks into gender issues without having to politicize the topic. It is easy to talk about heated issues that arise in news or other avenues, but much more difficult to step into a countercultural reality where a wife becomes the primary breadwinner. To live into that reality joyfully and peacefully speaks so much more into cultures without adding further polarization. As technology paradoxically aids and threatens much of society and culture, each vocational household can address this issue by limiting the use of screens allowing for rich engagement between couples and with children. Although it seems much easier to quiet a child by distracting him or her with a tablet, perhaps parents can live proximately into a child’s life so that the grip of technology may loosen over time. Creation care is another hot issue in the global culture and it is easy to get lost in the sea of plastic. While it is more convenient for a family with a seemingly busy life to disregard issues concerning recycling, composting, and reducing trash production, by being responsible stewards of the planet, each household can contribute to this global cause without leaving the matters to an abstract corporate entity.
By focusing on one calling, one vocation, can we then take meaningful action on a multitude of now seemingly intractable issues. Two short caveats are warranted here. This is not to disregard some of the more complicated, systemic issues. It is also easy to turn any good thing into an idol, including family, and there has been ample warning in the biblical narrative. However, it seems the pendulum has swung the other way and the time has come that more wholesome and winsome marriages and families are evermore needed today.
An intractable amount of intractable issues is the conundrum of the globalized, pluralized, secularized world. In the beginning, I quoted that sometimes marriages may seem intractable. Perhaps this is the most important issue of all to address first. If we considered mankind as our primary business, demonstrating “charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence,” then we would see that the “dealings of [our] trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of [our] business!”[38] Identifying, analyzing, and addressing the intractable amount of intractable issues was the easy part, simply adding more information to the existing conversations. Now the more difficult task is to sing the song that I wrote, beginning with and to my beloved wife.
[1] “Definition of INTRACTABLE,” accessed April 14, 2019, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intractable.
[2] Steven Garber, “A Terrible Beauty,” The Washington Institute, March 11, 2017, https://www.washingtoninst.org/12826/a-terrible-beauty/.
[3] Steven Garber, “In but Not of—The Perennial Challenge of the Gospel and Culture” (lecture, January 15, 2019).
[4] Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), 68.
[5] Steven Garber, “The Responsibility of Knowledge” (lecture, April 2, 2019).
[6] Eugene Peterson, “Having Ears, Do You Not Hear?,” Christianity Today, quoted in Steven Garber, “Learning & Life in the Information Age” (lecture, February 26, 2019).
[7] “Cultural Globalization | Anthropology,” Encyclopedia Britannica, accessed April 14, 2019, https://www.britannica.com/science/cultural-globalization. Cultural globalization “reflects a standardization of cultural expressions” and a “trend toward homogeneity.” While outside the scope of this paper, we cannot ignore the possibility of this phenomenon while discussing this topic.
[8] United Nations, “Overview,” accessed April 14, 2019. https://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/overview/.
[9] “About the Sustainable Development Goals,” United Nations Sustainable Development, accessed April 14, 2019, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Steven Garber, “The Great Conundrum” (lecture, January 29, 2019).
[12] Steven Garber, Visions of Vocation (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2014), 69.
[13] Economics of Mutuality, Bruno Roche ZAOJIU Talk in China, accessed April 15, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfsaYFOf-Bw.
[14] Steven Garber, “Words That Matter,” The Washington Institute, February 4, 2016, http://www.washingtoninst.org/10862/words-that-matter/.
[15] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988), 13.
[16] Steven Garber, “Making Culture Matters,” The Washington Institute, November 22, 2016, http://www.washingtoninst.org/12308/why-making-culture-matters/.
[17] Will Kenton, “What Are FAANG Stocks?,” Investopedia, accessed April 14, 2019, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/faang-stocks.asp.
[18] Nellie Bowles, “Human Contact Is Now a Luxury Good,” The New York Times, March 29, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/sunday-review/human-contact-luxury-screens.html.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Based on personal research of top influencers in Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook.
[21] Adapted from a quote by Lesslie Newbigin, found in Garber, “In but Not Of.”
[22] For an excellent discussion on this topic, see Timothy C. Tennent, Theology in the Context of World Christianity: How the Global Church Is Influencing the Way We Think about and Discuss Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2007).
[23] Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2010), Loc 5250, Kindle.
[24] “Mission and Values,” Regent College, accessed April 14, 2019, https://www.regent-college.edu/about-us/mission-and-values.
[25] Garber, “The Responsibility of Knowledge.”
[26] Ibid.
[27] Garber, “In but Not Of.”
[28] Economics of Mutuality, Bruno Roche.
[29] “Rebuilding the Household: Family & Church in the Technological Age,” Regent College, accessed April 15, 2019, https://www.regent-college.edu/course-listing/course-details/INDS.504.
[30] Economics of Mutuality, Bruno Roche.
[31] Quote in, Garber, “Making Culture Matters.”
[32] Video interview with Kate Harris in Steven Garber, “Love in the Ruins” (lecture, March 5, 2019).
[33] Garber, Visions of Vocation, 220.
[34] Harry Stein, “The Big A: If You Want Frustration, Guilt, and Anxiety, Try Adultery,” quote in Steven Garber, “The Truth About Love,” The Washington Institute, February 27, 2013, http://www.washingtoninst.org/3517/the-truth-about-love/.
[35] See Robert Lee, Theological Reflection of a Vocational Dishwasher (essay, March 1, 2019).
[36] Eph 5:32 (NIV)
[37] Quote by Steven Garber, Gospel and Culture class.
[38] Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol and Other Stories (Pleasantville, N.Y.: Reader’s Digest Association, 1988), 33.
