Introduction
Dean G. Blevins, EditorWelcome to Didache: Faithful Teaching, Volume 18:1, this edition provides both recent publications as well as supplemental papers that emerged from the Spring 2018, Church of the Nazarene Global Theology Conference. The edition opens with two reflections by participants within that conference. Dr. Deirdre Brower-Latz and Dr. Dick O. Eugenio offer reflections as continuation of the conference, so we are pleased to offer those publications in all four languages that resourced the conference. Readers may also want to revisit the previous edition to discover the plenary addresses of General Superintendents Carla Sunberg, Filimao Chambo and David Busic. Readers may also download a revised response by Gabriel Benjiman (with an extended ending). In total, we have six new or revised publications connected with last edition.
http://didache.nazarene.org/index.php/volume-17-number-2
In addition, we have an interesting array of submissions that provide a cross section of academic writing from theology to social theory, to leadership, to intercultural studies to ministry with children. Collectively they provide the range of work supported by this journal, often by younger scholars as well as established academic leaders. The second section of the journal opens with an address given by Dr. John Hawthorne, Professor of Sociology at Spring Arbor University in Michigan. In the address Hawthorne charts the changing state of what is traditionally known as North American Evangelicalism (even though it remains primarily a USA phenomenon). Hawthorn provides a new typology that may help researchers and pastors better understand the evangelical climate, and Nazarene clergy, particularly in the United States. Our next offering emerges from Benjamin Espinoza, Ph.D. Student & Research Assistant at Michigan State University. I have personally known Ben for a number of years and anticipate his influence in Wesleyan higher education will soon appear evident. Ben addresses the theological paradigm of Christian hospitality, and its impact in how we address children in and through the church.
Joshua Broward, Director of Missional Development Northern California District Church of the Nazarene, provides our next article around the theme of adaptive leadership. Broward provides a well-researched overview (including Ronald Heifetz and Otto Scharmer) that should help readers think about leadership during disruptive times. Nazarene Theological Seminary student Kelly Vargo shifts the topic to intercultural studies, particularly ethnography, as a resource for resolving interracial reconciliation. Vargo’s writing received the Tom Nees Social Justice Essay award for her effort. Finally, we close with an international author providing an historical overview of the contributions of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin for the Church of the twenty-first century. Vinicius Couto serves as Professor of Theology at the Faculdade Nazarena do Brasil (FNB) and at the Nazarene Theological Seminary of Brazil (STNB), as well as a researcher on Arminian-Wesleyan theology. Cuto argues the eagerness of these Reformers to return to the apostolicity of the Early Church, as well as to restore Christocentrism to true worship, serve as undeniable realities that make up the nature of the Reformation. The primary reason we conclude with this offering rests with reminding our readership of our global intent to publish in original languages even when we cannot offer translations. Collectively, we hope the volume represents the range of academic work available in Didache: Faithful Teaching.
As always, please note the journal publishes articles along the themes of theology, culture, and education within a Wesleyan heritage. Guidelines for submissions are available at the website. Professors may also submit outstanding student papers (with student permission) as long as they will agree to serve as the reviewer.
We again thank Ernalyn Longcop Fausto, with the staff of the Asia Pacific Region, who works diligently in the formatting and maintenance of our website, and Dr. Tammy Condon who works tirelessly promoting Didache: Faithful Teaching, as she does in the development of the Wesleyan Holiness Digital Library (WHDL) https://www.whdl.org/.
Table of Contents:
Dean G. Blevins, Editor,INTRODUCTION
1a. Deirdre Brower Latz, Global Theology Conference Concluding Reflection
1b. REFLEXIÓN FINAL DE LA CONFERENCIA GLOBAL DE TEOLOGÍA
1c. REFLEXION FINALE CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE SUR LA THEOLOGIE
1d. REFLEXÃO DE CONCLUSÃO DA CONFERÊNCIA GLOBAL DE TEOLOGIA
2a. Dick O. Eugenio, GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS
2b. REFLEXIONES FINALES DE LA CONFERENCIA GLOBAL DE TEOLOGÍA
2c. REFLEXION FINALE CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE SUR LA THEOLOGIE
2d. REFLEXÃO DE CONCLUSÃO DA CONFERÊNCIA GLOBAL DE TEOLOGIA
3. John W. Hawthorne, THE CHANGING NATURE OF EVANGELICALISM: THE CASE OF NAZARENE CLERGY (ANSR Conference Presentation, 2018)
4. Benjamin Espinoza, “DO YOU HEAR WHAT THESE CHILDREN ARE SAYING?”: HOSPITALITY AS A THEOLOGICAL PARADIGM FOR MINISTRY WITH CHILDREN
5. Joshua Broward, CREATIVE DESTRUCTION AND ADAPTIVE REEMERGENCE: A COMPARISON AND SYNTHESIS OF HEIFETZ’S ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP THEORY AND SHARMER’S EMERGING LEADERSHIP THEORY (THEORY U
6. Kelly Vargo, CULTURAL INTELLIGENCE FOR INTERRACIAL RECONCILIATION: THE NEED FOR PASTORAL ETHNOGRAPHY IN THE CHURCH OF THE NAZARENE
7. Vinicius Couto, TEOLOGIA DOS REFORMADORES: UMA INTRODUÇÃO HISTÓRICA AOS PRINCIPAIS PENSAMENTOS DE LUTERO, ZWINGLIO E CALVINO
See Also the following publications in the previous edition 17:2
9a. Gabriel Benjiman (Africa), RESPONSE TO DEIRDRE BROWER LATZ AND RUBEN FERNANDEZ (revised)
19a. General Superintendent Carla Sunberg, GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE INTRODUCTORY PLENARY: CHRISTOLOGY
20a. General Superintendent Fili Chambo, GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING PLENARY: ONENESS
21a. General Superintendent David Busic, CLOSING SERMON: “WHO IS JESUS?” MARK 8:27-30
***
GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING REFLECTION Deirdre Brower Latz, Nazarene Theological College, Manchester, UK
The GTC 2018 was notable for me for several reasons. From its inception and communication it was intentionally and obviously in multiple languages. Framing the conference for the global church had been considered carefully, and the spread of people presenting and responding was thoughtful, so each region had representation in various ways. The papers, although varied in their approaches, demanded constant thought. Participants had given their time to read and wrestle and sought to interrogate them in ways that got to the problems they experienced in reading them. During the conference, cultural
expressions of response emerged – asking questions through story, the desire to be heard/give a view, and on-the-ground issues – as key ways of interpreting our theology. Our floundering attempts to manage our responses (particularly to different modes of asking questions) were interesting. Although there are issues that unite us, still others emerged that ensured we are/were always aware of our rich diversity.
From memory, it felt as if there was much greater self-awareness and confidence in voices from each continent in shaping theology and in the leadership offered than in previous conferences. It was also clear that there is substantial disagreement even in regions described as monolithic (‘South
America’, ‘Africa’, ‘North America’, 'Eurasia’) regarding key issues: these are often disagreements of practical engagement based on theological frameworks that have been communicated over time. The Latin/Brazilian Church expressed some clear difference in relation to the issue of our rapprochement (or not) to Roman Catholicism, for example. The African continent had many views relating to apartheid – from its significance as a seminal issue for the church to those who expressed the desire for it to be ‘over.’ These differences are fascinating. However, central to the room was a growing awareness that our theology impacts the world around us for the sake of transformation, including in arenas of justice and righteousness. The integrity of the church in relation to the wider communities we participate in and our own practice and expression of justice emerged in more than one conversation.
There was a small percentage of women present – many of those selected were not necessarily practising theologians as academicians but were hybridised in their/our roles (chaplains, district leaders, field educational coordinators, adjuncts, bi-vocational, Generals, GMC workers, as well as Principals). It was also interesting that the majority of North American participants were white. I wonder what these indicators express of our church and its formation on the ground and our gaps.
From the perspective of a practical theologian, I thought it was a powerful expression of the significance of the way theology profoundly shapes our practice. I was intrigued by comments in the plenary that called for more biblical exegesis, since I believed each paper was rooted in a perspective on the bible that was grounding the conversation. It was good – I thought – that the papers were less in silos and more integrative of biblical-theological- historical-practical approaches, some more so than others. I certainly believed that a biblical emphasis came through in responses to questions raised from the floor.
However, I agree that the idea of the Kingdom of God and various aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry, speaking and modelling could have taken us further in the development of our Christological understanding.
Throughout people swiftly moved towards missiology/ecclesiology and the practical
implications of the papers. Participants felt a freedom to critically engage in ways that were liberating for us in terms of our own experience of the church – and upon our return to our own places we can reflect further on the learning and our own expressions of Christology.
There were two or three themes that I know we (the church, we NTC) will consider more. The idea of discipleship and corporate discipleship; the framing of our contexts as the primary place of theological reflection; the significance of good theology as a critical feature of the church and our practice. It was clear some of the historically ‘dealt with’ matters of Christ as human-and-divine are still causing consternation and in some settings our articulation is unclear: grounding in deep theology matters. Our stance in terms of the resurrection and eschatology bear greater conversation. The difference between contextualisation and assimilation or syncretism needs to be considered more fully – and the parameters of global/local. On the whole, I became more convinced than ever that in our global family theological conversation really matters. I left asking how the richness of this experience could be
disseminated or experienced at much more local or district levels.
***
REFLEXIÓN FINAL DE LA CONFERENCIA GLOBAL DE TEOLOGÍA Deirdre Brower Latz, Nazarene Theological College, Manchester, Reino Unido
La CGT 2018 fue significativa para mí por varias razones. Desde su concepción y comunicación fue intencional y obviamente multilingüe. La conferencia de la iglesia global fue meticulosamente calculada, y los presentadores y reactores fueron seleccionados cuidadosamente, por lo que cada región tuvo representación de una u otra manera. Las ponencias, aunque tuvieron varios enfoques, exigían una constante reflexión. Los participantes tomaron un tiempo para leerlas y analizarlas e intentaron cuestionarlas de tal modo que los llevó a entender mejor los asuntos con los que batallaron al leerlas.
Durante la conferencia, emergieron expresiones culturales de participaciones – ya sea haciendo preguntas a través de la narrativa, por el deseo de ser escuchado o de dar una opinión, y asuntos que suceden en su lugar de procedencia- así como formas muy únicas de interpretar nuestra teología. Fue
interesante la forma en que tambaleamos en nuestro deseo de presentar nuestras respuestas (particularmente a las diferentes formas en que se nos hicieron las preguntas). Aunque hay asuntos que nos unen, surgieron otras que nos aseguraron que siempre estamos/estuvimos conscientes de nuestra rica diversidad.
De lo que puedo recordar, se sintió como que hubo un incremento en la conciencia y
autoconfianza de las voces de cada continente al tratar de darle forma a la teología y en el liderazgo presentado en comparación con las conferencias anteriores. También quedó claro que existe un desacuerdo sustancial incluso en las regiones descritas como monolíticas ("América del Sur" "África", "América del Norte" y "Eurasia") con respecto a asuntos claves: a menudo son desacuerdos sobre manifestaciones prácticas basadas en marcos teológicos que han sido comunicados a través del tiempo.
La Iglesia latina/brasileña expresó una clara diferencia en relación al tema de nuestro acercamiento (o no) al catolicismo romano, por ejemplo. El continente africano tenía muchos puntos de vista relacionados con el apartheid, desde su importancia como un tema seminal para la iglesia hasta aquellos que expresaron el deseo de que se "superara". Estas diferencias son fascinantes. Sin embargo, en nuestro grupo se observó un incremento en la conciencia de que nuestra teología afecta el mundo que nos rodea en aras de la transformación, incluyendo las áreas de justicia y rectitud. En más de una conversación se abordaron los asuntos de la integridad de la iglesia y su relación con las comunidades más extensas con las que interactuamos así como nuestra propia práctica y expresión de justicia.
Hubo un bajo porcentaje de mujeres que se hicieron presentes, muchas fueron seleccionadas no necesariamente porque fueran teólogos practicantes en la academia, sino que por sus/nuestras funciones híbridas, (entre ellas, capellanes, líderes distritales, coordinadores de educación de área, adjuntos bivocacionales, Generales, empleadas del CMG, así como Directoras). También fue interesante que la mayoría de los participantes norteamericanos eran blancos. Me pregunto qué demuestran esos indicadores acerca del estado de nuestra iglesia y su formación en el campo así como de nuestras lagunas.
Desde la perspectiva de un teólogo práctico, me hizo pensar en la profunda importancia que tiene la teología en darle forma a nuestra práctica. Me intrigaron los comentarios en el pleno que pedían más
exégesis bíblica, ya que estaba convencida de que cada artículo estaba enraizado en una perspectiva bíblica lo cuál era el cimiento de nuestras conversaciones. Salío muy bien, me dio la impresión, que los documentos, algunos más que otros, no tenían el aspecto de ser graneros aislados sino que adoptaron
enfoques bíblico-teológicos-históricos- prácticos. Creo que verdaderamente surgió un énfasis bíblico en las respuestas a las preguntas planteadas desde el pleno. Sin embargo, concuerdo con la idea de que el reino de Dios y los varios aspectos de la vida y el ministerio de Jesús, de los cuales nos habla y nos modela, nos hubieran podido llevar más allá en el desarrollo de nuestra comprensión cristológica.
Durante la conferencia las personas tenían la tendencia de moverse rápidamente hacia la misiología/eclesiología y las implicaciones prácticas de las ponencias. Los participantes sintieron la libertad de aportar críticamente en maneras que fueron liberadoras respecto a nuestra propia experiencia dentro de la iglesia, y así, al regresar a nuestros lugares, podemos reflexionar más sobre el aprendizaje y
nuestras propias expresiones de la cristología.
Hubo dos o tres temas a los cuales (la iglesia, nosotros, NTC) le prestaremos más atención. La idea de discipulado y discipulado corporativo; la estructura de nuestros contextos como el lugar principal de la reflexión teológica; la importancia de la buena teología como una característica crítica de la iglesia y nuestra práctica. Quedó claro que algunos de los asuntos históricamente "resueltos" que tratan sobre la naturaleza de Cristo como humano y divino, siguen causando consternación y en algunos contextos nuestra articulación no es tan clara: es importante estar cimentados en una teología profunda.
Nuestra postura en términos de resurrección y escatología produce que haya una mayor conversación.
La diferencia entre la contextualización y la asimilación o el sincretismo debe considerarse más a fondo, y los parámetros de lo global/local. En general, me convencí más que nunca, la importancia que cobra la
conversación teológica dentro de nuestra familia global. Salí preguntándome cómo la riqueza de esta experiencia podría ser diseminada o experimentada a niveles mucho más locales o distritales.
***
REFLEXION FINALE CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE SUR LA THEOLOGIE Deirdre Brower Latz, Institut Théologique Nazaréen, Manchester, Royaume-Unido
J'ai été marqué par la CIT 2018 pour plusieurs raisons. L’utilisation intentionnelle de plusieurs langues pour toute communication dès le début. La planification de la conférence au niveau de l’église internationale était minutieuse et la sélection des personnes qui devaient présenter et répondre était bien réfléchie afin que chaque région soit représentée à plusieurs niveaux. Les documents ont nécessité une constante réflexion malgré leur différence d’approche. Les participants ont consacré du temps à les lire et débattre pour discuter des difficultés rencontrées. Durant la conférence, notre théologie a été
interprétée de façon stratégique - d'aucuns se sont servis d'expressions culturelles pour répondre à des questions et d'autres ont posé des questions en racontant une histoire - ils voulaient être entendus, donner leurs points de vue, et discuter des difficultés de terrain. Il est intéressant de constater que nous avons eu du mal à répondre à certaines questions (particulièrement celles formulées différemment). Certains problèmes nous ont unis et d'autres nous ont rappelés la richesse de notre diversité.
Pour rappel, lorsque l'on compare les conférences précédentes a celle-ci, on a l'impression qu'il y a une meilleure conscience de soi et plus d'assurance dans l'intervention de chaque continent concernant l'aspect du leadership et de la théologie. Il est clair qu'il existe une grande divergence d'opinions concernant les questions fondamentales, ceci même au niveau des régions considérées monolithiques («Amérique du Sud », « Afrique », « Amérique du Nord », « Eurasie ») : ce sont souvent des divergences d'engagement pratique basées sur des cadres théologiques qui ont été constamment communiqués. Par exemple, l'Église Latino-Brésilienne a eu une opinion différente concernant la question de notre
rapprochement (ou non) avec le catholicisme romain. Le continent Africain avait beaucoup à dire concernant la question de l'apartheid - sa pertinence en tant que problème fondamental pour l'église et ceux qui ont exprimé le désir d'y mettre « fin ». Ces divergences sont fascinantes. Par ailleurs, il y avait une prise de conscience accrue concernant l'impact que notre théologie a sur le monde autour de nous, notamment dans le secteur de la justice et de la droiture. La discussion a également tourné autour du
sujet de l'intégrité de l'église envers les communautés élargies dans lesquelles nous intervenons et notre propre pratique et perspective de la justice.
Peu de femmes étaient présentes - la plupart des personnes choisies ne pratiquaient pas nécessairement la théologie en tant qu'académiciens mais étaient hybrides dans leurs rôles (d'aumôniers, de chefs de
district, de coordinateurs pédagogiques, d'auxiliaires, de bi-vocationnels, de généraux, de travailleurs GMC, et de directeurs). Il était également intéressant de noter que la plupart des participants Nord- Américains étaient blancs. Je me demande ce que ces indicateurs disent de notre église, de sa formation sur le terrain et de ses lacunes.
En tant que théologien pratique, je pensais qu'il s'agissait d'une grande révélation de l'impact significatif de la théologie sur nos activités. Lors de la session plénière, j'étais sidéré par les commentaires qui
suggéraient une exégèse biblique, parce que je pensais que la bible devait servir de référence pour l’élaboration de chaque document pour une meilleure orientation de la discussion. Je pensais qu'il serait
préférable que les documents soient moins en « silos » et plus axés sur l’intégration des approches bibliques, théologiques, historiques et pratiques. Je suis certain que la bible a servi de référence pour
répondre aux questions des participants. Je reconnais cependant que prendre l'exemple du Royaume de Dieu et des différents aspects concernant la vie, le ministère et les paroles de Jésus, aurait pu nous aider à mieux comprendre la Christologie.
Durant la conférence, les participants sont brusquement passés d’un sujet à un autre ; la missiologie/l'ecclésiologie et les implications pratiques des documents. C’était une belle expérience pour l’église de les voir se sentir libres de prendre part à la discussion de façon critique - et lorsque nous rentrerons chez nous, nous pourrons mieux réfléchir sur ce que nous avons appris et sur notre propre perspective de la Christologie.
Nous (l'église et le NTC) prendrons en considération deux ou trois thèmes. Le concept du discipolat et le discipolat social ; l'encadrement de nos contextes comme base principale de réflexion
théologique; l'importance d'une bonne théologie comme caractéristique critique de l'église et de notre pratique. Il est évident que les questions historiquement « traitées » sur le Christ en tant qu'humain et divin causent toujours la consternation et que notre perspective n'est pas toujours claire : il est donc important de se baser sur une théologie approfondie. Notre position concernant la résurrection et
l'eschatologie nécessite une discussion plus approfondie. Il faudrait également prendre en considération la différence entre la contextualisation et l'assimilation ou le syncrétisme ainsi que les paramètres du terme international / local. En somme, je suis plus que jamais convaincu de l'importance de la conversation théologique au sein de notre famille internationale. J'ai quitté en me demandant comment diffuser et partager cette riche expérience au niveau local ou au niveau du district.
***
REFLEXÃO DE CONCLUSÃO DA CONFERÊNCIA GLOBAL DE TEOLOGIA Deirdre Brower Latz, Nazarene Theological College, Manchester, Reino Unido
A CGT de 2018 foi marcante para mim por várias razões. Desde o seu início e comunicação, ela aconteceu intencionalmente e obviamente em múltiplos idiomas. O moldar da conferência para a igreja global foi considerado cuidadosamente e a difusão das pessoas apresentando e respondendo foi muito
bem pensada, então cada região teve a sua representação de várias formas. Os trabalhos, embora variados em suas abordagens, demandavam constante pensamento. Os participantes deram o seu tempo para ler e debater, e buscaram interrogá-los de maneiras que alcançavam os problemas que eles experimentaram ao lê-los. Durante a conferência, expressões culturais de resposta emergiram – fazendo perguntas através de histórias, o desejo de ser ouvido/de apresentar uma perspectiva e questões bem ‘pés no chão’ – como maneiras chave para interpretar a nossa teologia. As nossas tentativas atrapalhadas para lidar com as nossas respostas (especialmente aos diferentes modos de fazer perguntas) foram
interessantes. Embora existam questões que nos unem, ainda há outras que emergiram que mostram que somos/fomos sempre conscientes de nossa rica diversidade.
Puxando pela memória, comparando com conferências anteriores, eu senti que houve muito mais auto consciência e confiança nas vozes de cada continente ao moldar a teologia, e na liderança oferecida.
Também foi claro que há um desacordo substantial até em regiões descritas como monolíticas (‘América do Sul’, ‘África’, ‘América do Norte’, ‘Eurásia’) em relação a questões importantes: são desentendimentos geralmente de envolvimento prático baseado nas estruturas que têm sido utilizadas através dos tempos. A Igreja Latina/Brasileira expressou clara diferença em relação a questão sobre a nossa aproximação (ou não) com o Catolicismo Romano, por exemplo. O continente africano tinha muitas visões em relação ao apartheid – desde a sua importância como uma questão seminal para a igreja como aqueles que expressaram seu desejo para que isso estivesse ‘terminado’. Essas diferenças são fascinantes. Entretanto, o central do evento foi a crescente consciência de que a nossa teologia impacta o mundo ao nosso redor para a sua transformação, incluindo as arenas de injustiça e retidão. A integridade da igreja em relação as comunidades mais amplas nas quais participamos e a nossa própria prática e expressão de justiça emergiu em mais de uma conversa.
Havia uma pequena porcentagem de mulheres presentes – muitas das selecionadas não eram necessariamente teólogas praticantes ou acadêmicas, mas foram aproveitadas em seus/nossos papeis (capelãs, líderes distritais, coordenadoras de educação de área, adjuntas, bi-vocacionais, líderes da igreja Global, funcionárias do CGM, como também diretoras). Também foi interessante que a maioria dos participantes norteamericanos eram brancos. Eu me pergunto se esses indicadores expressam quem a nossa igreja é, sua formação de base e as nossas brechas.
Da perspectiva de uma teóloga prática, eu achei que foi uma expressão poderosa da importância da maneira que a teologia profundamente molda a nossa prática. Eu fiquei intrigada por comentários na plenária que pediam mais exegese bíblica, já que eu acredito que cada trabalho foi fundamentado na perspectiva bíblica que era a base da conversa. Foi bom – eu pensei – que os trabalhos não foram de forma geral isolados, mas tiveram abordagens mais bíblica- teológica-histórica-prática integrativas, alguns mais que outros. Eu certamente creio que uma ênfase bíblica esteve presente através das respostas às questões levantadas pelas pessoas ali. Entretanto, eu concordo que a ideia do Reino de Deus em vários aspectos da vida e ministério de Jesus, falando e moldando, poderia ter sido levada mais adiante no desenvolvimento de nosso entendimento cristológico.
No decorrer da conferência, as pessoas se moveram rapidamente para as implicações
missiológicas/eclesiológicas e práticas dos trabalhos. Os participantes se sentiram à vontade para engajar de maneiras que nos liberavam nas questões de nossas próprias experiências com a igreja – e com o nosso retorno para os nossos próprios lugares, podemos refletir mais sobre o aprendido e sobre nossas próprias expressões de cristologia.
Há dois ou três temas que eu sei que nós (a igreja, nós NTC) consideraremos mais. A ideia de discipulado e discipulado corporativo; a estrutura de nossos contextos como lugar primário de reflexão teológica; a importância de boa teologia como uma característica crítica da igreja e da nossa prática.
Ficou claro que algumas questões históricas ‘lidadas’ por Cristo como humano-e-divino ainda estão causando consternação e em alguns cenários a nossa articulação não é clara: o fundamento em teologia profunda importa. A nossa postura em relação a ressurreição e escatologia carregam uma conversa maior. A diferença entre contextualização, assimilação ou sincretismo precisa ser considerada mais profundamente – e os parâmetros do global/local. No geral, eu fiquei mais convencida do que nunca de que conversa teológica na nossa família global realmente importa. Eu parti me perguntando como a riqueza dessa experiência poderia ser disseminada ou experimentada em níveis muito mais locais ou distritais.
***
GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS Dick O. Eugenio, APNTS faculty
I am grateful for the privilege of addressing the delegates and sharing my simple thoughts. I truly appreciated the multi-generational character of the conference, evidenced by the presence and role played by younger minds such as I. Moreover, the multi-cultural dimension of the discussions added a memorable atmosphere. While the intellectual stimulation and mutual edification during the conference were splendid, the social interaction among global Nazarenes in formal deliberations and informal dialogs was particularly enriching and encouraging. I am truly blessed to have been a part of the conference.
The conference may have ended, but my mind is still stirred by the insights and questions uttered throughout the event. During the final plenary session, I realized that the conference is dealing with at least three different tensions and delegates are in pendulum swing between two ends of each continuum.
First, there was a noticeable tension between the descriptive and the prescriptive elements of theological reflections. Majority of the papers, including mine, were descriptive, because they sought to articulate biblical-theological themes and define specific historical-contextual realities. Delegates, however, were
indubitably more concerned for prescription than mere description. There was a sense of impatience to move beyond intellectualism toward actual missional-ministerial engagement. Even small group discussions lean towards asking the question: “So what now?” Like textbook Evangelicals, Nazarenes are predominantly activists. This is both positive and negative, but as a theologian, I wonder if there will ever be a space where reflection is afforded an integrity in its own right when we meet as a global church,
where and when we think together about definitions. We cannot leave theological reflections confined within our institutions, especially because our definitions should reflect both the multi-cultural and multi-generational nature of the church.
The second tension is between reactive and constructive ways of thinking. Several of the papers and questions were reacting to something, and the approach to definition was to ask how we are different from specific groups or ideologies. Following the way of negation, the procedure is to begin by thinking what we should not be and not do. While there is merit in this tactic, to begin our self-definition with criteria such as “we are not colonial,” “we are not Pentecostal,” or “we are not Roman Catholics” puts a lot of constraint about what we can say about ourselves. The resulting reflection can be denominationally parochial. Thankfully, there are delegates who are more constructive in their proposals, particularly from the younger generation. Their concern is not to look at the past and what socio-political issues the church is coming from. With tendencies towards historical disconnectedness and circumstantial apathy, the emphasis is not to look at the past but to imagine the future. The proposal is not to spend time in
reminiscing the bitter events of the past, but to forgive, forget, and move on. Our efforts, constructivists argue, needs to be spent more beneficially in thinking about the future and how we can get there with
grace. Personally, I lean towards this. We need not waste our time anymore in discussing the errors of our Christian predecessors. They just conjure bitter thoughts and open healing wounds. We need to move on and devote more time in how we may respond to the contemporary situation.
Finally, there is tension between restorationism and progressivism. Our Christological definitions need to be biblically and theologically faithful to the Christian tradition, which means that century-old jargons and categories (such as Christ’s divine-human natures) inevitably emerge in the discussions, but we are also challenged to make our presentations of who Christ is relevant to our own contexts. Our
understanding of what it means to imitate and follow Jesus Christ today also needs to balance between what taking up the cross meant in the New Testament times and how it needs be translated and lived out in the contemporary world. Missions, in obedience to Christ’s sending, need to balance between faithful imitation of how Jesus Christ did His and imaginative creativity of how we do ours today. The tension is between what aspects of New Testament Christology, discipleship, and missions can be restored for use today, and what progressive innovations can be employed today which may retain the label “Christian.”
We certainly cannot argue that the solution is to return to New Testament Christianity (as some groups throughout history have proposed), but we also cannot abandon apostolic definitions because we think of
them as completely irrelevant in our current generation. We need the via media. We need to think together in order to define the criteria and boundaries that accommodate the best of each end, because whether we like it or now, we need to be restorationist and progressivist at the same time.
***
FINALES DE LA CONFERENCIA GLOBAL DE TEOLOGÍA
Dick O. Eugenio, Facultad de APNTS
Estoy agradecido por el privilegio de dirigirme a los delegados para compartir mis humildes pensamientos. Realmente aprecié el carácter multigeneracional de la conferencia, evidenciado por la presencia y el papel desempeñado por mentes más jóvenes como yo. Además, la dimensión multicultural
de las discusiones permitió que se creara una atmósfera memorable. Si bien la estimulación intelectual y la mutua edificación durante la conferencia fueron espléndidas, la interacción social entre los nazarenos globales en deliberaciones formales y diálogos informales fue particularmente enriquecedora y alentadora. Me siento realmente bendecido por haber sido parte de la conferencia.
La conferencia pudo haber terminado, pero mi mente aún está conmovida por las ideas y las preguntas que se suscitaron a lo largo del evento. Durante la sesión plenaria final, me di cuenta de que la conferencia trató al menos con tres tensiones diferentes y los delegados se posicionaron en una oscilación pendular entre los dos extremos de cada continuo. Primero, había una tensión notable entre los elementos de reflexiones teológicas descriptivos y preceptivos. La mayoría de los artículos, incluido el mío, eran descriptivos, porque buscaban articular temas bíblico-teológicos y definir realidades histórico-contextuales específicos. Los delegados, sin embargo, estaban indudablemente más preocupados por la prescripción en mayor medida que la mera descripción. Había una sensación de impaciencia por ir más allá del intelectualismo hacia un verdadero compromiso misional y ministerial. Incluso las discusiones en grupos pequeños se inclinaban a hacer la pregunta: "¿Y ahora qué?" Como buenos evangélicos de libro de
texto, los nazarenos son predominantemente activistas. Esto es positivo y negativo a la vez, pero como teólogo, me pregunto si alguna vez habrá un espacio donde la reflexión sea recibida por lo que representa
en sí misma cuando nos reunamos como iglesia global, en un espacio donde y cuando nos dediquemos solamente a pensar sobre ciertas definiciones. No podemos dejar las reflexiones teológicas confinadas dentro de nuestras instituciones, especialmente porque nuestras definiciones deben reflejar tanto la naturaleza multicultural como multigeneracional de la iglesia.
La segunda tensión se encuentra entre el pensamiento reactivo y constructivo . Varios de los documentos y preguntas estaban reaccionando a algo, y el enfoque de la definición se centró en preguntarnos cómo nos diferenciamos de ciertos grupos o ideologías específicos. Siguiendo el camino de la negación, el procedimiento comienza con el pensamiento de lo que no deberíamos ser ni hacer. Si bien esta táctica tiene mérito, si nuestra autodefinición comienza con criterios como "no somos coloniales", "no somos pentecostales" o "no somos católicos romanos" lleva a imponer una gran restricción sobre la definición que tenemos de nosotros mismos, pudiendo dar como resultado que el resto de la reflexión sea denominacionalmente parroquial. Afortunadamente, hay delegados que son más constructivos en sus propuestas, especialmente los de la nueva generación. Su preocupación no es mirar al pasado y los
problemas sociopolíticos que la iglesia acarrea con tendencias hacia la desconexión histórica y la apatía circunstancial, su énfasis no es mirar al pasado, sino imaginar el futuro. La propuesta no es pasar tiempo
recordando los amargos acontecimientos del pasado, sino perdonar, olvidar y avanzar. Los constructivistas argumentan que nuestros esfuerzos deben enfocarse en pos de un pensamiento futurístico y en cómo podemos llegar allí con gracia. Personalmente, me inclino hacia esto. No necesitamos perder más tiempo discutiendo los errores de nuestros predecesores cristianos. Estos simplemente conjuran pensamientos amargos y abren heridas que están en el proceso de sanidad. Necesitamos avanzar y dedicarle más tiempo al tipo de respuesta que podemos ofrecer ante las situaciones contemporáneas.
Finalmente, hay tensión entre restauracionismo y progresismo. Nuestras definiciones cristológicas deben ser bíblica y teológicamente fieles a la tradición cristiana, lo que significa que las jergas y categorías centenarias (como la naturaleza divina-humana de Cristo) inevitablemente surgen en las discusiones, pero también se nos desafía a hacer nuestras presentaciones sobre la relevancia de quién es Cristo en nuestros propios contextos. Nuestra comprensión de lo que significa imitar y seguir a Jesucristo hoy en día, también necesita un equilibrio entre lo que significaba tomar la cruz en los tiempos del Nuevo Testamento y cómo debe ser traducido y vivido en el mundo contemporáneo. Las misiones, en obediencia al mandato de Cristo, necesitan un equilibrio entre la fidelidad de imitar la forma en que Jesucristo realizó su misión y la creatividad imaginativa en la forma en que realizamos nuestra misión hoy en día. La tensión se encuentra en qué aspectos de la cristología, el discipulado y las misiones del Nuevo Testamento pueden restaurarse y ponerse en práctica en la actualidad, y qué innovaciones progresivas se pueden emplear hoy en día que pueden conservar la etiqueta de "cristiano". Ciertamente no podemos
argumentar que la solución es volver al cristianismo del Nuevo Testamento (como algunos grupos a lo largo de la historia han propuesto), pero tampoco podemos abandonar las definiciones apostólicas solamente porque las consideramos completamente irrelevantes para nuestra generación actual.
Necesitamos adoptar un camino centrista. Juntos tenemos la necesidad de pensar para definir los criterios y los límites que adopten lo mejor de cada extremo, porque nos guste o no, necesitamos ser restauracionistas y progresistas al mismo tiempo.
***
REFLEXIONS FINALES SUR LA CONFERENCE THEOLOGIQUE INTERNATIONALE Dick O. Eugenio, professeur de l'APNTS
Je suis reconnaissant du privilège qui consiste à m'adresser aux délégués et à partager quelques simples réflexions. J'ai vraiment apprécié le caractère multi générationnel de la conférence, mis en
évidence par la présence et le rôle joué par des esprits plus jeunes comme le mien. De plus, la dimension multiculturelle des discussions a ajouté une atmosphère mémorable. La stimulation intellectuelle et
l'édification mutuelle pendant la conférence étaient splendides, et les interactions entre les nazaréens du monde entier dans les délibérations formelles comme dans les dialogues informels ont été particulièrement enrichissantes et encourageantes. Je suis vraiment béni d'avoir pu prendre part à cette conférence.
La conférence a peut-être pris fin, mais mon esprit est toujours stimulé par les idées et les questions qui ont émergé tout au long de l'événement. Au cours de la dernière séance plénière, j'ai réalisé que la conférence a abordé au moins trois tensions différentes et que les délégués sont en mouvement
pendulaire entre les deux extrémités de chaque continuum. Premièrement, il y avait une tension notable entre les éléments descriptifs et les éléments prescriptifs des réflexions théologiques. La majorité des
dissertations, y compris la mienne, étaient descriptives, car elles cherchaient à exprimer des thèmes biblico théologiques et à définir des réalités historico contextuelles spécifiques. Les délégués, cependant, étaient indubitablement plus préoccupés par la prescription que par la simple description. Il y avait un sentiment d'impatience pour aller au-delà de l'intellectualisme vers un réel engagement missionnaire et ministériel. Même les discussions en petits groupes tendent à poser la question : « Et maintenant, que
faire ? » À l'image des évangéliques, les Nazaréens sont principalement des activistes. C'est à la fois positif et négatif, mais en tant que théologien, je me demande s'il y aura un jour un espace où la réflexion en elle-même se verra accorder une intégrité en tant que telle, quand nous nous rencontrons en tant qu'église mondiale dans des lieux et à des moments où nous menons ensemble une réflexion sur nos définitions. Nous ne pouvons pas confiner la réflexion théologique à nos seules institutions, d'autant plus que nos définitions doivent refléter à la fois la nature multiculturelle et multi générationnelle de l'église.
La deuxième tension se situe entre des façons de penser réactives et constructives. Plusieurs dissertations et questions réagissaient à quelque chose, et l'approche de la définition consistait à se demander en quelle mesure nous sommes différents de groupes ou d'idéologies spécifiques. En suivant la voie de la négation, ce processus consiste à commencer par penser à ce que nous devrions ne pas être et ne pas faire. Bien qu'il y ait du mérite dans cette tactique, commencer à nous définir nous-mêmes avec des critères tels que « nous ne sommes pas coloniaux », « nous ne sommes pas pentecôtistes » ou « nous ne sommes pas catholiques » impose de nombreuses contraintes sur ce que nous pouvons dire de nous-mêmes. La réflexion qui en résulte peut être étroite pour notre dénomination. Heureusement, il y a des délégués qui sont plus constructifs dans leurs propositions, en particulier dans la jeune génération. Leur préoccupation n'est pas de regarder au passé et aux problèmes sociopolitiques des origines de l'église. En tendant vers la déconnexion historique et l'apathie circonstancielle, l'accent n'est pas placé sur le fait de regarder au passé mais plutôt d'imaginer le futur. La proposition ne consiste pas à passer du temps à méditer avec amertume les événements du passé, mais à pardonner, oublier et passer à autre chose. Nos efforts, affirment les constructivistes, doivent être consacrés plus utilement à la réflexion sur l'avenir et la façon dont nous pouvons y arriver avec grâce. Personnellement, je penche dans cette direction. Il n'est pas nécessaire de continuer à perdre notre temps à débattre des erreurs de nos prédécesseurs chrétiens. Ceci ne fait que provoquer des pensées amères et rouvrir des blessures en voie de guérison. Nous devons passer à autre chose et consacrer davantage de temps à la façon dont nous pouvons répondre à la situation
contemporaine.