-
The Influence of Economic Prosperity on Religious Flourishing: A Case Study of South Korea
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber argues that “practicality has somehow received the sanction of modern religious understanding, so that what appears to be purely pragmatic and egoistic behavior is actually religiously motivated in some way; [and] religious understanding has somehow been debunked within modern culture in such a way as to give a free reign to practicality and pragmatism.”[1] In this paper, I will argue that economic prosperity—regardless of the root cause being of Christian origin—compounded by the effects of globalization,[2] will inevitably lead to a practical and pragmatic worldview that will impact people of all nations, including Christians. I will utilize Korea as a case study for this trend, which in turn can be analyzed as a signpost for the larger global society.
The history of Korea is plagued with a tumultuous narrative of multiple, successful invasions from various nations.[3] While the prosperous footprint of South Korea can be seen internationally today, it has been only less than a century since the end of Japanese rule and the Korean War, leaving the nation to rebuild from its agricultural roots.[4] Since the war, South Korea has seen unprecedented economic growth, which has been coined as the “Miracle of the Hangang River.”[5]
This miracle can be attributed to earlier forms of globalization with the involvement of Japan and Western nations. While the Japanese colonial rule of Korea in the early 20th century has been associated with much tragedy, it has also paradoxically aided in the development and modernization of Korea.[6] “Undeniable economic exploitation by Japan, especially in the agricultural sector, was balanced by the deliberate creation, often for strategic reasons, of the public works and communications infrastructure of a modern country.”[7] Following the Korean War, the 1965 normalization treaty “provided for a $500 million settlement in grants and loans which Japan promised to South Korea” and in turn greatly helped stimulate the economy.[8] As the economy of South Korea grew, it quickly attracted international attention and received investments from the United States and other Western nations.[9]
As the external influences of globalization aided in South Korea’s miracle recovery, rebuilding with improved technology was also integral to the nation’s growth. Known as the Saemaul movement, this was a collective effort to improve the rural standard of living alongside the industrial development.[10] Improved agricultural technology and proper infrastructure has essentially rid rural poverty in South Korea.[11] The Saemaul movement continues to be an indispensable part of South Korea and its modernization and economic improvement.[12]
The miraculous economic growth of South Korea cannot be examined without exploring a parallel miraculous growth of Christianity in the 20th century. In 1900, only 1% of the population of South Korea was Christian and by 2010, it grew to roughly 30% of the population.[13] This growth has been attributed to varying circumstantial and spiritual reasons. In the early 20th century, the “Japanese oppression of the Korean church… cast it as a champion of Korean nationalism.”[14] Christianity later provided various social improvements such as education, medical aid, and community engagement.[15] In regards to the spiritual climate of Korea, there was a natural attraction to the Christian ideas of salvation.[16] In addition, there was a strong emphasis on evangelism, prayer, and Bible studies.[17]
At this point, one could argue that the growth of Christianity could have been a root cause of the growth of economic prosperity in South Korea, especially when considering what Max Weber explicated in the Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.[18] While it is evident that Korea was influenced by Western culture and values,[19] I argue, it is irrelevant whether economic prosperity comes from a Christian origin or other means such as through globalization and improved technology. It seems once a nation reaches a certain level of prosperity, that nation will inevitably veer towards a form of secularization as seen in Western nations and now in South Korea.
As discussed thus far, economic prosperity and Christianity has seen tremendous growth over the past century in South Korea. However, Christian growth has now somewhat stagnated, reaching a “saturation point” particularly for Protestantism.[20] Despite South Korea being considered one of the centers for global Christianity,[21] the plurality—i.e. 46%—of the country has no religious affiliation.[22] Economic growth, on the other hand, continues to rise—in 2017, South Korea ranked 12th in gross domestic product.[23] The technological development in South Korea has vastly improved and according to one study, ranks third in the entire world, just behind Japan and the United States.[24] The development and progress of South Korea since the Korean War has vastly improved “the material quality of life,”[25] however a former South Korean pastor argues that “the church faces the challenge of filling the spiritual void in Korea, which has been created by materialism and the obsession with economic development.”[26] (italics mine) Reverend Kisung Yoo, a senior pastor of a church in Seoul, also acknowledges that “the Korean church has achieved tremendous quantitative growth since the 1980s, but there has been too little focus on qualitative growth.”[27] He is seeking to battle the “challenges of secularization” through the Walking with Jesus movement, a combination of spiritual practices aided by the use of digital technology.[28]
The story of Christianity in South Korea is still being written and perhaps it is too early to make any definitive conclusions. However, if the Western church is any indicator of its progress in light of its prosperity, it will be challenging to say the least. Son Bong-ho, a philosophy professor, criticizes the South Korean church having “a fatal lack of critical attitude toward the materialism of modern culture.”[29] And the spiritual void mentioned earlier could very well be a result of the “impact of revolutionary capitalism” and how a modern system creates a “cultural vacuum.”[30] While South Korea is not a Christian nation in the same sense Western Europe or North America was, there is a similar pattern developing even in its short history that aligns well with Weber’s critique that practicality and pragmatism will reign.[31]
By utilizing South Korea as a case study, one can see the impact economic prosperity has on a country in a relatively short span of time. South Korea has had a unique experience, and despite its tremendous and rapid growth, it is facing similar challenges that Western Christians are addressing, such as materialism and consumerism. While most of the development of South Korea happened in the 20th century, a time period filled with massive innovation that fueled globalization,[32] the technological innovation happening in the 21st century is only compounding these effects. Take for example, the number of monthly active Facebook users in 2008 was 100 million and by the end of 2018, it had 2.32 billion monthly active users.[33] This accounts for approximately 30% of the world population.[34] Our global society has never been more connected than it is today.