Enfin, il y a une tension entre restauration et progressisme. Nos définitions christologiques doivent être bibliquement et théologiquement fidèles à la tradition chrétienne, ce qui signifie que des jargons et des catégories qui datent de plusieurs siècles (comme les natures divine-humaine du Christ) émergent inévitablement dans les discussions, mais nous sommes également appelés à rendre nos présentations sur l'identité du Christ pertinentes pour nos contextes particuliers. Notre compréhension de ce que signifie imiter et suivre Jésus-Christ aujourd'hui doit aussi trouver un équilibre entre ce que signifiait porter sa croix à l'époque du Nouveau Testament, et la façon dont cela doit être traduit et vécu dans le monde contemporain. La mission, dans l'obéissance à l'envoi du Christ, doit trouver l'équilibre entre l'imitation fidèle de la façon dont Jésus-Christ a réalisé la sienne, et la créativité et l'imagination
dans notre manière de réaliser la nôtre aujourd'hui. La tension est entre les aspects de la christologie, du discipulat et de la mission du Nouveau Testament qui peuvent être restaurés et utilisés aujourd'hui, et les innovations progressistes qui peuvent être employées aujourd'hui tout en conservant l'étiquette «
chrétienne ». Nous ne pouvons certainement pas argumenter que la solution consiste à revenir au christianisme du Nouveau Testament (comme certains groupes l'ont proposé au cours de l'histoire), mais nous ne pouvons pas non plus abandonner les définitions apostoliques en les considérant comme complètement hors de propos pour notre génération actuelle. Nous avons besoin d'une voie médiane.
Nous devons réfléchir ensemble afin de définir les critères et les limites qui conviennent le mieux à chaque finalité, car que cela nous plaise ou non, nous devons être simultanément acteurs de restauration et de progrès.
***
GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS Dick O. Eugenio, APNTS faculty
Sou grato pelo privilégio de me dirigir aos delegados e compartilhar minhas simples reflexões. Eu apreciei verdadeiramente o caráter multigeracional da conferência, evidenciado pela presença e pelo papel
desempenhado por mentes jovens como a minha. Além disso, a dimensão multicultural das discussões adicionou uma atmosfera memorável. Enquanto o estímulo intelectual e a edificação mútua durante a conferência foram esplêndidas, a interação social entre os nazarenos globais em deliberações formais e diálogos informais foi particularmente enriquecedora e encorajadora. Eu fui verdadeiramente abençoado por ter feito parte da conferência.
A conferência pode ter terminado, mas minha mente ainda está comovida pelas percepções e perguntas proferidas durante o evento. Durante a sessão plenária final, percebi que a conferência estava lidando com pelo menos três tensões diferentes e os delegados estavam oscilando entre os dois extremos de cada segmento de continuidade. Primeiro, houve uma tensão perceptível entre os elementos descritivos e prescritivos das reflexões teológicas. A maioria dos trabalhos, incluindo o meu, eram descritivos, porque procuravam articular temas bíblico-teológicos e definir realidades histórico-contextuais específicas. Os delegados, no entanto, estavam indubitavelmente mais preocupados com a prescrição do que com a mera descrição. Havia uma sensação de impaciência para que pudéssemos ir além do
intelectualismo em direção ao real engajamento missional-ministerial. Até mesmo nas pequenas discussões em grupo havia a tendência de se fazer a pergunta: "E agora?" Como livro evangélicos, os nazarenos são predominantemente ativistas. Isto é tanto positivo quanto negativo, mas como Teólogo, eu me pergunto se algum dia haverá um espaço para que a reflexão providencie uma integridade própria quando nos encontrarmos como uma igreja global, onde e quando pensarmos juntos sobre definições. Não
podemos deixar as reflexões teológicas confinadas em nossas instituições, especialmente porque nossas definições devem refletir tanto a natureza multicultural e multigeracionais da igreja.
A segunda tensão foi entre as formas de pensar, reativas e construtivas. Vários dos artigos e perguntas estavam reagindo a algo, e a abordagem da definição era perguntar como somos diferentes de grupos ou ideologias específicas. Seguindo o caminho da negação, o procedimento é começar pensando o que não devemos ser e o que não devemos fazer. Embora haja mérito nessa tática, começar nossa auto definição com critérios como “não somos coloniais”, “não somos pentecostais” ou “não somos católicos
romanos” coloca muita restrição sobre o que podemos dizer sobre nós mesmos. A reflexão resultante pode ser denominacionalmente paroquial. Felizmente, há delegados que são mais construtivos em suas propostas, particularmente os da geração mais jovem. A preocupação deles não é olhar para o passado em relação a questões sócio-políticas a igreja esta vindo. Com tendências no sentido da desconexão histórica e apatia circunstancial, a ênfase não é olhar para o passado, mas imaginar o futuro. A proposta não é gastar tempo em relembrar os eventos amargos do passado, mas perdoar, esquecer e seguir em frente.
Nossos esforços, argumentam os construtivistas, precisam ser gastos de maneira mais benéfica para pensar no futuro e em como podemos chegar lá com graça. Pessoalmente, eu apoio essa direção. Não
precisamos mais desperdiçar nosso tempo discutindo os erros de nossos predecessores cristãos. Eles apenas evocam pensamentos amargos e abrem feridas curadas. Precisamos seguir em frente e dedicar mais tempo em como podemos responder à situação contemporânea.
Finalmente, existe a tensão entre o restauracionismo e o progressivismo. Nossas definições Cristológicas precisam ser bíblica e teologicamente fiéis à tradição cristã, o que significa que os jargões
antigos e categorias (como a natureza divina-humana de Cristo) inevitavelmente emergem nas discussões, mas também somos desafiados a fazer nossas apresentações de como Cristo é relevante em nossos próprios contextos. Nossa compreensão do que significa imitar e seguir Jesus Cristo nos dias de hoje também precisa estar em equilíbrio com o que significa tomar a cruz nos tempos do Novo Testamento e como isso precisa ser traduzido e vivido no mundo contemporâneo. Missões, em obediência ao envio de Cristo, precisa estar em equilíbrio entre a imitação fiel de como Jesus Cristo a fez e de forma criativa como fazemos hoje. A tensão está entre quais aspectos da Cristologia, discipulado e missões do Novo
Testamento podem ser restaurados para uso hoje, e que inovações progressistas podem ser empregadas hoje que podem manter o rótulo de “cristão”. Certamente não podemos argumentar que a solução é retornar ao cristianismo do Novo Testamento (como alguns grupos ao longo da história propuseram), mas
também não podemos abandonar as definições apostólicas porque pensamos nelas como completamente irrelevantes em nossa geração atual. Precisamos da via media (equilíbrio). Precisamos pensar juntos para definir os critérios e limites que acomodam o melhor de cada lado, porque, quer gostemos ou não,
precisamos ser restauracionistas e progressistas ao mesmo tempo.
***
THE CHANGING NATURE OF EVANGELICALISM: THE CASE OF NAZARENE CLERGY (ANSR Conference Presentation, 2018) John W. Hawthorne1
Introduction
One of the interesting dynamics of 2016 presidential election season is that it launched something of a cottage industry of scholars, pundits, and journalists attempting to make sense of evangelicals. Hardly a week goes by without carefully written pieces crossing my social media feed raising issues about who these folks are, what they believe, and what happened to their moral core.
I have made my own small contributions to this effort. Early in the primary season, I was trying to figure out what correlates of the social environment of evangelicals were actually behind their voting preferences. One of my most popular blog posts (Hawthorne, 2016) was one I titled: “Why are Blonde Women Supporting Trump?” My facetious point was that it wasn’t really because they were blonde or women but that their legitimate political interests were expressed through their votes AND they happened to be blonde women.
In a further attempt to explain these correlates, I made a presentation at Calvin College last year exploring attitudes of Republican voters. Drawing on a method identified by a research with Gallup, I selected only identified Republicans and examined the impact of
variables within that population. In short, I discovered that on traditional Republican issues (e.g., size of government, concern about welfare dependency) religious Republicans were no different than irreligious Republicans. On moral issues (e.g., same-sex marriage, abortion) religiosity had a significant impact on Republican attitudes. My big conclusion was in my title: “Surprise! Evangelicals are Republicans.”
Since then, I’ve pretty much abandoned the effort to make sense of rank-and-file
Evangelicals. I recently argued that it’s just too confusing with all the public statements by what my friend John Fea calls “Court Evangelicals”, crises involving church leaders, protest revivals in Lynchburg, and blog posts too numerous to count. And this is just from those on the inside of the evangelical camp.
A History of Evangelical Sociology
I’ve found myself returning to how sociologists have examined evangelicals over the course of my career. About the time I started hanging out at ANSR meetings, James Davison Hunter wrote American Evangelicalism (Hunter, 1983). This was one of the first comprehensive treatments I had read from a sociological viewpoint. While Hunter made the mistake of confounding fundamentalists and evangelicals, he still did an excellent job of identifying the ways in which modernity presented challenges for evangelicals. They wanted legitimacy in their arguments so as to throw off the worst accusations on anti-intellectualism that haunted fundamentalism of the early part of the 20th century.
In the late 1990s, shortly after I moved to Oregon as an academic administrator, Christian Smith (Smith, 1998) argued that evangelicals were best identified as “embattled and thriving”.
His argument was that opposition to the cultural dynamics of the larger society gave meaning and purpose to the evangelical voice. This argument fit nicely with Christian concerns about the changes in the broader society.
A little over a decade later, Robert Putnam and David Campbell (Putnam & Campbell, 2010) suggested that a change was afoot. In American Grace, they argued that conservative evangelical religion had thrived during the first decade of the 21st century due to a reaction against changes brought about by earthquake that was “the sixties”. But they also observed that there was an aftershock to that earthquake as young people rebelled against what they saw as an overly politicized church.
That theme was reflected as well in Hunter’s To Change The World (Hunter, 2010). He
identified the natural limitations of the cultural warrior stance, the accommodationist stance, and the separatist stance. These were ineffective because they were fundamentally ignorant about power dynamics. What he argued for in their place was a strategy he called Faithful Presence
(which he unfortunately didn’t develop well).
Christian Smith reported out on the National Survey of Youth and Religion surveys in 2011’s Lost in Transition (Smith, Christoffersen, Davidson, & Herzog, 2011). Building on the Moral Therapeutic Deism his team had uncovered in earlier NSYR waves, he explored the changes in lifestyle and moral formation of millennial adults. Too many of these, he argued, were severely limited in the religious commitments and broader social engagements. This is very similar to the patterns we find with rank-and-file evangelicals today.
There are exceptions, however. Tom Krattenmaker wrote a challenging book titled The Evangelicals You Don’t Know (Krattenmaker, 2013). In the book, Krattenmaker tells the stories of young evangelicals who combine theological orthodoxy with social engagement. As an
outsider to the evangelical camp, he tells a remarkably commendable story of serious faith.
In 2014, historian Molly Worthen wrote Apostles of Reason (Worthen, 2014), which
picks up on themes from Hunter’s earlier book. She traces the development of modern
evangelicalism as being primarily focused on the institutional structures that allow for clear lines of authority. Coincidentally, she says very nice things about holiness folks in general and H. Orton Wiley in particular.
The next year, Public Religion Research Institute CEO Robert Jones released The End of White Christian America (Jones, 2015). Jones summarizes the demographics of religion in America and documents the rise of nones, the impact of immigration on Catholics, and the aging of both Mainline and Evangelical denominations. He argues that in the near future White Christians will be in a numerical minority and that shortly thereafter will see their political clout at the voting booth diminish.
My focus over the last four years has been on trying to make sense of how these changes will play out in the near future. During the writing of my first book (Hawthorne, 2014) on students entering Christian Colleges, I began to notice the ways in which millennial evangelicals were using very different strategies in living out their faith. They were asking questions the church hadn’t asked before. I explored the changes I saw occurring in a presentation at the Wesley Conference at NNU that same year. Something was different, and I was trying to get a handle on what that was.This year David John Seel released The New Copernicans (Seel, 2018), an examination of religious thought drawing upon Thomas Kuhn’s scientific revolution work. Seel argues that we are exploring a new frame, one that is more open than closed that sees engagement rather than separation as its key dynamic. He makes clear that while the new frame isn’t dependent upon millennials, it’s growth coincides with their arrival on the scene.
This then, is the basis for the book project that I hope will characterize the next six to nine months of my life. I plan to explore the ways in which the people operating out of this new frame orient themselves simultaneously to both orthodoxy and engagement. In short, what does
evangelicalism look like if we move from Smith’s embattled metaphor to Hunter’s faithful presence?
Defining the Frames
As part of the book project, I conducted surveys on clergy in the Church of the Nazarene.
The selection of this population isn’t accidental. Not only do I have a career-long history with the denomination and access to the Research office, but this is a holiness denomination that has seen separation from “the world” as a key component of its identity. If I could find a shifting frame within this denomination’s leadership, it gives me confidence that it is occurring within evangelicalism in general.
The first of the two surveys was conducted in late 2017 and early 2018, gathering
responses from 472 clergy under 40. While they are not all technically millennials (the oldest were born in the waning years of GenX), they are largely reflective of that generation. I presented the first wave of data at the Young Nazarene Con in Oklahoma City in early March. I ran a second wave of the survey in April focused on 347 Nazarene clergy in their 50s. Again, they are technically not all Baby Boomers as the youngest are on the leading edge of Gen X, but it provides a useful general comparison. Both surveys asked the same set of questions, with the exception of the age and years in ministry questions which were tailored to the population.
Drawing on Smith, Hunter, and Seel, I saw the distinction between separation and
engagement to be key to understanding the frame shifts, which I have nicknamed Bounded Evangelicalism and Permeable Evangelicalism, respectively. The former focus on the ways in which the church separates from the society where the latter focus on how the boundaries between church and society can be bridged.
I used four questions in particular to define my two frames. The first of these provide four options on how the church should respond to changes in sexual identity within the society.Three other questions were framed in strongly-agree to strongly-disagree Likert formats.
Respondents were asked if the church must maintain separation from the world, if Christians are discriminated against in the broader society, and if the church should show pride in America.
Scores ranged from 1-4 on the sexuality question and 1-5 on the other three.
These four questions were combined into a scale ranging from 4-19. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .69, which is not ideal but removing any elements made it substantially weaker. I then split the scale between 12 and 13 and operationalized those 12 and under as Bounded and those 13 and over as Permeable.
Dividing the scale in this fashion yielded 72% in the Bounded frame and 28% in the
Permeable frame. As Seel suggested, these are not purely defined by generational characteristics although there is an interesting interaction between the frame and generation. There are more Permeable Frames in the Millennials (38%) than there are in the Boomers (14%).
As part of the analysis, I examined the percentage of respondents I would classify as extreme version of the two frames. In other words, I examined scale scores of 8 and below and those of 15 and above. One in five people in the Bounded frame were extreme and one in twelve of the Permeable Frame were extreme. Interestingly, fully a third of Boomer Bounded respondents were in the extreme category. It is also interesting that among Millennials the extreme Permeable group is slightly larger than the extreme Bounded group.
Using the two generations and the two frames (without focusing on the extremes) gave me four conditions: Millennial Bounded, Millennial Permeable, Boomer Bounded, and Boomer Permeable. This allowed me to contrast a number of background factors to examine where the frames were significantly more or less likely to show up.
As we might expect, location matters. Respondents from small towns or rural areas were most likely to be in the Bounded frame while those from suburbs and cities were most likely in Permeable. There is something similar to Robert Merton’s localism/cosmopolitanism at play here. Senior pastors were more likely to have a Bounded frame while associates were most likely as Permeable. The only time length of time (in generations) in the Church of the Nazarene shows up significant is with Boomers; multiple generations are more likely to be in the Permeable frame. I’ll need to do some follow-up interviews to make sense of that one.
The biggest impact dividing Bounded from Permeable was graduate education.
Respondents in the Permeable frame were 25% more likely to have one or more graduate
degrees that those in the Bounded frame. This effect was greater among the Millennials than for Boomers (where is was barely non-significant).
There were no significant differences by region of the country served, region of the
country where one grew up, or by gender.
The Impact of the Frames
There are several ways in which the differences between the Frames play out. In line with the focus on separation, two sliding scale questions invited respondents to reflect on the changes in society over the last 50 year and how the Church of the Nazarene has responded to those.
Significant differences were evident between the frames with slight differences by generation.On the social change question, the gap between the frames for each generation comes in at 12 points placing them either side of the midpoint. When looking at how the Church of the Nazarene responds to social issues, there was no difference between Millennial and Boomer
Bounded respondents who came in slightly positive. Boomer Permeable folks were somewhat more negative and Millennial Permeable respondents another six points below that.
The other two sliding scale questions addressed a balance between evangelism and social ministry; the Permeable frame wound up above the middle and the Bounded frame below ranging 12-14 points below the Permeable respondents. Another question dealt with universalism (which seems to current in some young evangelical circles). While all respondents were on the side of the scale that deals with Christian exclusivity, there is still a sizeable gap (as much as 27 points for the Boomers).
Another point of interest is examining how people see diversity of thought within a
denomination. Respondents were asked what should happen to people who question a
denomination’s teaching. While there were four options presented, responses centered on just two: listening to the critique in an attempt to improve or explaining to the individual why they need to support the denomination. The overwhelming majority of the Permeable frame took the first option, while a slight majority of the Boomer Bounded frame people took the second.
Another important distinction between the frames involves biblical hermeneutics. Rather than asking what the respondents believe about the Bible as most polls do, I asked how respondents go about interpreting scripture. The options ranged from “The Bible means what is says” to “Some issues or questions aren’t anticipated by the Biblical authors and so interpretation is required.” While the majority of respondents in all categories selected a sound Biblical
criticism stance, nearly a quarter of Millennial Permeable respondents chose this last option. In this particular regard, the Boomer Permeable and the Millennial Bounded are almost the same,
again suggesting a frame and generation interaction.Of particular interest to the denomination is the question of what these differing frames mean for the future. One pair of question directly explored issues of identity and future.
Respondents were asked how important it was for people to know that they were affiliated with the church. They were also asked how important it was for them to remain Nazarene.
The results show that all four groupsreligiosity (generation and frame) claim that it is important to be known as Nazarene, with just over a majority of Millennial Permeable holding that view. This may be more of a function of community-based congregations with less of a denominational label. When asked if it was important to remain Nazarene, the overwhelming majority of all four groups identified with the denomination going forward.
Respondents were asked to gauge their perception of support the Church of the Nazarene provides to them. Support was evaluated at the congregational level, the district level, and the general church level. All four groups show substantial support from their local congregation. At the district level, the perception of support falls markedly for both Permeable groups. The support for Boomer Bounded respondents is strongest, which makes sense both in terms of their longevity and structural commitments. When it comes to support from the general church leadership, this fall off yet again. This is not surprising, as individual clergy may feel somewhat far removed from the Global Ministries Center. The two Permeable groups perceive less support but further interviews would be necessary to determine if that were based on the assumption of difference of perspective than actual isolation.
Even though the vast majority of respondents wished to remain Nazarene over the long haul, they were given the option to identify factors that might cause them to leave. Since Boomers are likely not going anywhere soon, this particular analysis only focused on the Millennials. Very few of them felt that they would leave because they lacked voice. Much more important, especially for the Millennial Permeable frame, were the earlier issue of responding to social issues (which were undefined), a concern about power structures in the denomination, and the ongoing partisanship issue mentioned at the outset of this paper. While the respondents aren’t looking to go anywhere, it’s worth noting that they can be pushed.
Implications and Actions
I set out on this project to determine if I could demonstrate the existence of my two
frames of evangelicalism even in a conservative denomination like the Church of the Nazarene.
While the data certainly bears the limitations that go along with an online survey, there is still sufficient evidence that the two frames exist and furthermore, reflect some very different ways of seeing ministry and cultural engagement. At the very least, what we think of as “evangelical” is not as monolithic as pollsters and researchers tend to assume. As Seel suggested, there is evidence that the Permeable frame has always been around but may be more coincident with the millennial population.
The presence of some interaction effects between generation and frame may provide some insight into how social change happens within denominational groups. Robert Jones of PRRI argues that millennials leaving evangelicalism has stunted what has historically been the moderating impact of youth on denominational groups.
Another benefit of the Permeable frame is that it begins to hint at how Hunter’s Faithful Presence can be operationalized in practice. When I was at the Young Clergy Con in March, I saw many instances of new forms of congregational engagement with the culture. While ministry efforts like the Bay Area’s Possibility Project look very different in structure and mission than more traditional efforts, they may provide solid models for how the church addresses
contemporary culture. Recognizing the diverse frames raises significant challenge for denominational groups.
How does a group provide space for both frames to exist simultaneously without either declaring winners and losers or forcing one party out of fellowship? This is the key question facing the United Methodist Church over the next year and I’m trying to be optimistic about what will happen but it’s hard. My commitment to fellowship and how the Spirit has led his people to Truth since the Galatian conference gives me hope. On the other hand, when we simply fight on
social media, make threats, and rely on political machinations, that hope begins to waver.
To put it another way, what does it mean for a denomination to allow space for diversity
of thought and process and still claim that people are all part of the same religious family? As I’ve been an on-again off-again part of ANSR for over three decades, it seems that every few years we had a conference titled “what is our core identity”? It’s telling that a group that is over a century old would ask that question so often. But when I think of that question in light of my current work, I think it’s more important than ever. What is our core identity if we allow disagreement on a number of issues? Do we have the sociological, moral, and theological strength to truly wrestle with the answer?
I close with some practical suggestions for the denomination in light of the frames I
believe are emerging in American evangelicalism. First, the Church of the Nazarene could be more visible in wrestling over key injustice issues. Recent weeks have shown that Willow Creek and the Southern Baptist Convention have been remarkably slow to deal with harassment issues, preferring to put on a happy face rather than engage in real repentance. The same is true for issues of criminal justice reform, for poverty concerns, and for support of moral leadership in our elected officials. We can’t care about these things only when there is a crisis but we need leadership and periodicals to address them regularly.
We need to assist our educational institutions in helping our students address the social and moral complexity of the world they will enter after graduation. Christian universities have been far more concerned about protecting ourselves from government interference or bad press.
But protecting the institution as a first principle does not serve our students. Too many of them are seriously wrestling with issues of injustice and inclusion and we are telling them that they aren’t as important as our reputation and donors.
Clergy gatherings need to pay attention to who is on the platform and who is given a
microphone. Yes, it’s important for women and people of color to have real access. But there is also an opportunity to hear from a Millennial Permeable voice speaking at pastor’s meetings, Palcons, or even General Assembly. If these changes I’ve described are real, then giving voice to the new frame will be important in helping leaders know how to deal with what is coming down he pike.
I was very impressed with the people I met in Oklahoma City at Young Clergy Con.
They are talented. They are committed to Jesus. They want others to know Him. They don’t want to play church. They want to be the Body of Christ. If we can make room for them and listen to their voice, even if we don’t agree, they will be pursuing all of those things from within the Church of the Nazarene: which will be good for the denomination as well as for Christ’s kingdom.
Thank you so much for the recognition I’ve receive from ANSR over the years and for
listening to me rattle some cages. Maybe I’ll do this again in another thirty-five years!
1 Professor of Sociology at Spring Arbor University in Michigan. Contact
john.hawthorne@arbor.edu.
References:
“DO YOU HEAR WHAT THESE CHILDREN ARE SAYING?”: HOSPITALITY AS A THEOLOGICAL PARADIGM FOR MINISTRY WITH CHILDREN
Benjamin Espinoza, Ph.D. Student & Research Assistant Michigan State UniversityIntroduction
The practice of hospitality has been shown to be a significant component of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the theological vision of the early church. Several scholars have articulated a vision for recovering the practice of hospitality in the contemporary church (Newman, 2007; Oden, 2001; Pineda, 2010; Pohl, 1999). Elizabeth Conde-Frazier writes that “the place of hospitality offers attentive listening and mutual sharing of lives and life stories” (Conde-Frazier 2004, p. 171). Hospitality is recognition of human value and equality, as well as the rejection of “social arrangements of class, ethnicity, or race” (Conde-Frazier, 2004, p. 172).
Based on this renaissance of theological literature on hospitality, some have argued that the biblical and theological vision of hospitality should be the overarching framework for certain ministries in ecclesial and cross-cultural contexts (Anderson, 2011; Brinton, 2012; Espinoza, 2014; Nouwen, 1975; Stratman, 2013). However, while some have championed a vision for a children’s ministry that accepts all (Csinos and Beckwith, 2013; Green, 2014), resources that thoroughly explore how the theological vision of hospitality informs and shapes the church’s ministry to and with children are lacking.
The purpose of this paper is to explore how hospitality serves as a theological resource and paradigm that undergirds a robust, holistic approach to ecclesial children’s ministry. The paper will first explore hospitality in biblical and theological perspective, with attention given to the
triune nature of God, the ministry of Jesus, New Testament references to hospitality, and early church practices. Essentially, hospitality is rooted in the Trinitarian nature of God, expressing itself throughout the pages of Scripture. This theological vision of hospitality will be shown to be a radical impulse wherein the lines of guest and host are blurred, and all are welcome to the table of mission and ecclesial service.
With these foundations in place, the paper will engage relevant literature to craft a holistic paradigm for ecclesial children’s ministry. In particular, the paper will attend to three aspects of the church’s ministry (preaching and teaching the gospel, cultivating worship, creating community) and demonstrate how a theology of hospitality radically shapes and transforms the way we conceptualize of “children’s ministry” in the local church. This model of ecclesial
hospitality will cut through the traditional approaches to children’s ministry by creating an intergenerational church culture that respects and values the impact children can make for the kingdom when fully integrated and welcomed into all aspects of church ministry. In other words, the paper will seek to reframe children’s ministry not as “ministry to children,” but as “ministry
alongside children.”
In order to survey the biblical and theological landscape of hospitality, we must first begin with the hospitable nature of the Triune God. One of the most distinctive doctrines in Christian theology is that of the paradoxical oneness, togetherness, and equality of the Godhead. God exists as one entity, eternally exists as the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, and all members of the Trinity are wholly and equally God.
But how do God’s oneness, togetherness, and equality relate to each other? This is where the concept of perichoresis comes into focus. Perichoresis has its origins in the work of the Cappadocian Fathers, such as Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, whose student Maximus the Confessor was also a proponent of the concept (Harrison, 1991, p. 53). The root of the word, “peri,” literally means “in and around,” and serves as the basis for words such as “perimeter.” The other component of the word, “chore” literally means “movement” (Gombis, 2008). The word thus means, literally, “movement, in and around,” but the basic thrust of the term is “interpenetration.” Kim (2012) defines perichoresis as the Trinity’s ability to maintain “the individuality of the three persons while at the same time asserting that each person partook in the life of the other two” (p. 256). Thus, the persons of the Trinity maintain their distinct identity and function while expressed themselves to one another in an intimate manner.
Gombis (2008) beautifully describes this notion of perichoresis:
The Persons of the Trinity from all eternity are caught up in a relationship of
interpenetration and envelopment. That is, each of the Persons of the Trinity is always going out to the other, always plunging deeply into the other, to know and to understand, o comprehend and to discover, and then to delight and rejoice in, to exult in the other’s glories, beauties, perfections, and excellencies. And each member of the Trinity is always welcoming the other into Himself, to be fully known, to be discovered and comprehended, to be delighted in. The Trinity, then, is an eternal community of mutual delight.
This vivid description of perichoresis emphasizes the mutuality and participation of the Godhead. The Persons of the Trinity desires to make themselves known, to know one another, to be transparent with one another, and to glory in one another’s character and being. Based on her understanding of Trinitarian perichoresis, Elizabeth Newman writes "God's triune hospitality calls us to a different place, a place where we practice living lives determined by God's giving across the grand sweep of time rather than our own limited grasp of the ways things are” (2007, p. 15). Thus, the Triunity of God is inherently hospitable.
Hospitality in the Old Testament
How does the trinitarian life of God play out in Scripture? The first major instance of in the Old Testament occurs in Genesis 18, when Abraham welcomes three mysterious strangers into his home. The text reads that Abraham rushed to greet these strangers, treating them with the utmost respect, and offering them a lavish feast, refreshment, and rest. The text uses the Hebrew word hinneh to describe that Abraham took this encounter as a complete surprise (Vogels, p.164). Genesis 18:1 indicates that God was somehow present in these strangers, and the instance was thus a divine encounter. The writer of Hebrews alludes to this episode, exhorting the audience to not “neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares” (13:2). The purpose of this visit was for God to communicate to Abraham that his wife Sarah would bear a son, and that judgment was on the horizon for Sodom and Gomorrah. Pohl writes, “This first formative story of the biblical tradition on hospitality is
unambiguously positive about welcoming strangers. It connects hospitality with the presence of God, with promise, and with blessing” (1999, p. 24).
While the children of Abraham were living in bondage under the oppressive hands of the
Egyptians, it is God who freed them, and provided their daily sustenance, including protection from their oppressors. The purpose of the Mosaic law was to mark the Israelites as the people of God. The law mandated a code of hospitality that welcomed strangers and sojourners, just as the
Israelites were once wanderers and sojourners (Exod. 22:21; Lev. 19:1-2, 9–10, 33–34). Pohl suggests, “They were to view themselves as aliens in their own land, for God owned the land and they were to be its stewards and caretakers, living in it by God’s permission and grace. They were the chosen people--chosen, yet still aliens” (1999, p. 27). Though Israel consistently
rebelled against God’s Lordship, God continuously invited Israel back into a relationship through the work of prophets. This is especially clear in the case of Jonah, whom God called to preach repentance to the Ninevites, only to reject God’s command and flee. While Jonah reluctantly
agrees to God’s wishes, he nonetheless expresses discontent that God would welcome such pagans into the fold. This highlights that in the Old Testament, we observe how God consistently invites and seeks out fellowship with not only the fold of Israel, but also with Gentiles.
Hospitality in the New Testament
The New Testament continues to explore the practice of hospitality in the life, teachings, and salvific work of Jesus Christ. In the incarnation of Christ, we see an intentional move on the part of God to extend hospitality to not only the people of Israel, but also to the Gentiles. Most of all, however, Jesus extends the hospitality of God the Father by reaching out and welcoming the marginalized in society. According to Anderson, Jesus “spoke of acts of hospitality toward people who are strangers, hungry, in prison, poor, diseased, or disabled. Jesus said that as we practice hospitality, it should be done as if Jesus himself were the recipient” (Anderson 2008, 15-16).
Jesus specifically explores hospitality with His disciples and others in two key passages:
1. Matthew 25 (the parable of the sheep and the goats) and Luke 14 (the parable of the great banquet). In each of these parables, Christ shares the defining characteristics of hospitality, that when we are truly hospitable toward others, it is as though we are exhibiting hospitality to hrist Himself. “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40). Moving forward in the gospels, we see that Christ’s death and resurrection serve as the ultimate form of hospitality, welcoming those who were previously the enemies of God. Christ’s death and resurrection provide the means through which we are invited to “come boldly” before God in prayer (Hebrews 4:16) and make our requests known to Him.
This reciprocal relationship is at the core of the gospel; it is the message of hospitality, rooted in the character of God in Christ.
As we survey through the rest of the New Testament, we see the thread of hospitality continue to weave its way into the early church. When Jesus commissioned the seventy disciples, he expected them to depend on the hospitality of others. It is the gracious hosts who welcome the disciples that would receive great blessing from God. The disciples were to treat their hosts with
respect, and not move from house to house seeking more luxurious accommodations.
2. In Acts 9-10, we see three revolving stories that demonstrate how hospitality functioned in early church evangelism, and Peter accepts the hospitality of Simon the tanner in Joppa (9:43 and 10:6), Peter extends hospitality to Cornelius’s messengers despite the fact that Peter is already a guest in the house of Simon (10:17- 23), and Peter accepts hospitality from Cornelius, a Roman centurion living in Caesarea (10:24-48). This last episode is pivotal, as Peter realized through a vision from God that he should no longer consider Gentiles as unclean, but that the gospel was for all people. The rest of the New Testament, particularly the letters of Paul, grapples with how Jewish and Gentile Christians can live together in hospitable community with one another.
Pineda (2008) notes that the New Testament uses the term philoxenia, which generally means “the love of the stranger.” Pineda notes the term “can also mean love of the whole atmosphere of hospitality and the whole activity of guesting and hosting” (2008, p. 33). Jesus inhabits this love of strangers when He arrived at the wedding in Cana as a guest but quickly became a host (John 2).
Hospitality as a Paradigm for Ecclesial Ministry with Children
Hospitality is a movement of the Triune God to bring humanity into relationship with himself and a way of life grounded in the person and work of Christ. Henri Nouwen (1975) wrote that hospitality “creates new and free space where we can reach out to strangers and invite them to become our friends” (p. 79). Hospitality acknowledges that all are created in the image of God and thus deserve dignity, respect, and indiscriminate welcome. It is in the act of hospitality that we discover new ideas about who we are, who God is, and encourages to empathize with the plight of others. Pineda (2010) reflects on how hospitality inherently recognizes the imago dei:
To welcome the stranger is to acknowledge him as a human made in God’s image; it is to treat her as one of equal worth with ourselves—indeed, as one who may teach us
omething out of the richness of experiences different from our own. The stranger’s gifts may come to a family circle or to a society. Yet the undocumented foreigner…is too often not greeted with hospitality or even acknowledged as a human being in God’s image.
Hospitality is thus a practice of ethics, not simply the practice of kindness. It means opening up our lives with others, sharing in the roles of guest and host, and exhibiting true generosity toward one another.
This particular theology carries several implications across of spectrum of ecclesial practices.
Some have written that a theology of hospitality applies to the use of greeters and coffee hosts on Sunday mornings, ministries that reach out to the marginalized in society, and evangelism and
mission. Some have also argued that the theology of hospitality possesses relevant applications to education both in ecclesial and school settings.
As it stands, the theology and practice of hospitality has been applied to questions related to practical theology, but has yet to be applied to questions related to ministry with children in the local church in a substantive way. Many scholars have proposed that the church must provide a
welcome, safe space for children, as their spirituality is sensitive to such an environment. Such a space provides children with a sense of belonging, and encourages their ongoing spiritual development. However, this thinking tends to be rooted in the social sciences and developmental
psychology, with some biblical support, yet lacks a firm theological foundation (Allen & Ross, 2012). The theology of hospitality affirms the findings of social science and encourages those of us in church ministry to radically welcome and support children not only as persons of value to the church community, but valuable participants as well. In other words, the theology of
hospitality supports an intergenerational church culture wherein relationships between people across the spectrum of age are welcomed and brought into relationship with one another.
How can we create an ecclesial culture that welcomes children and engages them in all aspects of ecclesial life and ministry? The theology of hospitality should not simply be relegated to providing a welcoming Sunday school or VBS atmosphere, but must penetrate all aspects of the church’s ministry to fully embody the hospitable impulse. In order to describe how the theology of hospitality can transform an ecclesial culture, I have utilized the “ecology of ministry” my team crafted during my time in pastoral ministry. The three core practices of ministry the church embraces are preaching the gospel, cultivating worship, creating community.. When the theology of hospitality truly undergirds these four core practices, the way church embraces, engages, involves, and encourages children is transformed.
Preaching and Teaching the Gospel
Scholars have spilt much ink articulating how to best teach children biblical truths and create a pace for substantive spiritual formation and Christian education. However, these conversations are generally relegated to the Sunday school classroom or special children’s events. While spaces for teaching assume a hospitable culture, when the theology of hospitality enters the picture, the ministry of teaching takes a larger, more holistic role in the life of the church. While we can and should ask, in the vein of Bushnell and Westerhoff, “how are we creating spaces to teach the gospel to our children in the context of the community of faith?” I would like to focus my attention on one ministry which engages children very little--preaching.
In many churches in the United States, children are rarely present for the sermon (Allen & Ross, 2012). In my own church, we let our children stay with their parents until after the first worship set, and then “dismiss” them to go enjoy their time in Sunday school. While such an approach pleases parents and developmental psychologists, what does it say to our children when we disallow them from sharing in the same spiritual experience of listening to a sermon with their parents? Mind you, some churches will ensure that children’s curriculum aligns with the sermon.
However, we foster a sense of “developmental segregation,” wherein we separate two factions of the body in order to teach them the same ideas and preach the same gospel. Such an approach, while developmentally aware, potentially undercuts a theology of hospitality, and misses out on the potential spiritual riches that may come when families can hear the same gospel proclaimed in the same room.