Despite the complexities associated with defining and placing globalization, it is a trend that will continue to progress, for better or worse. My focus is not to argue for or against globalization as some have attempted, but that it is an inevitable reality.[35] Technology and economy will progress, most notably now in the form of cryptocurrencies and digital money. This new technology offers a “gospel” to developing nations and is a practical means of lifting them up out of poverty.[36] When nations and their people are hyperconnected to the world and can make financial transactions with one another ultimately improving their standard of living, there is no need for any other gospel, [37] especially when they realize how poor Western Christians have responded to the needs of their global neighbors.[38] This is particularly concerning as Christianity has shifted to the Global South and is growing in developing nations. As globalization will exponentially increase the speed in which nations reach a certain level of prosperity, the global church should take heed with what is happening to the church of South Korea.
When nations and their people are hyperconnected to the world and can make financial transactions with one another ultimately improving their standard of living, there is no need for any other gospel, especially when they realize how poor Western Christians have responded to the needs of their global neighbors.
The key takeaway here is to recognize that this complex force of globalization and modernization may be the biggest competitor to any form of religious flourishing. The greater danger is that those who are engaged with globalization are making futile arguments for resistance, while the vast majority of Christians and non-Christians alike are either ignoring or fearing it.[39] Peter Heslam, who works from an interdisciplinary approach, may have stated it best: “The only substantial agreement is that this is a transitional period. Many of the values, assumptions and structures that once enjoyed broad acceptance have been set aside, but new ones have not yet fully emerged.”[40] While this temptation is nothing new to followers of Christ as he instructed that we cannot serve two masters, hopefully the global church will not follow in the same patterns as the church of South Korea.[41]
[1] Taken from Craig Gay’s explanation of Max Weber’s thesis found here: Craig M. Gay, Cash Values: Money and the Erosion of Meaning in Today’s Society (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans and Regent College Pub, 2004), 27.
[2] Globalization, defined for the purposes of this paper, is a process in which people of all nations are being evermore connected by means of technology, including but not limited to communication, manufacturing, and production, thereby making every decision and action interwoven and impactful on a global scale.
[3] David Rees, A Short History of Modern Korea (New York: Hippocrene Books, 1988), 2.
[4] Ibid., 64.
[5] “The Korean Economy – the Miracle on the Hangang River,” Korea.net, accessed April 9, 2019. http://www.korea.net/AboutKorea/Economy/The-Miracle-on-The-Hangang.
[6] Rees, 72.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid., 148.
[9] Ibid., 149.
[10] Ibid., 151.
[11] Ibid., 155.
[12] Ibid., 154.
[13] Philip Connor, “6 facts about South Korea’s growing Christian population,” Pew Research Center, accessed April 9, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/12/6-facts-about-christianity-in-south-korea/.
[14] Donald N. Clark, Christianity in Modern Korea, Asian Agenda Report 5 (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), 36.
[15] Ibid., 29-30.
[16] Ibid., 36.
[17] Ibid.
[18] While outside the scope of this paper, this would be an intriguing proposition to explore as Protestantism constitutes most of the Christian population in South Korea. See Douglas G. Jacobsen, The World’s Christians: Who They Are, Where They Are, and How They Got There (Chichester, West Sussex, U.K. ; Wiley-Blackwell, 2011), 190.
[19] Clark, xi, 47-49.
[20] Jacobsen, 191.
[21] Ibid., 373.
[22] Connor, Pew Research Center.
[23] “Gross domestic product 2017,” World Bank, January 25, 2019, accessed April 11, 2019. https://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/GDP.pdf.
[24] David Allouche, “Top 10 of the Most High Tech Countries in the World,” accessed April 10, 2019. http://www.young-diplomats.com/top-10-high-tech-countries-world/.
[25] Clark, 16.
[26] Ibid., 37.
[27] Kisung Yoo & Paul Sung Noh, “The Korean Cyber Monastery Movement: Overcoming the challenges of secularization,” Lausanne Global Analysis Vol 7, Issue 5 (Sep 2018), accessed April 11, 2019. https://www.lausanne.org/content/lga/2018-09/the-korean-cyber-monastery-movement
[28] Ibid.
[29] Clark, 25.
[30] Gay, 42-3.
[31] Ibid., 27.
[32] Robert Angus Buchanan, “The 20th century,” History of technology, accessed April 10, 2019. https://www.britannica.com/technology/history-of-technology/The-20th-century
[33] “Number of monthly active Facebook users worldwide as of 4th quarter 2018 (in millions),” statista, accessed April 11, 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly-active-facebook-users-worldwide/.
[34] Calculated based on 7.7 billion people in the world from http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/, accessed April 10, 2019.
[35] Peter S. Heslam, Globalization: Unravelling the New Capitalism, Grove Ethics Series ; E125 (Cambridge [England]: Grove Books Ltd., 2003), 25.
[36] In reference to the remittance industry and digital money in smaller fractions than the US dollar. See Don Tapscott and Alex Tapscott, Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World (New York: Portfolio, 2016).
[37] Myers, 255.
[38] See Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger: Moving from Affluence to Generosity, Reprint edition (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2015).
[39] Myers, 4.
[40] Heslam, 3.
[41] Matt 6:24.
-
The Boundless Universe Proposal: Engaging Science and Theology
An understanding of space and time is inextricably linked to an understanding of cosmology. Religions, philosophers, and the sciences are seeking to understand these concepts better. “Before 1915, space and time were thought of as a fixed arena in which events took place, but which was not affected by what happened in it. … It was natural to think that space and time went on forever.”[1] However, Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity shifted these prior conceptions. “The old idea of an essentially unchanging universe that could have existed, and could continue to exist, forever was replaced by the notion of a dynamic, expanding universe that seems to have begun a finite time ago, and that might end at a finite time in the future.”[2] Based on just these two scientific ideas, it is apparent how people can think about space-time in an eternal or finite sense. In this paper, I will argue that Stephen Hawking’s proposal on a no boundary universe may broaden our current understanding of cosmology and in effect, may provide a more robust eschatology.
Before diving into Hawking’s proposal, I would like to investigate what happened in the seventeenth-century with the infamous trial of Galileo Galilei. I would like to frame this paper in this context so that Hawking’s proposal is not simply dismissed on the grounds of pure scientific inquiry. Galileo’s main proposal was to defend the Copernican system of heliocentrism[3]—a cosmological understanding that most take for granted today. A pre-Copernican cosmology assumed that the earth was static and the sun revolved around it. It was a “common popular assent” that was also accepted by those with ecclesiastical authority.[4] The Holy Office and ecclesiastical court “declared the motion of the earth to be ‘stupid and absurd in philosophy.’”[5] They “held that the immobility of the sun was foolish and formally heretical because it contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures.”[6] When Galileo published the Dialogue on the Two Principal World Systems, he was eventually “suspected of heresy” and condemned to prison for promoting the Copernican model.[7]
They “held that the immobility of the sun was foolish and formally heretical because it contradicted the literal meaning of the Scriptures.”
While this is an extremely brief snapshot of what took place, the intention of my investigation is to highlight the true tragedy that ensued. The “rejection of a purely scientific theory of the universe was a disastrous blunder for the church. It led not only to Galileo’s condemnation in 1633, but also to an antiscience reputation.”[8] We are now approaching nearly four centuries since this incident and while there have been some attempts to bridge the gap between science and religion, the two camps are still largely at odds with or simply have no relevance to one another. Theologians still argue that “theology is queen of all the sciences, [and] she need not bend in any way to accommodate herself to the teachings of less worthy sciences which are subordinate to her.”[9] And non-theologians believe that “science has replaced theology on the throne of Western thought.”[10] The main takeaway here is that the Church and Christians should not dismiss scientific theory on aiding in matters such as cosmology or we would still assume that the earth was static. Galileo understood the different roles science and theology ought to play in understanding the universe. By adopting his theological and scientific worldview, I hope the following presentation of Stephen Hawking’s proposal on the no boundary universe will not be read with a presupposed, antiscience posture.
Stephen Hawking, interestingly, was born exactly 300 years after the death of Galileo.[11] He also interacted with an ecclesiastical authority during his lifetime when he and other experts were invited to attend a conference on cosmology hosted by the Catholic Church. The pope advised these experts “that it was all right to the study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but [they] should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God.”[12] Ironically enough, Hawking did not want to suffer the same fate as Galileo as his proposal posited “the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary,” thus could mean that “it had no beginning, no moment of Creation.”[13]
The boundless universe proposal is Hawking’s attempt to formulate a unified theory on quantum mechanics and gravity.[14] Two features necessary for this unified theory is “Feynman’s proposal to formulate quantum theory in terms of a sum over histories” and “Einstein’s idea that the gravitational field is represented by curved space-time.”[15] Explaining these complex theories in detail are outside the scope of this paper, however, one very interesting concept Hawking discusses is the use of imaginary time. He likens the idea to the mathematical concept of imaginary and real numbers. In order to overcome the technical difficulties found in Feynman’s proposal, one must measure time using imaginary numbers, which “has an interesting effect on space-time: the distinction between time and space disappears completely.”[16] This creates a boundless universe where space-time would appear like the surface of the earth. “The surface of the earth is finite in extent but it doesn’t have a boundary or edge” as depicted below.[17]
Source: Figure from Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988), 138. Hawking argues, “There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. … The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.”[18] He continues,
“In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to space-time and at which the laws of science break down. … So maybe what we call imaginary time is really more basic, and what we call real is just an idea that we invent to help us describe what we think the universe is like. … So it is meaningless to ask: Which is real, ‘real’ or ‘imaginary’ time? It is simply a matter of which is the more useful description.”[19]
As demonstrated by this summary, the boundless universe proposal has some major implications, particularly with how people perceive time, that I will discuss later.
Hawking sought to propose a new model for the universe not for simple aesthetic or metaphysical thought, but because this was important to explain the very existence of life in his way with his particular talents and language.[20] Interestingly, he saw limitations to the current theories on the origin of the universe from a scientific and mathematical perspective, including the “hot big bang model,” which is generally accepted by most in the modern West.[21] Hawking also does not accept a simple, relativistic approach such as the “anthropic principle” where we simply see the universe the way we perceive it to be.[22] And he does not leave it up to mere chance as that would remove all hope and understanding.[23]
While most may not use the technical language above to describe their beliefs and thoughts on the origin of the universe, the contemporary sentiment and understanding of cosmology vastly ranges including these views. Most in the pragmatic West are not interested in these topics and give little thought to them, yet would probably borrow from a mixture of sources to formulate an opinion if probed. As evidenced earlier, religious leaders are not exempt from the broader cultural shaping as well. In the Middle-Ages, most of society acknowledged a “God-confidence” over self-confidence and did everything to the glory of God.[24] However, the prevailing thought on cosmology was the Ptolemaic model. Hawking critiques the adoption of this model by the Christian church because it fit with the reading of Scripture, “for it had the great advantage that it left lots of room outside the sphere of fixed stars for heaven and hell.”[25] Martin Luther also operated from a pre-Copernican cosmology. While he mocked those who placed God in a cosmological way, he reasoned that “because the visible heaven or sky is constantly moving, … this would mean that God cannot sit still for one moment.”[26] And now, Hawking argues, “With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws.”[27] Cosmology has advanced since Galileo’s time, however, it is still a large mystery now as it was then. While religious and university establishments may have overstepped their boundaries influencing Galileo’s trial,[28] the result now where science and religion have little to no interaction with one another is just as detrimental to a wholesome understanding of the universe and time.