However, if we invite children into our worship services, will they be able to substantively engage the ideas contained in a sermon on an emotional, spiritual, or intellectual level? I propose that in intergenerational worship settings, pastors embrace an approach to preaching that can
stimulate the hearts and minds of children while simultaneously engaging adults as well.
Espinoza (2015) calls this approach “child-conscious preaching.” “At its core, child-conscious preaching uses child-friendly language, stimulates the spiritual imaginations of children, uses narrative as a means of communicating deep theological truths to children, and recognizes and
celebrates the place and contribution of children to the Christian community” (Espinoza 2015, p.27). I will briefly highlight each component of child-conscious preaching.
Child-friendly language. Child-conscious preaching uses child-friendly language,
recognizing the unique developmental needs of children and their capacity to fundamentally understand specific concepts and ideas related to faith.
Stimulating spiritual imaginations. “Child-conscious preaching stimulates the spiritually imaginative lives of children through explorations of the wonder, awe, and majesty of a living God who has reached down to the earth and touched our lives. While it could easily be said that imagination is a needed component in effective preaching for everyone, it especially rings true for children” (Espinoza 2015, p. 29).
Using narratives. Gary Newton writes that “As a good storyteller shares an adventure,
listeners of all ages picture themselves in the characters rehearsing emotions, thoughts, and dreams. Stories are intensely interactive. They spawn activity within the hearts of all ages” (2012, p. 124). Child-conscious preaching makes use of narratives and invites children to enter simple yet powerful storylines with their hearts and minds.
Brings children into Christian community. Child-conscious preaching brings children into the conversatios. It uses examples from their world and culture and validates them in the Christian community. Children are challenged to be active players in the community, and adults are challenged to let them.
Cultivating Worship
The theology of hospitality demands that children be involved in worship with adults. Daniel Hyde contends that this was the tradition of the early church that was eventually lost within the last hundred years (2014). Allen and Ross define intergenerational worship as “the regular
(usually weekly) gathering when the body of Christ as a community meets together to praise and honor God, to hear from God’s Word, and to encourage one another” (Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Formation, 189). Many would not find issue with Allen and Ross’ definition. However, in practice, the topic of welcoming children into worship with adults has its passionate detractors. Hauerwas and Willimon (1989) summarize the concerns of these detractors, albeit in a relatively cynical manner. in many of our modem, sophisticated congregations, children are often viewed as
distractions. We tolerate children only to the extent they promise to become “adults” like us. Adult members sometimes complain that they cannot pay attention to the sermon, they cannot listen to the beautiful music, when fidgety children are beside them in the pews. “Send them away,” many adults say. Create “Children’s Church” so these
distracting children can be removed in order that we adults can pay attention. (p. 96)
While their assessment of the situation reeks of some cynicism, it is not far from the truth. Dale Hudson (2015), writing for a popular children’s ministry website, reflects on the reasons why it would be unwise to allow children into the worship service:
Children in the adult service distract their parents and those around them. Parents end up spending more time trying to keep their children from disrupting the service than they do focusing on what is being taught. It’s heartbreaking to watch a guest who doesn’t know Jesus get distracted from hearing the Gospel because he is watching the preschooler in front of him act out because the little guy is bored out of his mind. It saddens me to see a new believer miss vital teaching because she is preoccupied with smiling at the cute baby in front of her.
At the core of Hudson’s concerns seems to be the clear proclamation of the gospel in addition the potential distraction of children in worship. Such a concern is valid. However, if the theology of
hospitality were to undergird our approach to cultivating worship, our services would look significantly different. The purpose behind a worship service to bring honor and glory to God through the outpouring of our hearts, minds, and voices. Such an event need not be considered a concert event with formality and decorum, but rather as a messy banquet hall with crying, screaming, dancing, and perhaps the occasional clean-up. Robert Pendergraft (2015) writes that “The services should be planned in a manner that the gospel is communicated to the children present. It is not just the visiting adult that needs to hear and see the gospel, but also those in the church’s greatest mission field, its own children” (p. 169).
Welcoming children into worship services is a way of welcoming them into a different the culture, language, and lifestyle of the church. To welcome children into the Christian community by way of the worship service powerfully demonstrates their importance to the community of faith. Including children in worship inculcates within them the moves of the faith that they will hopefully adopt later in life. Piper (1980) writes that But even where most of the sermon goes over their heads, the children profit. They leam more theology and piety from the hymns than we realize, they come to be comfortable and at home with the form of the service, they experience from time-to-time the large and awesome moments of quietness or the blast of an organ prelude or fervor of an old man’s prayer. Week-after-week they see hundreds of adults bowed in worship, and unless we teach them otherwise, they will grow up thinking, “This is where I belong on Sunday morning, and this is the way one behaves in Sunday worship.” It will never enter their heads that not being there is a possibility if we expect it of them and insist on their right
behavior.
While it may be tempting to say that children would absorb more in a worship setting especially designed for them, the theology of hospitality demands seriously consider welcoming children into worship with adults. To do otherwise would be to disregard their status as our fellow worshippers of the Lord.
Creating Community
In their landmark work, Children Matter, May et. al briefly remark that “within churches
children are invisible and not considered except in programed designated for them, and they may be disconnected from all but their peers and a few adults who work with them” (2005, p. 133).
They point to the Christian tradition of hospitality to strengthen their argument that children are vital members of the faith community deserving of attention and nurture. In their chapter on community, the authors put forth a series of rhetorical questions aimed at the church’s lack of
hospitality toward children:
How would our churches change of the whole congregation, not just the Sunday school
teachers, took seriously Jesus’ admonition to welcome children—if as a congregation we truly offered hospitality to children? What places and activities of importance to adults need to be opened to children? Other than in children’s programs, how often do we turn our full attention to children? Who listens to them? Where are friendships built between children and adults? As a congregation, do we really see children as persons of value and dignity equal to teenagers and adults? Do we expect to receive gifts from them in the family of God, to see Jesus in them and hear his voice through them? The church will be a nurturing community for children when they experience it as a place of gracious hospitality. (May et. al, 2005, p. 134)
Unfortunately, while Children Matter was written over a decade ago, the question of how to best welcome children into the Christian community has yet to be thoroughly answered. Scholars and pastors have spilled loads of ink grappling with the questions that May and others propose. Some churches have become havens for intergenerational ministry, building friendships across the
spectrum of age, while others continue to remain trapped in older, developmentally-driven paradigms.
A prime way to involve children in Christian community is by exploring the contours of
Christian theology with them. While children may not be able to read Luther or Wesley, they nonetheless carry a capacity to understand the spiritual. Robert Coles wrote that “Children try to understand not only what is happening to them, but why; and in doing that, they call upon the religious life they have experienced, the spiritual values they have received, as well as other
sources of explanation” (1990, p. 10). Dave Csinos and Ivy Beckwith argue that “children should be some of the church’s main theologians-in-residence, since their understandings of their God experiences are less likely to be fettered and boxed in by the adult conceptions that we teach them as they grow up” (2013, p. 71). Indeed, John Wesley affirmed that "the experiences of many of [children] match and in several instances surpass the experiences of their elders" (Wesley, 1872/1979, p. 75). The process of theological reflection begins early in childhood, as children grapple to make meaning of God and the spiritual life. The Christian community must envelop children into this process of theological reflection from an early age.
But the Christian community must also engage children in the process of Christian practice. In many cases, we view Christian practices such as the disciplines that adults do for spiritual growth. However, since children are our pilgrims in the Christian journey, it makes sense to bring them along in our Christian practices, such as fasting, sabbath, prayer, giving, outreach, and practicing the church calendar. Trevecca Okholm writes that “When a family celebrates the rituals and rhythms of the church year at home, the history and connection to the historical church becomes a means of being hospitable within the family home as it joins in celebrating with the whole church community” (2012, p. 169). Bringing children along into our practices is an act of hospitality will inculcate within our children a desire to continue those practices even into adolescence and adulthood. To neglect to envelop children into the Christian way of life is to teach them that their spirituality is not welcome in the community--a sure way of further
alienating the already marginalized. For as the age-old adage goes, “if we don’t disciple our children, who will?” This renders the practice of actively inviting children from the local community into church life, particularly through family-based church events, as this invitation
creates a bridge toward those who may never have felt welcomed by the community of God.
The theology of hospitality is one of radical welcome toward children, of full engagement and participation in the life of faith. This is a vision that cannot be done through simple programming or events. It is a cultural change which demands consistent preaching from the pulpit, casting in streams of communication, effective implementation, and holistic outreach. A community of faith cannot rely on one-off events to foster true community. Rather, true community comes from the organic relationships that coalesce around the bond of Christ through consistent acts of
hospitality, especially with those outside of the church’s walls. Trinitarian hospitality offers us the perfect picture of how we can welcome others into our church communities, especially children.
Conclusion
Hospitality has become a crucial practice which the church must recover. As we push against cultural shifts that value exclusion and marginalization, hospitality has become more important than ever. As Jesus says to his disciples, “Do you hear what these children are saying?” (Matt. 21:16), we must continue to listen to those whom are often thought of last in our church communities. The practice of hospitality can serve as a powerful way of reminding the church of its responsibility to serve the youngest in society.
References
CREATIVE DESTRUCTION AND ADAPTIVE REEMERGENCE: A COMPARISON AND SYNTHESIS OF HEIFETZ’S ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP THEORY AND SHARMER’S EMERGING LEADERSHIP THEORY (THEORY U) Joshua Broward, Director of Missional Development Northern California District Church of the Nazarene
Introduction
We are in “the age of disruption,” according to Otto Scharmer (2016, p. 1). Scharmer outlines three major disruptions that have already rocked the 21st Century: geopolitical safety (September 11, 2011 terrorist attack), economic stability (2008 financial crisis), and political stability (election of Trump and other far right destabilizers). Therefore, he predicts, “We know that the years ahead will bring chaos, conflict, collapse, and confusion” (2016, p. 5).
Philosopher and leadership consultant, Peter Koestenbaum (LaBarre, 2000) explains the
existential crisis of the 21st Century: “We’re living in a peculiar time: It’s marked by … acute alienation… What I call the ‘new-economy pathology’ is driven by impossible demands — better quality, lower prices, faster innovation — that generate an unprecedented form of stress” (p. 2).
Unfortunately, as Koestenbaum argues, society isn’t coping with this existential stress well: “There is a terrible defect at the core of how we think about people and organizations today. There is little or no tolerance for the kinds of character-building conversations that pave the way for meaningful change” (LaBarre, 2000, p. 3). Ronald Heifetz and Otto Scharmer guide us through the jungle of distractions to the real issues confronting us as individuals, as organizations, as nations, and as a global society.
Theoretical Overview
Heifetz’s adaptive leadership theory, exemplified in Leadership Without Easy Answers (1994), and Scharmer’s Theory U, expressed and applied in Leading from the Emerging Future (2014) offer two distinct paths of creative deconstruction and adaptive reemergence. In their own way, each offers leaders tools to see through the mist of urgent tasks and status quo paradigms to
discern the key adaptive challenges and how to mobilize teams to address the real issues in authentically helpful ways.
Heifetz’s Adaptive Leadership Theory
Joe Flower (1995) accurately summarizes, “Heifetz pulls leadership apart along two fault lines: the difference between leadership and authority, and the difference between technical answers and adaptive work” (p. 1). Heifetz’s work focuses on leadership during times of intense change. Given the radical, discontinuous change of the 21st Century, all organizations and all leaders may need to do what Heifetz calls “adaptive work.”
The differentiation of technical and adaptive problems is foundational to Heifetz’s framework. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) explain: “Technical problems… can be solved applying… the organization’s current problem-solving processes. Adaptive problems resist these … require individuals throughout the organization to alter their ways; as the people themselves are the problem, the solution lies with them” (p. 1). To identify an adaptive challenge, the
distinguishing question is: “Does making progress on this problem require changes in people’s values, attitudes, or habits of behavior?” (Heifetz, 1994, p. 87). In times of change and conflict, most leaders and most followers look to technical solutions to restore a sense of equilibrium even when deeper adaptive change is needed for genuine progress (Heifetz, 1994). Identifying the key adaptive change needed is fundamental to successful leadership.
For Heifetz, the distinction of leadership and authority is critical. Leadership is
essentially mobilizing people to do adaptive work — to overcome tough problems related to
conflicts between their aspirational values and their current reality. Authority may be
formal/positional or informal, but either way it is essentially social power that others give to an individual in exchange for providing “direction, protection, and order” (Heifetz, 1994, p. 125).
However, not all leaders have positional authority, and not all with positions of authority actually act as leaders (Heifetz, 1994). In fact, as Heifetz explains, “people in positions of authority are often constrained in their exercise of leadership, because they are not expected to disturb people.… Many people in authority simply avoid the risks and hazards that come from challenging people to tackle tough problems” (Flower, 1995). Therefore, all organizations need creative deviants, people without positional authority, who will disrupt the stable system to identify blind spots, instigate difficult but necessary conversations, and prod the organization to engage adaptive challenges (Heifetz, 1994).
In explaining and applying adaptive leadership, Heifetz (1994) lays out several concepts which are fundamental to the practice of adaptive leadership. First, adaptive leadership is less about a leader getting people to follow his/her vision, and more about identifying the key challenges and empowering the people to face reality and develop adaptive solutions together (Flower, 1995). Second, orchestrating healthy conflict is critical to adaptive change. Conflict opens the doors to deeper insight, creativity, and innovation (Heifetz, 1994). Third, leaders must “cook the conflict” in a “holding zone,” keeping the “heat” high enough to maintain urgency without letting it “boil over” (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). Fourth, leaders engaged in this difficult work will need to spend significant time on inner work, differentiating self from role, rooting in spiritual sources of power, and healing the wounds sustained in the midst of battle (Heifetz, 1994).
Northouse (2016) provides a helpful summary: “Adaptive leadership focuses on the adaptations required of people in response to changing environments” (p. 257). Therefore, as Northouse continues, adaptive leaders challenge people in their organizations “to face difficult challenges, providing them with the space or opportunity they need to learn new ways of dealing with the inevitable changes in assumptions, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that they are likely to encounter in addressing real problems” (p. 258).
Scharmer’s Theory U.
In their exploration of how organizations undergo deep change, Peter Senge, Joseph
Jaworski, Bety Sue Flower, and Otto Scharmer introduced the concept of “presencing” in their book Presence: An Exploration of Profound Change in People, Organizations, and Society (2005). Scharmer (2007) summarizes presencing as “a heightened state of attention that allows individuals and groups to shift the inner place from which they function. When that shift happens, people begin to operate from a future space of possibility that they feel wants to emerge.”
Next, in Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges (2007), Scharmer then situated the concept of presencing within a “U-shaped” framework for facilitating deep change in organizations and in society. Theory U has five basic steps:
1. “Co-initiating: build common intent.” Gather core group who will work together on an issue of shared importance in a “process of deep listening — listening to what life calls you and others to do” (Scharmer, 2007, p. 6.)
2. “Co-sensing: observe, observe, observe. Go to the places of most potential and listen with your mind and heart wide open” (p. 6).
3. “Presencing: Connect to the source of inspiration and common will. Go to the place of silence and allow the inner knowing to emerge” (p. 7).
4. “Co-creating: Prototype the new in living examples to explore the future by doing” (p. 7). Develop and test initial ideas in real time, for immediate feedback and refinements.
5. “Co-evolving: Embody the new in ecosystems that facilitate seeing and acting from the whole” (p. 8).
Together, these five steps provide a guide for “multi-stakeholder innovation” (p. 12).
Together with Kaitrin Kaufer, Scharmer continued to expand on and apply Theory U in
Leading from the Emerging Future: From Ego-System to Eco-System Economies (2013). Here,
Scharmer identifies eight key disconnects or “bubbles” causing major social disruptions (2013, pp. 46-47):
1. Financial bubble: A disconnect between financial speculation and real values threatens the economy.
2. Infinite-growth bubble: Expectations of ever increasing consumption threaten the environment.
3. Income bubble: The polarization of income inequality undermines human rights.
4. Leadership bubble: The separation of leaders and people results in broad disempowerment for both groups.
5. Consumerism Bubble: Material consumption (illustrated through GDP) does not result in
improvements in actual well-being.
6. Governance Bubble: The voiceless masses are underserved by and have no influence on the systems of government.
7. Ownership Bubble: State and private property ownership lead to misuse of the ecological and social commons.
8. Technology Bubble: Tech innovation primarily pampers the wealthy rather than helping to solve real societal needs.
For Scharmer (2013), each of these bubbles represents the fundamental disconnect of mind and matter. Together, they are disrupting and threatening to undo the foundations of human society.
Having established a sense of urgency, Scharmer (2013) calls on leaders to enter a
journey of self and social discovery through the Theory U process. The downward journey is essentially a process of listening to our context and deconstructing old, outdated mental models.
At the bottom of the U, leaders connect with their true Self, discern their true vocation (their Work), and sense the future that “wants to emerge” (p. 163). The upward swing of the U involves working with others to co-create new ways of engaging the world and then embedding these changes in the fabric of our ecosystems. In other words, the downward journey is deconstructing the ego-systems of selfishness, and the upward journey is reconstructing eco-systems of shared thriving. For Scharmer, the path forward for individuals, for organizations, and for society at large is to enter this journey of deeply listening to each other and ourselves, next sensing the future solutions, and then helping the future become real among us.
Theoretical Foundations
Heifetz and Scharmer are both cartographers on the seas of change. They are mapping the
same seas using different language and different navigational methods, but they share several thought sources. Furthermore, they have developed their theories simultaneously with other explorers in the same territories. Before delineating their unique theoretical foundations, it may be helpful to describe what they share in common.
Shared foundations.
First, both adaptive leadership and theory U are influenced by systems thinking.
Northouse (2016) summarizes adaptive leadership’s connection with a systems perspective as follows: “This approach assumes that many problems people face are embedded in complicated interactive systems. Problems are viewed as complex with many facets, dynamic in that they can evolved and change, and connected to others in a web of relationships” (p. 259)
Peter Senge was an influential systemic thinker for both Scharmer and Heifetz. As
Heifetz (1994) explains that adaptive leadership is essentially helping organizations learn, he specifically references Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990). Scharmer (2013) summarizes The Fifth Discipline as the synthesis of “(1) system dynamics, (2) organizational change, and (3) the creative process” (p. 17). Senge’s observation that many practitioners were not able to utilize the five disciplines well launched Senge, Scharmer, and others on a massive interview project to determine what enables authentic innovation and systemic breakthrough. Presence, Theory U, and Leading from the Emerging Future are all direct outflows of this research prompted by Senge’s work (Scharmer, 2013).