Considering the current understanding of cosmology, or lack thereof, what would a wholesome interaction between science and theology look like? That is, if Stephen Hawking’s proposal on the boundless universe was proven by observational evidence and advance quantum computing, how would religious leaders respond to these discoveries? Two major implications would be regarding the nature of creation and the concept of time. Hawking states, “If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be.” He follows by questioning, “What place, then, for a creator?”[29] The knee-jerk reaction of most conservative Christians would be to judge this as heresy. It is very clear from one of the most famous Bible verses, “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.”[30] However, what if this was not a description of the entire universe, as we understand today, but utilizing the anthropic principle, was how Moses and Jewish believers understood their cosmology? How would Hawking’s analogous description of the universe as a surface be compared to the darkness “over the surface of the deep,” and how “the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters?”[31] Either one would have to acknowledge this surface was in reference to the earth or the surface of the universe. On the other side of the coin, Hawking’s proposal would not necessarily negate the singularity of a moment of creation, particularly in real time. “When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities.”[32]
It is the concept of time that will also face major challenges if the boundless universe proposal is proven to be true. As mentioned earlier, based on the classical theory of gravity, most assume that the universe existed for an infinite amount of time or had a particular beginning and thus may have a particular end.[33] This is not a new concept as most other religions or worldviews operate in a cyclical perception of time while a “linear understanding of time originated in the Judeo-Christian religion.”[34] The boundless universe proposal would appear to enrich this concept of time. It would not necessarily disprove any current understanding of linear time as this is what is perceived in real time. However, time would not necessarily end in the way a modern person perceives time as a chronological, historical idea.
It is also this concept of imaginary and real time that I believe greatly aids one’s understanding of “spiritual time”.[35] The practical Western mind that has operated under chronological, linear time would find conversations about a higher form of time as something out of science fiction or the Marvel Universe. However, what if the distinction Hawking makes as real and imaginary time is what Charles Taylor defined as ordinary and higher time, or sacramental time? A modern individual, unfortunately, looks on antiquated philosophies with suspicion. However, if novel scientific discoveries can validate some of these seemingly antiquated ideas of cosmology and eschatology, perhaps there can be better explanations of the origin and eschaton of the universe and time.
With any good scientific theory, there would have to be rebuttals. The first was already mentioned that Hawking’s boundless universe proposal is just that, a proposal. Also, quantum mechanics and computing are still limited even till this day. An argument could be made that Stephen Hawking is an atheist,[36] but to reiterate again, this posture will only be detrimental to all. Another rebuttal from a religious perspective would be on how to place the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo. While space does not permit to thoroughly explain the various arguments, the biggest challenge for contemporary theologians in the West would be to suspend their interpretation of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo from a temporal perspective.[37]
This presentation of Stephen Hawking’s boundless universe proposal is not an argument to adopt this model, despite how it can enrich one’s understanding of the universe and time. With new discoveries in the sciences and a rich theological foundation, an interdisciplinary approach to understanding life may be beneficial to all of humanity. If both camps conversed with humble postures, perhaps we can continue to uncover the mysteries of the universe. Hawking attempted to convey “the basic ideas about the origin and fate of the universe” without using complex mathematical formulas, which most who do not have an advanced education would not understand.[38] He presumes that most “go about our daily lives understanding almost nothing of the world. … In our society it is still customary for parents and teachers to answer most of these questions with a shrug, or with an appeal to vaguely religious precepts.”[39] I believe the onus is on scholars of both science and theology to convey their messages in a language that the majority will be able to understand. “Ever since the dawn of civilization, people have not been content to see events as unconnected and inexplicable. They have craved an understanding of the underlying order in the world. Today we still yearn to know why we are here and where we came from.[40] Let us hope we do not make the disastrous blunder of separating science and theology to the point where leading intellectuals convince their people that the “Son” revolves around the earth.
[1] Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes (Toronto: Bantam Books, 1988), 33.
[2] Hawking, 33–34.
[3] I.e. the sun is stationary and the earth revolves around the sun.
[4] Galileo Galilei, “Letter to Madame Christina of Lorraine, Grand Duchess of Tuscany,” Inters.org, accessed March 19, 2019. http://inters.org/Galilei-Madame-Christina-Lorraine.
[5] Charles E. Hummel, The Galileo Connection: Resolving Conflicts between Science & the Bible (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986), 109.
[6] Ibid., 108.
[7] Ibid., 9–13.
[8] Ibid., 112.
[9] Galileo, “Letter to Christina”.
[10] Hummel, 7.
[11] Hawking, 116.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Hawking admits that this proposal cannot be deduced from other principles. “The real test,” he states, “is whether it makes predictions that agree with observation.” See Hawking, 136-7.
[15] Ibid, 134-5.
[16] Ibid., 134.
[17] Hawking, 135-6.
[18] Ibid., 136.
[19] Ibid., 139.
[20] Hawking, 13, 136.
[21] Ibid., 116.
[22] Ibid., 124.
[23] Ibid., 133.
[24] Hans Schwarz, Eschatology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 14.
[25] Hawking, 3.
[26] Schwarz, 401.
[27] Hawking, 140. Also see Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2007), 325.
[28] Hummel, 125.
[29] Hawking, 141.
[30] Gen 1:1 (NASB).
[31] Gen 1:2.
[32] Hawking, 139.
[33] Ibid., 33-4, 135.
[34] Schwarz, 7.
[35] Taylor, 54-5.
[36] Alan Boyle, “‘I’m an Atheist’: Stephen Hawking on God and Space Travel,” accessed March 18, 2019. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/i-m-atheist-stephen-hawking-god-space-travel-n210076.
[37] See Alan Torrance, “Creatio ex Nihilo and the Spatio-Temporal Dimensions, with special reference to Jürgen Moltmann and D. C. Williams,” Chapter 5 of The Doctrine of Creation: Essays in Dogmatics, History, and Philosophy, ed. Colin E. Gunton (Edinburgh, Scotland: T&T Clark, 1997), 83-103. Torrance engages with Moltmann’s linear view of time as well as his possible suggestion of panentheism. He also engages with D. C. Williams who discusses the four-dimensional aspect of space-time from a philosophical perspective, which Hawking also argues from a scientific model.
[38] Hawking, vi.
[39] Ibid., ix.
[40] Ibid., 13.
-
Book Review: Theology in the context of World Christianity: how the global church is influencing the way we think about and discuss theology
By Timothy C. Tennent
Zondervan, 2007
295 pages
ISBN-13: 978-0-310-27511-4
$43.99 CADIn the era of late globalization, it is jarring that there is not a greater concern and focus on theological discussions with a global framework. Timothy C. Tennent’s Theology in the context of World Christianity is a much-needed work, particularly for theologians who still operate under the assumption that Christianity solely follows a Western narrative. As the tides of Christianity have shifted to the Majority World, it is important “to explore the implications these shifts are having in the formulation of theological discourse” (11). Tennent argues for the “mutual exchange” between theologians and missiologists (22), between Christians from old Christendom and new burgeoning areas of religious plurality, in the hopes that with humble collaboration, a beautiful church of Jesus Christ would emerge.
Tennent unapologetically structures his book under major headings of systematic theology (19), which include, theology, bibliology, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. He explores each topic within the context of emerging churches in non-Western continents, particularly those who have come to know Jesus Christ from an Islam, Hindu, or Buddhist background (21).
Tennent seeks to bridge the gap between students studying systematic theology from a Western perspective and Christians who are from the Majority World asking questions rooted in their culture and traditions. He notes that while there may be some acceptance of cultural translatability—referencing Andrew Walls’ “pilgrim” and “indigenizing” principles (12)—there is a greater hesitancy to accept theological translatability, which he defines as “the ability of the kerygmatic essentials of the Christian faith to be discovered and restated within an infinite number of new global contexts” (16). It is upon this premise that he engages his readers in hopes that they will listen to the various theological questions that are being asked by a rapidly growing church. By structuring his book in this manner, Tennent is bringing this conversation to the forefront, highlighting the fact that it is no longer “mere squabble” among “Christians with strange faces from even stranger places,” but these new Christian voices are influencing what the West has viewed as essential truths and expressions (19).
An example of the significance of this conversation is how Christians from an African heritage express their Christology—see Chapter 5. Tennent begins most of his discussions with a general background to the particular topic of systematic theology from a Western perspective. He then introduces the particular people group or religion and then provides a case-study on how these emerging Christians influence the theological discussion of the specific topic at hand. While many may be comfortable with their “Christology from the shelves of universities” (117), Christians from Africa are challenging Western Christians with a different “ontic expansion of God in Jesus Christ” (111). Tennent demonstrates that these are no longer peripheral matters, but are central to the developing Christology not only in Africa, but for Christians around the world and through time.
In the concluding chapter, Tennent promotes for a “renaissance in Western theological scholarship” (250). He concludes with four key themes that may mutually benefit theological scholarship and missiological praxis, which then will serve “to pull the entire church forward into that great eschatological fact of Jesus Christ” (272).
While a theological scholar may easily dismiss this work due to the brevity and treatment of each theological topic, Tennent is well aware and admits that this book is not exhaustive. Yet, it is “suggestive” of the “general direction of theological inquiry in the context of global Christianity” (271). Theology students studying in Western contexts simply may not have the experience or awareness of some of these matters discussed in Tennent’s book. He provides a broad background and technical language so scholars may, hopefully, engage with these topics and even more so, the people behind them (22).
Tennent writes with experience as a pastor, missionary, and seminary professor (250), thus knowing the strengths and weaknesses of each vocation. While he has nearly twenty years of experience in India and with Hinduism (xxi), he gives fair weight to other regions and beliefs such as Africa, Japan, Latin America, Muslim nations, and China, to name a few. He assesses the complexities of each culture and or religion and the impact they have on theological reflection and practice. He asks in the conclusion of his chapter on theology, “Why do theological students in the West continue to spend countless hours learning about the writings of a few well-known, now deceased, German theologians whose global devotees are quite small, and yet completely ignore over one billion living, breathing Muslims who represent one of the most formidable challenges to the Christian gospel today” (49)? Upon reading this book, at the very least, students will no longer be able to plead ignorance.
On the other side of the spectrum, Tennent also does not want to dismiss the importance of traditional systematic theology. He does not give in to mere syncretism or relativism, but defends against some of the emerging trends with strong biblical references. His posture though is not one of determining which train of thought is most correct, but again “to think more globally about the formation of theology and to expand our own understanding of what it means to be a Christian in the twenty-first century” (xviii).
It is this very theme that interweaves from the beginning of the book to the end. And in doing so, Tennent’s work provides a refreshing critique of Western theological scholarship. During my own studies, I have found that much of Christian reflection is done in a “theological vacuum” (35) and many of the questions being asked have little to no relevance in a globalized, pluralized world. Global or World Christianity should not be an elective course or peripheral topic for students in the West, but rather be mandatory regardless if one ventures out of their comfortable Western lifestyles and thought. At the least, this book may equip Western students to converse with people of different backgrounds. Or with more hope, to humble ourselves to admit that our “experience and expression of Christianity” is not “normative for all Christians everywhere” (6).
In my own reading, it was difficult to pinpoint any major issues with Tennent’s work. Perhaps at times he could be overly harsh on Western Christians, however, I believe his criticisms are warranted. His main audience is Western theology students. Thus, he still uses language, such as kerygmatic or preparatio evangelica, which is tailored to this demographic. However, he provides a glossary at the end of the book to ensure that this work can be used as a platform for all Christians to engage with one another. Another minor point of contention is Tennent’s use of Protestant or Evangelical interchangeably. It may have been helpful if he clarified what he meant by his use of labels, however, it may also reflect how muddy denominational affiliation can be.
Tennent reminds us that “in the context of global Christianity we must first and foremost see ourselves as Christians proclaiming the apostolic faith and only secondarily as Reformed Christians, Pentecostal Christians, Dispensational Christians, or Arminian Christians” (269). With the aid of this book and more importantly with God being sovereign over all, we Christians in the twenty-first century can do our part and begin this long and complex process of being a people from every nation, tribe, people, and language (Rev 7:9).