Second, both Scharmer and Heifetz operate within the orbit of Complexity Leadership
Theory. Marion and Uhl-Bien (2007) summarize Complexity Theory: “the interaction of
different ‘things’ (people, ideas, chemicals, species, etc.), combined with various mechanisms that emerge when adaptive entities interact (catalysis, elaboration, alteration, interdependency, etc.), produce novel outcomes. Like natural selection, this process is driven by adaptive tension” (p. 293).
According to Northouse (2016), Adaptive Leadership “has been conceptualized as an
element or subset of Complexity Leadership Theory” (p. 260). As they prepare to unfold a model of Complexity Leadership Theory, Uhl-Bien, Marrion, and McKelvey (2007) reference Heifetz (1994) as they suggest that leadership is not only positional authority but also “an emergent, interactive dynamic— a complex interplay from which a collective impetus for action and change emerges when heterogeneous agents interact in networks in ways that produce new patterns of behavior or new modes of operating” (p. 299). Although Uhl-Bien and others build on Heifetz’s work with Adaptive Leadership, it seems that Heifetz offered an early expression within the same flow of Complexity Leadership Theory. Similarly, due to Scharmer’s (2013) vast reach (eight disconnects that span all of society), emphasis on social disruption, and encouragement of bottom-up leadership, Theory U and emerging leadership would seem to operate in a similar realm.
Third, both Adaptive Leadership and Theory U seem to be influenced by post-heroic leadership theory. Fletcher (2004) explains that Mary Parker Follett is recognized as the first recognized theorist in the post-heroic leadership movement for her acknowledgement nearly a century ago that different team members may provide the needed leadership depending on the demands of the situation. Fletcher (2004) offers three basic characteristics of post-heroic
leadership: (1) “Leadership as practice: shared and distributed,” (2) “Leadership asocial process: interactions,” (3) “Leadership as learning: outcomes” (p. 648-9). This definition resonates well with both Adaptive Leadership and Theory U. It’s not surprising then that Fletcher (2004) specifically references Heifetz in discussion about collaborative leadership and Scharmer in discussion about “assuming responsibility for the whole” (p. 649).
Heifetz demonstrates a post-heroic ethos in at least two specific ways. First, he constantly advocates that a leader must continually give the adaptive work back to the people: “you as a leader need to resist the reflex reaction of providing people with the answers. Instead, force yourself to transfer … much of the work and problem solving to others. If you don’t, real and
sustainable change won’t occur” (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002, p. 6). Second, Heifetz argues that the common idea of the leader as the primary source of vision is “bankrupt and dangerous …because it relies too much on the best guesses of a few people operating in isolation” (Flower, 1995, pp. 4-5). Instead, Heifetz advocates a humbler, more community-oriented approach:
“Articulating a vision for an organization or community has to start with an awful lot of listening, a lot of stimulating of debate and conversation, and then listening - to distill, to capture, the values” (Flower, 1995, p. 5). The adaptive leader helps the people discover, express, and fulfill their vision.
Scharmer (2013) advocates a post-heroic attitude as he calls leaders to move from “me” to “we” and from “ego” to “eco” (or self-centered to collective centered). In unpacking a group learning experience, Scharmer (2013) reflects: “We learned that individual skills and tools are usually overrated… Disconnected individuals became part of a co-creatie network of change-makers… Igniting this flame of inspired connections is the heart and essence of all education and leadership today. (p. 186)
Both Adaptive Leadership and Theory U evidence a great debt to Transformational
Leadership Theory. Northouse (2016) summarizes: “transformational leadership is the process whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower” (p. 162). Bass (1985) further clarified that transformational leadership “raises followers levels of consciousness … getting followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the team or organization and … moving followers to address higher level needs” (Northouse, 2016, p. 166).
Scharmer (2013) clearly echoes transformational leadership in his third step of Theory U:
Presencing, which involves moving from me to we, discerning our true Self, and moving forward toward our highest potential. Similarly, Heifetz (1994) carries forward Transformational Theory by directing followers motivation and attention (consciousness) toward the adaptive work of
addressing their highest level needs. Both Scharmer and Heifetz are attempting to cultivate connections that elevate the moral functioning of followers to improve society.
Adaptive Leadership Foundations.
Northouse (2016) notes four distinct conceptual roots for Heifetz’s Adaptive Leadership model: systems theory (as noted above), biological (adaptation as an evolutionary adjustment to a changing context), servant leadership (leadership as a service to the common good by helping
people solve important problems), and psychotherapy (providing a supportive environment and overcoming defense mechanisms). However, another key influence in Heifetz’s thinking is political theory. Many of Heifetz’s illustrations in Leadership Without Easy Answers (1994) come from the political arena, and his footnotes are replete with political theory or political history sources.
In fact, Heifetz (1994) cites Robert Tucker’s Politics as Leadership (1981) no less than 12 times, far more than any other single source. Tucker (1981) seems to have influenced Heifetz with several key concepts: (1) The leader is fundamentally framed by the direction and work of the people, rather than the power of the leader; (2) Leadership is an activity that can happen from multiple locations in the hierarchy; (3) Authentic leadership can happen with or without formal authority; and (4) Leadership is primarily oriented toward identifying and solving tough problems.
Although critical of traditional leadership studies’ emphasis on individual leaders, Heifetz intentionally builds on the tradition of previous scholars. Particularly in his footnotes of Leadership without Easy Answers (1994), Heifetz enters into dialogue with stalwart leadership scholars: Rost, Bass, Stodgill, Blake, Mouton, Argyris, Burns, Weber, Vroom, Jago, Blanchard, Yukl, Kotter, Morely, Jaques, and more. Sometimes, he calls them to account for their shortcomings; other times, he points out how they have influenced his own work. For example, referencing John. P. Kotter’s The Leadership Factor (1988), Heifetz (1994) writes: “Kotter goes farther than many business scholars in his view that vision is not only the product of the CEO alone, but the CEO’s effort to identify and articulate the long-term interests of the parties
involved” (p. 281).
Theory U Foundations.
Scharmer (2013) builds rather explicitly on Buddhist roots, even discussing personal
interviews with Buddhist zen masters. His emphasis on deepening consciousness, detachment, and reuniting mind and matter are key Buddhist concepts.
According to Liu (2007), “transcendental leadership … taps into the fundamental needs of both leader and follower for spiritual survival and aims to improve the spiritual development of both the leader and followers” (p. 4). Similarly, Hays (2013) sees Scharmer’s work within the tradition of Transcendental Leadership. Nearly echoing Scharmer (2013), Hays (2013) argues that, as transcendental leadership enables organizations to develop heightened consciousness, those organizations are able to peer beyond the horizon, to redefine themselves in relation to their context, and to access novel resources for innovative solutions. Following the movement of Scharmer’s Theory U (2007), Hays (2013) argues that transcendence empowers both inner vision (within the leader) and outer vision (toward the environment).
Scharmer also participated in a joint paper, “Exploring Transcendental Leadership” in which he summarized Theory U in dialog with three other Transcendental Leadership theorists (Barney, Wicks, Scharmer, and Pavlovich, 2015). In this shared article, Pavlovich identifies three foundational elements of Transcendental Leadership as (1) self-examination of ourselves and our relationship with the world, (2) subsuming our ego in the larger cause of social and ecological good, and (3) understanding our purpose as mutual transformation of self and society. Clearly, Scharmer’s (2013) emerging leadership theory operates within this transcendental leadership framework.
Key Similarities
First, both Scharmer and Heifetz are developing theories for dealing with discontinuous change and finding solutions to intransigent problems. As such, many of their techniques are similar.
Both engage in what Marcy (2015) calls “breaking mental models as a form of creative destruction” (p. 370). According to Marcy (2015) a fundamental task of radical social innovators is “sensebreaking” or disrupting the maladaptive mental models of those around them (causing the old models not to make sense anymore) so that people’s minds can develop a receptivity to new ideas. Scharmer (2013) calls this the process of unknowing, and Heifetz (1994) refers to these social reformers as creative deviants.
Given the tension inherent in this process, both naturally emphasize the importance of
safe space for adaptive work. Scharmer (2007) advises, “The leader must create or ‘hold a space’ that invites others in” (p. 11). For Heifetz (1994), the “holding environment” is a critical safe space that “contains and regulates the stresses that [adaptive] work generates” (p. 105).
Next, both Heifetz and Scharmer are deeply committed to listening. Scharmer’s (2007)
second step in the change process is “Co-sensing: Observe, Observe, Observe” (p. 6). He particularly advocates listening to people on the margins for whom the current system isn’t working. At all costs, the innovative leader must listen: “When innovating, we must go places ourselves, talk with people, and stay in touch with issues as they evolve. Without a direct link to the context of a situation, we cannot learn to see and act effectively” (Scharmer, 2007, p. 7).
Similarly, Heifetz (1994) advocates listening to partners who can correct and enrich our perceptions. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) even encourage leaders to cultivate listening relationships to better understand their enemies: “Have coffee once a week with the person most dedicated to seeing you fail” (p. 3).
Both Heifetz and Scharmer are committed to shared problem solving. Scharmer (2007) refers to this as “multi-stakeholder innovation” (p. 12), and his entire framework is littered with cooperation: co-initiating, co-sensing, co-creating, and co-evolving. Heifetz (1994) continually beats the drum that the leader cannot solve adaptive problems alone; the leader can only mobilize the people to do the work of discovering solutions to adaptive challenges.
Furthermore, both Heifetz and Scharmer encourage deep inner work for leaders. For
Scharmer (2007, 2013) this inner journey is fundamental to Theory-U. For Scharmer (2013), the emerging future “requires us to tap into a deeper level of our humanity… It is a future that we can sense, feel, and actualize by shifting the inner place from which we operate” (p. 1). On the other hand, for Heifetz (1994), the leader’s inner work has two primary functions: (1) to use one’s own emotional reactions as data to interpret the surrounding world, and (2) to stabilize oneself amid the raging seas of conflict and personal attack that will come during the process of adaptive change.
Last, both Heifetz and Scharmer acknowledge the spiritual roots of leadership. Scharmer
(2013) draws rather explicitly from a Buddhist framework, and he encourages mindfulness, transcendence, and spiritual discernment of the emerging future. Heifetz doesn’t advocate a particular religious tradition, but he does advise leaders to maintain their spirituality by retreating
regularly to “sanctuaries” for renewal and healing (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002).
Key Differences
One significant difference between the two theories is the role of the individual leader in the adaptive change process. Scharmer (2013) sees the individual subsumed in the whole, constantly co-sensing and co-creating. Although Heifetz (1994) wants the adaptive leader to give the work back to the people, the leader is also the initiator and sustainer of the action and attention.
Also, as indicated above, fueled by his Buddhist sources, Scharmer (2013) operates
within a New Age framework and even personifies the future as “wanting” to emerge. Therefore, the leadership process is more open-ended, with the leader unloading unnecessary baggage, observing the environment, and sensing what solutions and directions emerge (Scharmer, 2013).
Heifetz (1994), on the other hand, expresses no particular religious commitments. Although Heifetz is open to emotion and spirituality, he maintains a more rationalist perspective. Within Heifetz’s (1994) model, the leader is more proactive, identifying the key adaptive challenges and
guiding the people to face that reality, to discover solutions, and to implement them.
Next, Heifetz (1994) primarily works on the meso and macro levels of organizations or
nations. However, Scharmer (2013) connects micro, meso, and macro changes further outward to the mundo level — dealing with various crises for the global society.
Heifetz (1994) also places more emphasis on the necessity of conflict. Heifetz argues,
“We need to begin to see conflict as a good thing. Of course, it's dangerous… But most
organizations err on the side of suppressing conflict and maintaining such a low level of disequilibrium that no real learning takes place” (Flower, 1995, p. 6).
Along these lines, Heifetz extensively discusses how to cope with resistance to adaptive leadership. Heifetz (1994) explains, “Leaders and authority figures get attacked, dismissed, silenced, and sometimes assassinated because they come to represent loss, real or perceived” (p.236). Heifetz and Linsky (2002) summarize simply: “to lead is to live dangerously” and then delineate how to fight against “leadership’s dark side: the inevitable attempts to take you out of the game” (p. 1).
A Phenomenological Perspective
Ladkin (2010) would probably be modestly optimistic in regard to Adaptive Leadership
and Theory U. Because she views “leadership as a socially constructed phenomenon” (p. 2), she would probably appreciate Scharmer’s co-sensing and Heifetz’s insistence that the real work happens among the people. The complexity theory of leadership that undergirds both theories fits well a phenomenological perspective which takes into account: “quality rather than quantity,” “felt experience,” “the impact of absent or invisible aspects,” “emergent and obscure territories,” and multidimensional experiences centering on the person being led rather than the leader (Ladkin, 2010, pp. 6-7). Also, Ladkin (2010) refers to the slippery nature of leadership, defying definition, in part because leadership is decentralized and multidirectional. This perspective resonates with both Theory U and Adaptive leadership.
In fact, Ladkin resonates with Heifetz and Scharmer on multiple points. Ladkin’s (2010) tentative definition of leadership could fit surprisingly well with either theory: “collective mobilization towards an explicit or implicitly determined purpose” (p. 28). Similarly, Ladkin seems to echo Heifetz and Scharmer’s holding zone ideas: “leadership … can look forceful and outspoken and other times it is appreciated for its steady ability to hold a psychological space in which dialogue between people who hold vastly different views can safely occur” (p. 32). Also, Ladkin (2010) resonates with Heifetz’s (1994) distinction between leadership and authority:
“One of the outcomes of [Gibb’s] research was to distinguish between ‘headship,’ held by the person in a group with the highest level of hierarchical power and authority; and leadership, recognized as a process of influence which readily moves between groups of individuals focused on completing a task” (p. 35). When Ladkin (2010) reflects on the Hurricane Katrina crisis — “this situation called for the capacity to deeply perceive what was going on in the hear and now” (p. 50) — she could be expressing Scharmer’s (2013) deep co-sensing or Heifetz’s (1994) testing of reality.
Ladkin (2010) sounds like Heifetz and Scharmer when she advises leaders to pay
attention to their intuition: “When data just ‘does not add up,’ when a situation evokes a feeling of disquiet, curiosity or unease … pause. One of the invisible, intangible, negative presences at the heart of the particular ‘leadership moment’ … might be trying to reveal itself” (p. 53).
Scharmer (2013) would call this “attending to the crack” (p. 23).
Lastly, Heifetz and Scharmer seem to actively employ the concept of “reversibility.”
Ladkin (2010) explains, “In confronting another’s perceptions, I become more aware of my own predispositions and limits” (p. 62). Heifetz (1994) encourages leaders to actively monitor how they are being perceived to discern their level of authority or political capital at a given moment.
For Scharmer (2013) one of the key steps in discerning our true Self is co-sensing reality with those around us. In summary, both Heifetz and Scharmer employ a phenomenological perspective of leadership and resonate with many of Ladkin’s points on the process of leadership.
Research Summary
Both Adaptive Leadership and Theory U are primarily theory-based models without much empirical research. Northouse (2016) notes that, even though Heifetz laid out the
conceptual framework for Adaptive Leadership more than two decades ago, not much work has
been done to test his ideas. Similarly, Theory U suffers from a paucity of empirical research.
Dihn, et al (2014) conducted a helpful literature review of ten top tier leadership journals from 2000-2012. They found only five articles specifically on Adaptive Leadership, composing less than 1% of all articles, and ranking 35th in overall theories discussed. Furthermore, all of the
articles on adaptive leadership focused on theory development, with no articles offering quantitative research. On the other hand, Complexity Leadership Theory faired slightly better with 23 articles, making up 3% of all articles, ranking #23 (Dihn, et al, 2014, p. 40). It is unclear how the authors might classify Scharmer’s work, possibly as “Transcendental Leadership” (receiving no coverage) or as “Leading for Innovation, Creativity, and Change” (receiving significant coverage, ranking 9th overall) (Dihn, et al, 2014, p. 40).
It seems that the unwieldy nature of these models of complexity theory leadership have
made measurement-based studies impractical (Schneider & Somers, 2006). Leadership scholars are still in the process of developing these models further to facilitate more direct research.
However, several scholars are attempting to offer some structure to Complexity Leadership Theory. For example, Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007) propose a model of Complexity Leadership Theory that “includes three entangled leadership roles (i.e., adaptive leadership, administrative leadership, and enabling leadership) that reflect a dynamic relationship between the bureaucratic, administrative functions of the organization and the emergent, informal dynamics of complex adaptive systems” (p. 298). Building on the work of Heifetz (1994) and others, Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007) theorize:
Adaptive leadership is an emergent, interactive dynamic that is the primary source by which adaptive outcomes are produced in a firm. Administrative leadership is the actions of individuals and groups in formal managerial roles who plan and coordinate organizational activities (the bureaucratic function). Enabling leadership serves to enable (catalyze) adaptive dynamics and help manage the entanglement between administrative and adaptive leadership… These roles are entangled within and across people and
actions. (p. 306)
They suggest three possible methodological strategies for studying Complexity Leadership Theory: qualitative evaluations, agent based modeling, and system dynamic modeling (Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey, 2007).
Also exploring Complexity Leadership Theory, Schneider and Somers (2006) propose that “leadership might influence emergent self-organization through the mediating variables of organizational identity and social movements” (p. 362). They suggest these mediating mechanisms might be measured through “dynamic systems simulation” and analysis of “artificial neural networks” (p. 360).
Similarly, scholars are continuing to develop working models of Transcendent
Leadership. For example, Brown (2015) adopts and modifies Scharmer’s (2007) Theory U into a multi-stakeholder model for systemic change he calls: “Bridge Building for Social
Transformation” (p. 34-35). Reworking the steps from Theory U, Bridge Building has five steps:
“(1) Compelling, locally generated goals, (2) Cross-boundary leadership systems, (3) Generative theories of change, (4) Systems that enable and protect innovation, (5) Investment in institutionalizing change” (p. 38). However, a few students have begun to apply quantitative research to Transcendental Leadership. Liu (2007) theorizes that transcendental leadership is an evolutionary step beyond both transformational and transactional leadership. As a PhD student, Liu (2007) offers some initial data to suggest that transcendental leadership increases followers intrinsic motivation more effectively than either transactional or transformational leadership. In addition, inspired by charmer’s Theory U and emerging future, Kragulj (2014) conducted a masters thesis study on how “interacting with the envisioned future” might enable people to identify their true needs (p.38). The initial data (both qualitative and quantitative) yielded promising results for how imagining the future in this way may connect participants with their deeply felt needs (Kragulj, 2014). These studies are encouraging steps. However, they are incomplete (focusing only on motivation and need) and unreliable (insufficiently rigorous). More research is needed to validate Theory U’s assumptions and efficacy.
Application
Adaptive Leadership and Theory U are practitioner-based theories, so they live and breathe in the “real world.” Leaders who read Heifetz’s work will see themselves on nearly every page and will find practical tips for dealing with both day-to-day situations and career-defining opportunities. For example, when this author (Broward, 2017) explained Adaptive Leadership theory in a clergy mentoring workshop in northern California, pastors immediately recognized that their churches and their district are facing adaptive challenges. In their increasingly postChristian context, the old modes of “doing church” are increasingly and glaringly outdated and ineffective. The follow-up discussion demonstrated that the pastors believe Adaptive Leadership will be helpful in guiding their churches through this change process.
Scharmer’s emerging future leadership is more intangible, but it still offers the courageous reader a realistic process of deconstruction, introspection, and relaunch. Furthermore, Scharmer’s insistence on cooperating with others in the co-sensing and co-creating process will serve leaders well. It may be possible to merge these two theories into a transcendental complexity leadership theory. With coalition-based reality testing and deep introspection, organizations may be able to imagine new futures together and then prototype adaptive solutions to implement societal change. In a world in which “we collectively create results that nobody wants” (Scharmer, 2013, p. 2), this creative destruction and transcendental adaptation may be our best hope. In summary, in an increasingly complex era, complexity leadership theories are essential and practical survival tools.
References
Perhaps some of us can agree that the United States of America (USA) was built upon racist beliefs, actions, and legislation. For example, the presidential White House was created through the use of slave labor. Not only that, but our national heritage enacted legislation that codified racist beliefs into law. For example, the 20th century Federal Housing Act (FHA) created the modern-day mortgage and housing market; but only for white people. It effectively segregated cities by refusing to rent houses or allow mortgages to African Americans.1
The years of slavery, Cold War, Jim Crow, and the 2001 Patriot Act, among countless
others, have further codified racism into the USA. Christians throughout the history of the USA are just as guilty of racism as non-Christians. The perpetuation of racism has stained the hands of the people of the United States, including Christians who have participated in founding the Atlantic, race-based slave trade.2 We, the church, can imagine a world where the Kingdom of God has come fully, where racism no longer viciously harms our neighbors, and where no binary such as oppressor and oppressed exists. Yet, this is far from the truth, even within the Church of the Nazarene.
Although Christians are often quick to deny the current existence of racism, it has never been eradicated; for it exists today in hidden, dangerous forms throughout our society. One current form of racism is the tendency to see other people as ‘non-colorized.’ This form of racism occurs when people believe that to eradicate racism, one must deny that the color of one’s skin holds intrinsic significance. While this might not initially sound like traditional racism, it
still creates the same injustice in our society and churches. It has deep power to harm people, without regard to the color of their skin.
When a person’s race and color affect their opportunity for equality and just living,
purposefully eliminating these factors (“I don't see Korean or American, I just see you as an individual”) adds to the racial inequality persons of color already feel and
experience…color-blind racism becomes more perilous because it is so inherently embedded in our daily lives and discourse and comes from persons as close as our
friends.3
It is vital that churches, pastors, and all Christians recognize that the color of one’s skin is deeply intertwined with their personhood. All people, including their skin color, are created in the imago Dei and the church’s ability to recognize that fact will have profound consequences.
The Church of the Nazarene is not unsusceptible to racism because racism knows no borders. Corporately and individually, churches and pastors in the USA are influenced by racism and are often unknowing participants in its structures. Our churches can no longer ignore the effects that racism has on our people and our pastors.
‘What about today?’ we ask. Christians may proudly declare that racism no longer has a
foundation, especially in our churches. Slavery has been outlawed and our country has, for the most part, amended its racial differences. However, “Neither the secular belief in human equality – ‘all men are created equal’ – nor the Christian teaching that all are created in God’s image has
prevented this evil. On the contrary, perverted and inadequate forms of these beliefs have been used to justify it.”4 Racism is an issue that must continue to be addressed. Unless we look closely and critically at racism within our churches, we will continue to perpetuate it.
If we hear a news story about a black man slain by police and assume he must have done something wrong we should notice how our conjecture echoes the casual response of many European Americans to lynching and investigate racial inequity in police violence. If the media demonizes a black mother on welfare, we should notice how
this feeds upon the stereotype of black women as hypersexualized and make it our
business to discover that the typical welfare recipient is white. And because we are still benefiting from the legacy of slavery, we must listen to people of color. Both in individual reading and research and in actual conversations, we need to ask when, where, and how people of color experience discrimination, and we must believe what they tell us. This is hard, exhausting work. But only by relinquishing what we think is our authority to decide how situations will be addressed… by listening to people of color and following their lead, can we move forward toward a better future for … our churches.5
Racism surrounds us and has deeply influenced common humanity in the USA. In many cases, and for certain races, participating in racism is as quotidian as breathing– happening without our conscious awareness. Is there any hope for the justice of the oppressed? A church must pay deep
attention to that which is happening in its building and in the lives of its members.
Churches must think deeper; for it matters what we think. The life and teachings of Jesus form a part of the Church of the Nazarene’s understanding of interracial reconciliation. The Gospel of Mark shares the story of Jesus’ healing of a blind man. Mark says: “He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village; and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid
his hands on him, he asked him, “Can you see anything?” 24 And the man looked up and said, “I can see people, but they look like trees, walking.” 25 Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.”6
One commentary said:
…it would appear that the man once saw but had progressively gone blind, in that when
partially healed he shows a recognition of what trees look like (v. 24). At the first stage of his healing, the man appears still to have a severe case of nearsightedness, with things at any distance looking quite blurry.7
May we, as a denomination, not become blind to the need for interracial reconciliation. May our sight be made progressively sharper, and not progressively blurry, as we participate in the restoration of the Kingdom of God both now and in the future.
Churches must speak clearer; for it matters what we say. Our language shares our deepest held theology. Most importantly, our subconscious use of language shares the implicit beliefs of a congregation. Language is a phonetic form of a set of beliefs that may never be explicitly stated yet is still complexly woven into the core existence of a church. “To make a theological statement such as ‘Your Koreanness matters to God,’ highlights the particularity of a person
while avoiding an implicit message that God really might not see them as in the statement “You matter to God.”8 The fact that someone is Korean or that someone is American matters deeply to God. Our ethnicity forms the way we participate in the imago Dei and must be valuable in the
sight of pastors.
Social justice must begin, and actively continue to be practiced, within our churches and within the very pews of our buildings. But, do we really know the people in our churches? Do pastors understand the significance that one’s birthplace has on his or her current understanding of the Gospel? The work of a pastor is not just to preach, teach, and lead, but to know and
understand his or her members of the church.
Ethnography is a social science that deeply studies other cultures, specifically of cultures unfamiliar to the ethnographer. “Rather than studying people, ethnography means learning from people.”9 The ethnographer is one who chooses to come into deep relationship with another culture through the primary means of formal interviews, informal participant observation, and concentrated study. It parallels the Christian understanding of the incarnation in that ethnographers seek to become identified with someone who is different from themselves. James Spradley, one of the leading voices of ethnography, says that:
Ethnographers adopt a particular stance toward people with whom they work. By word
and by action, in subtle ways and direct statements, they say to others, ‘I want to understand the world from your point of view. I want to know what you know in the way you know it. I want to understand the meaning of your experience, to walk in your shoes, to feel things as you feel them, to explain things as you explain them. Will you become my teacher and help me understand?’ This frame of reference is a radical departure from treating people as either subjects, respondents, or actors.10
Ethnography is all too often relegated to the task of skilled academicians or social science researchers. However, ethnographic research can and must also be the work of pastors. There is no better way to understand the life of a local church than through ethnography. Mary Clark Moschella is an ethnographer who wrote a significantly valuable guide in leading pastors to
practice ethnography as a means of reconciliation. A pastoral ethnography takes the traditional elements of ethnographic research and applies them towards a congregational setting. This type of research will allow a pastor to begin to understand the effects of racism within the church.
A pastoral ethnography is the initial step to social justice within a church because it
removes the distance caused by racism. It brings the pastor into deep, incarnational relationship with church participants. “Human relationships are at the heart of pastoral ethnography.”11 When we know those around us we are much more equipped to instill patterns of justice in our churches. Pastors can continue to develop these important relationships while looking deeper at beliefs and attitudes.
Ethnographic congregational research will yield high results for both pastor and lay
person. For example, this research process will: “shine a light on what matters to people in a community,”12 “create safe spaces in which honest opinions can be shared,”13 “help people heal and free them to move with strength and vigor”14 by telling their story. Or it can be “a vehicle for honest sharing about the group’s past and thoughtful discernment of God’s presence in the group’s story, which helps to get the group ‘unstuck.’”15 These results will allow the church to become a fuller representation of the Kingdom of God on earth. It will strengthen the people of the church in ways that are even beyond simple identification.
Many people, though often filled with good intentions, are immobilized in the face of
seemingly insurmountable injustice. Many churches within this denomination have done well to begin the conversation on interracial reconciliation. These conversations are beautiful steps toward healing and justice. However, in many churches it is past time to take the next step through tangible acts of justice-making. This step begins with pastors in the local church. A written pastoral ethnography will be the foundation of a church’s ability to implement justice and the love of God.
The church has resources at its disposal, if only we would utilize them. We can trust the
social sciences. We can study and listen to those around us. Most importantly, the Church of the Nazarene can practice ethnography.
Paying attention to the sights, sounds, smells, and tastes related to group life will give the pastor a fuller and richer understanding of the complexity and variety of cultural stories within a congregation or a community. The pastor as learner can better ‘read’ some of the shared knowledges and habits [of the church]. In these ways, the practice of ethnographic research can become a form of holistic pastoral listening that attends to the range of meanings, experiences, desires, and theologies that congregations express not only through their words but also through their lives.16
The implications of this type of research are incredibly valuable as they reveal hidden truths and illuminate racism. When a pastor and a church seeks to learn from, and not just of, its people, justice will be enacted.
Today, the Church of the Nazarene stands at a unique crossroads between action and passivity. The way in which the Church responds to initial reconciliation is directly related to its ability to enact lifelong justice or injustice. This past summer, the Church of the Nazarene recently convened at General Assembly. A resolution was passed that spoke passionately against the injustice experienced by so many throughout the world. A part of the resolution on “Affirmation and Declaration of Human Freedoms” says:
Built upon our Wesleyan-Holiness Christian heritage and call to holiness, we make the following affirmations:
1. We affirm that the pursuit of justice, reconciliation, and freedom is at the heart of God’s holiness being reflected in people. We commit ourselves and our ecclesial resources to working for the abolition of all forms of slavery, trafficking, and oppression, and to participate in intentional networks, conversations, and actions that provide hopeful alternatives.
2. We affirm that churches should faithfully respond to the impulse of God’s holy love by working for God’s reign to be ever more visible. We are called to be faithful witnesses in thought, word, and deed, to the holy God who hears the cries of those who are oppressed…
3. We affirm that acting justly involves the compassionate care for those in our immediate surroundings and also being able to name injustice, and denounce the powers
that cause it…God’s justice calls us beyond equal treatment, tolerance of one another’s
differences, or simply reversing the role of oppressed and oppressor.
This beautiful language of justice and reconciliation is officially codified into the Church of the Nazarene and will be included in the new Manual of the Church of the Nazarene in the beginning of 2018. This declaration forms our renewed commitment of congregational justice.
Racism, indeed, exists societally and congregationally. It portrays itself in individualistic and systemic ways. There is no escaping from racism, even in our churches, until the Kingdom of God has fully come. As Wesleyans, we live in the tension of what is and what ought to be – between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet.’ We eagerly anticipate the full restoration of God’s kingdom on earth as it is heaven. Yet, although we wait, we do not wait complacently. We do not have to proceed into situations, churches, and cultures with a blurry, confused perception as the blind man in the Gospel of Mark. When the Church of the Nazarene becomes overwhelmed with injustice, may we remember the words of the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. 14 Seek good and not evil, that you may live; and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you, just as you have said.15 Hate evil and love good,
and establish justice in the gate17
May our churches be the gates of which the prophet Amos spoke. We must seek the social
justice of all people, including both the minorities and the majorities in the interaction of interracial reconciliation. If we desire to see justice in action throughout our world, we must realize that often it begins at the local church with individual pastors. “If God’s image is present in each of us and related to our human dignity, then when we insult one another, we insult God.
Rightly understood, enacting or condoning racism is not only a sin; it is heresy.”18 A pastoral ethnography is a tangible means of bringing about a just congregation because it calls the pastor to see, hear, understand, and relate to the people within the church in the deepest and most serious ways possible.
1 Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic. June 2014. Accessed October 10, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/.
2 K. Teel, Racism and the Image of God (Place of publication not identified: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 4.
3 Mark Hearn, “Color-Blind Racism, Color-Blind Theology, and Church Practices,” Religious Education 104, no. 3 (2009): 276-277, doi:10.1080/00344080902881298.
4 K. Teel, Racism and the Image of God (Place of publication not identified: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 2.
5 Ibid., 36.
6 Mark 8:22-26. In Holy Bible: NRSV, New Revised Standard Version. New York: Harper Bibles, 2007.
7 Larry W. Hurtado, Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 134.
8 Mark Hearn, “Color-Blind Racism, Color-Blind Theology, and Church Practices,” Religious Education 104, no. 3 (2009): 284, doi:10.1080/00344080902881298.9 James P. Spradley, The Ethnographic Interview (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2016), 3.
10 Ibid., 34.
11 Mary Clark. Moschella, Ethnography as a Pastoral Practice: an Introduction (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2008), 86.
12 Ibid., 34.
13 Ibid., 35.
14 Ibid., 36.
15 Ibid., 36.
16 Mary Clark. Moschella, Ethnography as a Pastoral Practice: an Introduction (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2008), 10.
17 Amos 5:14-15. In Holy Bible: NRSV, New Revised Standard Version. New York: Harper
Bibles, 2007.
18 K. Teel, Racism and the Image of God (Place of publication not identified: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2016), 37.
7. Vinicius Couto, TEOLOGIA DOS REFORMADORES: UMA INTRODUÇÃO HISTÓRICA AOS PRINCIPAIS PENSAMENTOS DE LUTERO, ZWINGLIO E CALVINO
TEOLOGIA DOS REFORMADORES: UMA INTRODUÇÃO HISTÓRICA AOS PRINCIPAIS
PENSAMENTOS DE LUTERO, ZWINGLIO E CALVINO
Vinicius Couto1
Resumo
Os pensamentos desenvolvidos pelos reformadores merecem a atenção de todo estudioso da História da Teologia. As contribuições de Lutero, Zwinglio e Calvino são vívidas para a Igreja do século XXI. A ânsia desses homens em voltar à apostolicidade da Igreja Primitiva, bem como restaurar o cristocentrismo no verdadeiro culto são inegáveis realidades que perfaziam a natureza da Reforma.
Não é nosso objetivo esgotar os ensinos desses reformadores, mas introduzir as principais doutrinas que, depois de formuladas, mudaram a realidade da Igreja de Cristo. Ademais, buscaremos no presente
artigo, compreender não apenas o pensamento teológico desses ícones do protestantismo, mas compreender o que os motivou historicamente a batalhar pela fé que uma vez nos foi dada.
Palavras-chave: Reformadores; Lutero; Zwinglio; Calvino
Abstract
The thoughts developed by the Reformers deserve attention of all researcher of the History of Theology. The contributions from Luther, Zwingli and Calvin are vivid for the 21st century Church.
These men's eagerness to return to the apostolicity of the Early Church, as well as to restore Christocentrism in the true worship, are undeniable realities that make up the nature of the Reformation. It is not our goal to exhaust the teachings of these reformers, but to introduce the main
doctrines that, once formulated, have changed the reality of the Church of Christ. In addition, we will seek in this article, not only to understand the theological thinking of these icons of Protestantism, but what historically motivated them to battle for the faith that once was given to us.
Keywords: Reformers; Luther; Zwinglio; Calvin.
A Origem da Igreja
Numa reunião inusitada do Senhor Jesus nas regiões de Cesaréia de Filipe, Ele, como sempre, trouxe à tona mais um tema inesperado aos seus discípulos: “Quem dizem os homens ser o Filho do homem?”, começou logo o Mestre perguntando. Embora o evangelista Mateus relate uma resposta
quase instantânea por parte dos discípulos, podemos conjecturar que, após tal pergunta eles olharam-se espantados e temerosos de responder erroneamente à questão do Mestre, até que o primeiro deles tomou a iniciativa e respondeu que as pessoas achavam que Ele era a reencarnação de João Batista.
Uma vez que a fila havia sido puxada, o segundo deles complementou dizendo que havia os que achavam ser Ele a reencarnação de Elias. De repente, outros nomes também foram lembrados: as pessoas sugeriam, ainda, a reencarnação de Jeremias ou de outros profetas (cfMt 16.13,14).
A primeira parte dessa reunião estava finalizada. Jesus parte então, para a segunda etapa.
Parafraseando a passagem de Mateus 16.15, seria como se Ele estivesse dizendo: “Tudo bem. As pessoas que não me acompanham, não conhecem minha identidade corretamente e se confundem em resposta errada seria um profundo vexame. Mas, Pedro, revelado pelo Pai, trouxe a resposta correta sobre a natureza e propósito do Verbo que se fez carne (muito embora ele ainda não tivesse
compreendido esses significados): “Tu és o Cristo, o Filho do Deus vivo.” (Mt 16.16b).
Sequencialmente, Jesus aborda a futura instituição da Igreja, revelando-se como a pedra fundamental que os construtores rejeitariam (Sl 118.22; Mt 21.42; 1 Co.11). Esta ekklesia, seria edificada com outras pedras menores (Ef 2.20; 1 Pe 2.5), as quais dariam corpo ao Templo do Espírito Santo (1 Co 3.16,17).2 Sendo originada no dia de Pentecostes3, a Igreja dava seus primeiros passos dirigida pelo Espírito Santo. No primeiro concílio de Nicéia (325 d.C.), os bispos adotaram quatro marcas distintas para definir a Igreja: una, santa, católica (universal) e apostólica. Essa declaração foi revista e aceita no primeiro concílio de Constantinopla (381 d.C.).