The author is currently undertaking a Masters in Theological Studies at Regent University.
-
Theological Reflection of a Vocational Dishwasher
“You cook, I will clean,”
I told my beloved wife. My wife and I agreed this would be a fair distribution of household duties while considering our natural preferences and desires. I do not mind cleaning and prefer doing the dishes. Cleaning dishes began as nothing more than a simple responsibility within the complex dynamic of a marital relationship. However, it has now evolved to be a mirror reflecting culture, theology, identity, vocation, and technology. Dishwashing has aided in the development of my personal theological foundation as well as of my understanding of how the gospel relates to (my) culture.[1] Dishwashing has helped me understand the overarching narrative of culture; pushed me to question what is the good news of Jesus Christ and its relevance to my role as a dishwasher; redeemed my understanding of identity and vocation; and guided my reflection on the impact of technology.
“Can you please put away your dirty dishes,”
my mom occasionally told me while growing up. Dishwashing and anything related to it was never something to look forward to or be inspired by. My experiences as a dishwasher began in my early childhood, when putting away the dishes and sometimes cleaning them was nothing more than a menial chore. If anything, both cooking and cleaning were the tasks of my mother—the kids simply put their dishes away once finished with the meal. Later into adolescence, the chore slightly evolved acquiring a small payment for doing the task and with rare glimpses of maturity, I did my own dishes perhaps to help out my mother from time-to-time or to establish some sort of illusionary independence. I also learned at an early age that cleaning in general was the only job I could get without requiring special skill sets or simply being older. It seemed my own childhood experiences were universal as I learned when I started living with roommates during my undergraduate years. No one enjoyed doing the dishes and they would frequently pile up in the sink, leading to a game of who can stack the dishes the highest without touching the spout. It seemed as if I frequently lost this game as I ended up doing them out of frustration. This general pattern persisted up until my marriage, where I voluntarily chose to be the primary dishwasher or dishwasher loader—more will be said about this later.
My past experiences, including being the primary dishwasher for the past five years, has taught me much about culture. Dishwashing serves as a reflection on how culture views identity and what it values. Much of our cultural identity is shaped by what we do which further reflects what we value. And the role and function of a dishwasher is not on the high-end of what culture values. A simple job search easily reveals this notion and even more so, people do not attend university so they could obtain a degree in household cleaning.[2] Washing dishes as a function also does not “help pay for the bills” as the cliché goes. This challenged the deep-rooted narrative that had been written on my mind and heart for many years—the value of culture is largely determined by occupation and close behind that, money.[3],[4]
The subtlety of this value taking hold of my worldview revealed itself once I became a dishwasher. Prior to marriage, I thought I genuinely affirmed the role of full-time, stay-at-home mothers, recognizing household duties as valuable and necessary work. However, once I was in the position to be a full-time, house husband, that genuine affirmation slowly eroded after realizing one of my primary responsibilities was to wash dishes. According to cultural standards, because I had no occupation and was making little to no money, what I did had little value and in turn, my very identity as well.
Our occupations provide financial and social value. Thus, occupations that are high-paying or with significant titles generally hold more currency. There has also been a more recent shift or rather attachment to this cultural narrative, where personal fulfillment and meaning has become a major factor in choosing one’s occupation.[5] It would also be easy to assume that this cultural narrative is only a secular one. Particularly from a Western Christian perspective, there is an additional “religious currency” where the most valuable occupations or callings, to spiritualize the term, are ministerial roles such as pastors or traditional missionaries. Other occupations merely exist to support the institutional church’s agenda.[6] This false dichotomy between the sacred and secular and hierarchy of what one does plagues Western Christianity. In essence, so called sacred vocations are much more valuable than being a dishwasher. This version of the gospel of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with washing dishes, or one’s occupation, and more importantly, one’s vocation.
“Do you believe Jesus died for your sins,”
would be the most common focus of the version of Christianity I knew. Where dishwashing reflects a broad cultural narrative, what is reflects about the gospel in most Christian narratives is the mere irrelevance of one to the other. Through my journey of becoming a vocational dishwasher, I have questioned what is the gospel. My prior understanding of the Christian gospel is my belief in Jesus Christ for my personal salvation. While there may be some truth to this, this solely individualistic perspective and “truncated version of the biblical gospel” has no relevance to the broader culture, society, and world.[7] While “it is gloriously true that sinners are saved through the cross of Christ, it is not actually the whole gospel or the whole achievement of the cross.”[8] If Christians continue to adopt this form of the gospel, there will continue to be this negative dualism and a complete insignificance to the burgeoning pluralistic culture. By redeeming the entire biblical narrative from the beginning of creation to the end of new creation, including themes of the value of one’s so-called ordinary work, being a blessing to other nations, and not only believing but knowing Jesus Christ who lived, died, and rose again from the dead, could there be a possible redemption of the relevance of the gospel to be just that—good news to culture.[9],[10]
“I am a vocational dishwasher,”
is the new mantra I now confidently live by. My recent and ongoing explorations of the gospel and the whole biblical narrative has helped me to understand vocation and redeemed my identity as a dishwasher. According to the biblical narrative, who we are is shaped and defined by our relation to God and who God is and what we do is shaped and defined by our relation to what matters to God and what God is doing.[11] This stands in stark contrast to a cultural narrative that says we are largely shaped and defined by the shaky foundation of what we do. “Work is a creational good, but the Bible is well aware of the temptation to turn work into an idol – when we live for what we can do and achieve, and then derive our identity and fulfillment from that.[12] Rather, when our vocation is the whole range of relationships and responsibilities, not just our occupations or our primary means of making money, can we then live a life filled with good news.[13]
My vocation as a dishwasher is vital to the role I play in the relationship with my wife. As I am liberated by the narrative that I ought to be the primary financial provider, I can blossom in my responsibilities to provide a space and home that is clean, welcoming, and loving. As I am liberated by the notion that more is better, I can live simply within my means and truly be satisfied. This type of meaning and fulfillment had largely been elusive even when I was making a six-figure salary or doing impactful work. By living my life according to the biblical narrative, I can see how God is pure and “clean” and thus is in the job of cleaning up, not only my personal mess, but the entire world.
Another beauty in becoming a vocational dishwasher is the amount of transferable skills and lessons I have acquired over the years. When people see dishwashing as a vocation and not just a menial chore, they can benefit from practical growth. Over the years, I have improved on my time-management, organization, and innovation skills, just to name a few. An early lesson I learned is to do a little bit at a time because once the dishes pile up, they are much harder to do. Procrastination can be a form of poor time-management in any occupation or aspect of life and washing dishes has helped me to be more diligent in this regard. I have also found that it is better to do big dishes, pots, and pans at the end when there is more room in the sink. By organizing in this manner, it is much easier to tackle the little dishes or easier tasks before attempting to finish more difficult ones. And being a vocational dishwasher can lead to more innovative approaches and solutions in achieving one’s goal. For example, by stacking dishes utilizing my “proprietary method,” one is able to save water, which in turn cuts down on costs and is better for the world. One final lesson I learned in this journey is the importance of communication. Dishwasher or doing the dishes can mean different things depending on one’s context and culture. It is important to communicate and understand what work means for different people.
“Just put it in the dishwasher,”
is a common instruction for the modern-day individual. While most discussions on technology surround digital innovations, one only has to look at dishwashing to see the impact of technology. The dishwashing machine was invented a little over a century ago. And now an Internet search for “dishwasher” returns results for dishwashing machines from major appliance stores.[14] Ironically, there have been more recent concerns for artificial intelligence (AI) and robots taking over the jobs of humans. However, this trend has already started long ago. Dishwasher is no longer a human who washes dishes, but for most in the modern world, it is a machine. While a discussion on the impacts of technology require its own place, my journey as a vocational dishwasher has reflected the trends of technology and its relation to or rather now its monopoly over culture.[15]
In simpler times, there may not have been a question of who is in control—the human uses and has control of a tool or technology. For example, a construction worker uses and controls a hammer or a dishwasher is in control of the tools used to wash dishes. With the invention of the dishwashing machine, it is more difficult to discern who is in control. The machine has stripped the human the title of dishwasher and so now we have to wonder if the human is still in control and utilizing the dishwasher or is the dishwasher dictating to the human its own ideology? It is not difficult to make the leap to where society and culture is now with “scientific studies” explaining the harmful effects of screen time or how we lose our relationality with robots and the networked life.[16] Scholars are concerned with the impact of our existing digital technologies, yet the wave of innovation for new discoveries in AI or blockchain, for example, show no sign of slowing down. Washing dishes may seem to have absolutely no relevance to this more complex topic and in some sense it does not. However, if a culture does not have a proper framework and understanding of people’s vocation, something as simple as washing dishes, it is only a matter of time that titles and professions humans hold dear such as accountant or caretaker will be monopolized by technology. It is also crucial that society does not leave this topic on the periphery, but address it head on. It is crucial for religious institutions to be relevant in this sphere as well so that they do not make the same mistake by disregarding the vocation of dishwashers and in turn having no good news to share with culture.[17]
“So, what is your vocation,”
one may ask. My vocation is a dishwasher. Dishwasher relates to my wife who constitutes much of my life. Dishwasher speaks to my responsibility to wash dishes and by understanding my identity in light of a biblical narrative and Creator God, it also speaks of my responsibility to be a cleaner of all things, that whatever I touch, I can make the world a slightly cleaner and better place. The beauty of this vocation is anyone and everyone can do it. So,
“Are you willing to wash some dishes?”
[1] In the era of late globalization, it would be foolish to assume one culture is normative over another. When I use the term culture, it is from a modern, Western perspective and a middle-to-wealthy socioeconomic class.
[2] Out of curiosity, I searched if something like this existed. The closest thing would be online certificates, material from an established institute for cleaning practices, and a questionable “university for maids”.
[3] I must recognize that this is not the only value dominating the current cultural narrative, however it will be the one I will focus on. Other examples include consumerism or post-modernism.
[4] See Craig M. Gay, Cash Values: Money and the Erosion of Meaning in Today’s Society (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans and Regent College Pub, 2004).
[5] The influence of post-modernity is changing what people value in regards to occupations. I am mainly assuming that most in the modern West still value occupations that provide more financial and social currency.
[6] Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God’s People: A Biblical Theology of the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2010), Location 206, 3953, 4191, Kindle.
[7] Wright, Loc 5250.
[8] Wright, Loc 824.
[9] See Gen 2:15-16, Isa 65:17-25, Acts 4:1-22, Jer 29:7, and 1 Tim 2:1-4.
[10] This is a very brief and elementary summary of the biblical gospel. Much more can and needs to be said in light of traditions differing from Western Evangelicals and more importantly the growth of World Christianity.
[11] Steven Garber, Visions Of Vocation (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP BOOKS, 2014), 161. Also adapted from Christopher Wright, The Mission of God’s People.
[12] Wright, Loc 4537.
[13] Garber, 11.
[14] Based on a search result from DuckDuckGo. Accessed on Feb 28, 2019. One would need to input “dishwasher job” to get results related to the human act of washing dishes.
[15] I owe much of this discussion on technology to Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Reprint edition (New York: Vintage, 1993).
[16] See Sherry Turkle, Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other, First Trade Paper Ed edition (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2012).
[17] My stance here is not an anti-technology one, as I am well aware of the tremendous benefits technology has brought to society, even the dishwashing machine, which I use. This excerpt is to highlight that the gravity of technology is much heavier than most probably realize.