A Igreja Pós-nicena
Por volta do ano 500 d.Ca Igreja era invadida por ideais que eram totalmente contrários ao Evangelho, principalmente a concepção e o uso de poder que estavam em rigoroso contraste com a espécie de poder mostrado na vida e nos ensinamentos de Jesus. O cristianismo estava sendo
seriamente afetado pela doença fatal do Império Romano. Desde então, os bispos tendiam a tornar-se magnatas não diferindo grandemente dos senhores seculares, exceto em seus títulos e em algumas de suas funções.
Não era difícil ouvir de bispos que eram glutões, beberrões e lascivos. Muitos acabaram sucumbindo. As últimas décadas do século IX foram anos de profundas trevas tanto para Igreja Católica quanto para a Europa Ocidental. No ano de 1095, a primeira cruzada foi promovida pelo papa Urbano II e ainda muitas outras (até o final do século XIII) seriam empreendidas com o apoio ou senão com a promoção de um pontífice romano.4
Não é surpresa e tampouco segredo que desde que a Igreja se ajuntou ao Estado no final do século IV, a decadência espiritual foi enormemente progressiva. O frade franciscano Guilherme de Ockham (1288-1347), além de filósofo, lógico e teólogo escolástico, denuncia em sua Opus Nonaginta Dierum que, os papas eram corruptos, hereges, impuros, sujos e dados ao pecado5.
Alguns anos depois de Ockham, líderes da Igreja Católica Apostólica Romana reuniam-se para decretar a sentença do pre-reformador John Huss. No concílio de Constança (1.414-1.418), Huss fora condenado à fogueira e queimado vivo no dia 06 de Julho de 1.415. Além desse trágico episódio, John Wycliff, predecessor de Huss, fora declarado herético no dia 04 de Maio de 1.415, sob o decreto de ter seus restos mortais exumados e suas obras literárias queimadas.
A morte de Huss foi humilhante. Cortaram-lhe o cabelo e fizeram uma cruz em sua cabeça. Por último, puseram uma coroa de papel que estava decorada com três demônios e o enviaram para a fogueira. Antes de ser queimado ele teve de passar por uma pira onde queimavam seus livros. Mais uma vez pediram que se retratasse, mas Huss negou com veemência. Chegando ao lugar de execução, não lhe foi permitido falar ao povo, mas a oração que fez enquanto estava sendo amarrado ao poste chegou ao ouvido de todos, dizendo: “Senhor Jesus, por ti sofro com paciência esta morte cruel. RogoTe que tenhas misericórdia dos meus inimigos”.
No último momento ainda tentaram induzi-lo a assinar uma retratação, porém, sem sucesso.
Então Huss levantou sua voz e disse: “Tudo o que escrevi e assinei foi com o fim de livrar as almas do poder do demônio, e livrá-las da tirania do pecado; e sinto alegria em selar com o meu sangue o que
escrevi e assinei”.
Depois de dizer isto, acenderam a fogueira, e envolto pelas chamas proclamou em alto e bom som as seguintes palavras: “Hoje vocês estão matando um ganso, mas daqui a cem anos Deus levantará um cisne, o qual vocês não poderão matá-lo”. Huss morreu cantando hinos a Deus.6 Sua palavra profética se cumpriu em 31 de Outubro de 1.517, quando Martinho Lutero publicou suas 95 teses na porta da igreja no castelo de Wittenberg, protestando contra diversos pontos doutrinários do
catolicismo.
O Surgimento dos Reformadores
É nesse ínterim – de uma crise radical da teologia medieval – que se inicia a Reforma
Protestante. Martinho Lutero (1.483-1.546) é retratado pela historiografia católica como um monge louco e um psicótico demoníaco que tentava derrubar os pilares da Igreja Mãe. Em contrapartida, os protestantes o veem como um Sansão demolindo o templo dos filisteus ou até mesmo um quinto
evangelista.7
A iniciativa de Lutero, inicialmente, ao afixar suas 95 teses na porta do castelo de Wittenberg,
não era de ir contra o papado romano, mas de ajuda-lo a rever os prejuízos que as indulgencias estavam causando. Além disso, o precursor da Reforma passava por momentos de intensos questionamentos.
Ele não concebia a ideia de uma teologia helenizada. Antes, estas ideias deveriam ser alienadas da teologia, afinal, o que Jerusalém tinha a ver com Atenas, a igreja com a academia e a fé com a razão?8
Sem falar nas indulgências, as quais ocuparam maior espaço em suas 95 teses.
Lutero passou a ser assolado por dúvidas concernentesà salvação. A “justiça de Deus” (cf. Rm 1.17) aterrorizava sua alma e o levava a crer num Deus ontologicamente incorreto. Lutero orava, jejuava, fazia vigílias e boas obras, mas conduzido por uma motivação errada. O correto entendimento sobre a justificação levou-o a um novo patamar, que ele mesmo descreve como sendo seu novo nascimento. Desde então, Lutero passou a ser uma dunamis (dinamite) nas mãos de Deus!
Ulrich Zwinglio (1.484-1.531), por sua vez, chocou-se com a forte cultura supersticiosa dos fieis e da pratica simoníaca do clero quando foi enviado para a abadia de Einsiedeln, na Suíça, como capelão. A adoração a Maria e aos santos, além da vida celibatária, também o incomodaram. Após ler a tradução do Novo Testamento feita por Erasmo, Zwinglio enxergou que somente a Bíblia possui a doutrina necessária para a salvação e viu a necessidade de deixar de lado os ensinamento humanos e “aprender a doutrina de Deus diretamente de Sua própria Palavra”.9 Partindo desse pressuposto,
Zwuinglio elaborou 67 artigos de fé.
Quando Lutero afixou as 95 teses na porta da igreja no castelo de Wittenberg, João Calvino (1.509-1.564) tinha oito anos de idade. Vendo dificuldade para que houvesse reforma em Paris, Calvinomudou-se para Basel, na Suíça. Lá, ele escreveu e publicou suas institutas no ano de 1536. Calvino
contou ter passado pelo o que ele mesmo denominou de “súbita conversão”, dizendo que outrora estava “teimosamente preso às superstições do papado” e que não era possível desvencilhar-se desse profundo
lamaçal, mas que Deus havia subjugado seu coração da obstinação de sua idade para a docilidade e conhecimento da verdadeira piedade,mediante Sua providência secreta.10
A Teologia dos Reformadores
Doravante, analisaremos de forma introdutória os pensamentos dos três reformadores já abordados. Para facilitar a organização e sistematização das doutrinas que serão comentadas, seguir-se-á uma exposição lógica de cada assunto. Para Hagenbach, um método de organização doutrinária eficiente é o sintético, o qual “começa do conceito mais elevado, Deus, continua com o homem, Cristo, a redenção e, por último, o fim de todas as coisas”.11 No presente artigo, tal método será adaptado.
Escrituras
Para Lutero, a Bíblia, mesmo escrita por homens, era divinamente inspirada em cada frase e palavra. Ele a chamava de “livro do Espírito Santo” e “o veículo do Espírito Santo”.12 Ela tinha o lugar de primazia. Era a norma determinadora e não norma determinada para todas as decisões de fé e da vida. Uma afirmação sem fundamento escriturístico era tida como mera opinião, não passível de crença. Embora Lutero afirmasse o princípio Sola Scriptura, isso não queria dizer que ele desprezava ou inutilizava os credos e a tradição dos pais da igreja. Ele apenas rejeitou uma doutrina de dupla fonte de autoridade, apenas as Escrituras possuíam tal lugar em sua teologia. Os escritos dos pais da igreja
poderiam ser consultados, mas deveriam ser julgados pela Palavra de Deus. Se a interpretação deles estivesse baseada nas Escrituras, e se as Escrituras provassem que essa é a forma pela qual deveriam ser interpretadas, então a interpretação estaria certa. Se não fosse esse o caso, não deveria ter crédito.
Zwinglio cria na total inspiração das Escrituras e chegou até mesmo a recorrer aos escritos de Agostinho para defender o principio sola sciptura. A Bíblia, portanto, é a verdadeira e única fonte de autoridade. Sobre isso, ele disse que “haverá um dia em que nem Jerônimo e nem qualquer outro vai
significar muito entre os cristãos, exceto as Escrituras somente”.13
As Escrituras foram grandemente exaltadas por Calvino. Para ele, a Palavra de Deus é como um par de lentes que “coletando-nos na mente conhecimento de Deus de outra sorte confuso, dissipada a escuridão, mostra-nos em diáfana clareza o Deus verdadeiro”.14 É a escola do Espírito Santo, a Palavra
inspirada de Deus, sem nada de origem humana misturada, embora revelada em linguagem humana.
Pecado
Para Luteroa imagem fiel de Deus sem pecado no homem antes da queda, designava-os (Adão e Eva) como seres puros e saudáveis, com os sentidos extremamente aguçados (podiam, por exemplo, enxergar através de uma parede ou ouvir a mais de 3 km de distância). Para Lutero, portanto, o pecado era uma rebelião fervente, não meramente uma fraqueza passiva ou ausência do bem. O pecado é algo perverso, que vicia o ser e domina com uma energia incontrolável. Após a queda, o homem ficou dominado pelo pecado, sua vontade está curvada sobre si mesma, escravizada e manchada com o mal em todas as suas ações.15 O pecado devastou a humanidade, a qual possui um livre-arbítrio nominal para a salvação, isto é, a vontade humana possui poder apenas para as coisas inferiores ou terrestres. O poder de decisão salvífica está corrompido pelo pecado e cativo por satanás. Em outras palavras,
Lutero sustentava que, o que comete pecado é escravo deste (Jo 8.34). Lutero analisava o homem sob três aspectos: 1) é criatura de Deus, constituído de carne e alma viva, feito desde o início como imagem fiel de Deus sem pecado, destinado a gerar descendentes, bem como dominar sobre todas as coisas e nunca morrer; 2) essa criatura, porém, após a queda de Adão, está sujeita ao poder do diabo, ou seja, do pecado e da morte – ambos os males que não podem ser superados por suas próprias forças e que são
eternos e 3) ela pode ser libertada somente através do Filho de Deus Cristo Jesus (desde que creia nele) e presenteada com a vida eterna.
Para Zwinglio, a humanidade havia se afastado completamente de Deus, preferindo as criaturas em detrimento do Criador.16Ele criticava austeramente a idolatria aos santos.17 Ele aceitava a doutrina da predestinação e sendo assim, concordava que o pecado era uma imperfeição que devastou a natureza humana, inclinando-a para a pecaminosidade e impedindo-a de escolher a Deus.
Para Calvino, o homem fora criado com um sentido da divindade intrínseco, mas sofreu duras perdas com a queda. A imagem de Deus no homem o torna inescusável diante de nossas idolatrias e rebeliões. Nossa natureza foi completamente afetada e vivemos em um estado de depravação total.
Embora desfigurados da imagem e semelhança originais da criação, esse estado não completamente apagado da descendência de Adão. Todavia, suas virtudes e dons excelentes não valem de nada para obter a justificação. Assim como os dois reformadores acima, Calvino dizia que o livre-arbítrio do homem foi seriamente afetado e que em nossacondição decaída, “a razão natural nunca poderia (nos) guiar (...) a Cristo”.18 O homem é mau, incapaz de figurar ao lado de piolhos, pulgas e pragas. É como um “vermezinho de cinco pés [de altura]”.19 Ele definiu o pecado original como sendo a “hereditária depravação e corrupção de nossa natureza, difundida por todas as partes da alma, que, em primeiro
lugar, [nos] faz condenáveis à ira de Deus [e] (...) produz em nós obras que a Escritura chama de ‘obras da carne’”.20 Nem mesmo as crianças estão isentas de culpa, pois carregam dentro de si a “semente do
pecado”. Calvino enxergava no pecado de Adão a perda da retidão original (privação) e a propensão poderosa de transbordar todo tipo de mal e delito (depravação).21
Salvação
Uma vez que o homem pende para o pecado e não possui habilidade para escolher a Deus e Sua salvação, somente uma ação sobrenatural pode desencadear a restauração do livre-arbítrio, gerando a fé salvífica. Lutero ilustra a ação da graça de Deus da seguinte forma: “a vontade [do homem] é como um
animal entre dois cavaleiros. Se Deus o monta, ele quer ir e vai aonde Deus quer (...) Se satanás o monta, ele quer ir e vai aonde satanás quer”.22Lutero cria, anteriormente, influenciado pela teologia
agostininiana que, o homem era curado progressivamente do pecado mediante uma graça gradual.
Todavia, após seu entendimento sobre a justificação pela fé, ele percebeu que nos apropriamos da graça de Deus e então, somos declarados justos. Em outras palavras, ele abandonou a visão de uma figura medicinal da graça para o entendimento forense de uma justificação imputada no crente. Embora
nossos pecados não sejam realmente removidos, deixam de ser denunciados contra nós. Os princípios protestantes sola fide e sola gratia representam a visão luterana de que, somente a fé – e não as obras – pode nos justificar diante de Deus e somente a graça liberta o homem do pecado gerando a fé salvadora. Lutero cria, ainda, na dupla predestinação e na expiação limitada de Cristo.23
Assim como Lutero, Zwinglio entendia a predestinação como uma defesa contra a justificação pelas obras. Sendo assim, ele concordava que o homem por si só, não conseguia escolher Deus, pois não é o ser humano quem elege Deus e sim é eleito ou reprovado por Ele.24 Zwinglio defendia
veementemente os princípios sola fide, sola gratia e solus Christus.
A salvação se dá por intermédio do ato soberano da bondade de Deus, que através de
Cristodecidiu cobrir “a enorme distância entre nós em sua glória celestial”.25 O estado do homem depois da queda é de inabilidade natural e não consegue escolher o Criador. Aliás, “inda que o homem
houvesse permanecido livre de toda mancha, sua condição, entretanto, era abjeta demais para que se achegasse a Deus sem Mediador”.26 Sendo assim, a fé não pode ser gerada pelo próprio homem, mas é gerada e selada em nosso coração mediante o Espírito Santo. A obra da salvação é puramente divina e de caráter monergista, isto é, o homem não corrobora para sua decisão em escolher a Deus. Antes, é o próprio Deus quem o escolhe (elege ou predestina), e realiza todo ato salvífico, regenerando-o, implantando a fé salvadora, justificando e santificando o homem. O verdadeiro salvo não pode cair da
graça, pois a apostasia só acontece com aqueles que não receberam a semente incorruptível do Espírito Santo, isto é, os eleitos para a perdição.
Deus
Embora a doutrina de Deus devesse ser a primeira a ser abordada, ela foi deixada nessa sequencia para se ajustar ao pensamento dos reformadores. Eles, de forma feral, enxergavam a salvação como sendo parte da providência de Deus. Embora Lutero não tenha desenvolvido em sua teologia um
pensamento tão delineado para a soberania de Deus quanto Calvino o fez, era certo que sua crença na predestinação o levava a essa posição. Para ele, questionar a dupla predestinação como sendo uma arbitrariedade divina era nada menos que liberar nossos pensamentos carnais, isentos de Deus, pois “se Deus assim o quer, e porque Ele o quer, isso não é perverso”.27 Dizia ele para os que não aceitavam a soberania divina: “deixem Deus ser Deus”. Para Lutero, portanto, tanto a justificação quanto a predestinação faziam parte de seu conceito sola fide.28 Entretanto, um assunto que suscita questionamento à posição luterana sobre a predestinação, é sua argumentação resignada de que, a mais alta posição entre os eleitos pertence àqueles que “se conformam com o inferno se Deus o deseja”.29
Esse comentário demandava maiores averiguações, pois retira a nossa certeza da salvação, bem como vai de encontro a 1 Tm 2.4.
Zwuinglio cria na criação do universo a partir do nada (exnihilo). Ele afirmava a soberania divina na criação e na salvação, não aceitando em nenhuma hipótese a ideia de acaso. Para ele, o poder de Deus é sempre intencional e teleológico, mesmo que nas coisas mais minuciosas da vida, tal como a
contagem dos cabelos de nossa cabeça.30 Mesmo as coisas ruins que acontecem estavam sob o governo da providência de Deus. Assim, ele cria que “todo esse problema de predestinação, livre-arbítrio e mérito encontra-se na questão da providência”.31 A providência é a mãe da predestinação e Deus
transforma todas as coisas más dos eleitos em coisas boas. O mesmo, porém, não ocorre com os rejeitados.32Zwinglio, entretanto, tinha uma ideia um tanto assustadora. Ao mesmo tempo em que pregava a salvação em Cristo, ensinou um sistema contraditório. Alguns que nunca haviam ouvido o evangelho (pagãos piedosos) seriam eleitos por Deus, dentre eles haveria “Hércules (...), e Teseu.
Sócrates, Aristides, Antígono, Numa, Camilo, os Catões e Cipiões”.33 Mesmo que não seja pelas obras ou por uma revelação natural, mas por um decreto soberano divino, essa doutrina não está em harmonia com as Esrituras.
Calvino também cria na criação exnihilo. Na criação Deus adaptou Seu poder às aptidões
humanas, fazendo todas as coisas em seis dias. Em Sua providência, Ele criou os anjos “para consolo de nossa fraqueza, para que de modo algum careçamos de algo que valha, seja para elevar-nos o ânimo a boa esperança, seja para firma-lo em segurança”.34 Nada existe ao acaso, nem mesmo os ímpios, os
quais foram criados para o dia da perdição. Não apenas os grandes eventos estavam no controle soberano de Deus, mas até mesmo as coisas mais minuciosas, não caindo nem “uma gota de chuva a não ser pela explícita determinação de Deus”.35 Até mesmo satanás e seus demônios poderiam ser usados por Deus para alcançar Seus desígnios, assim como foi usado em favor de Paulo, pois o enhor “sabe, bem e convincentemente usar dos instrumentos maus para efetuar o bem”.36 Embora ele sustentasse uma doutrina determinista, Calvino também ensinava que, devemos nos cuidar, usar os recursos medicinais e/ou outros meios para vivermos prudentemente, pois a providência de Deus não opera de modo a neutralizar ou tornar desnecessário o esforço humano. A providência divina possui aspectos misteriosos em certos casos. Explicar o sofrimento, a dor e as tragédias da vida aos olhares da justiça e sabedoria humana é como comparar, na visão de Calvino, maçã com laranjas.
Cristo
O princípio solus Christus explicita a teologia de Lutero. Uma vez que a eleição fazia parte do sistema providenciado por Deus em Cristo, somente o Cristo é o nosso salvador. Lutero rejeitava a ideia de que o Papa fosse o representante ou o vigário de Cristo na terra. Cristo é o salvador dos pecadores e o Evangelho a boa nova de que Deus redimiu a humanidade decaída através da cruz de Cristo. As Escrituras sempre apontavam para Jesus: “Aquele que ler a Bíblia deve simplesmente prestar
atenção para não errar, pois as Escrituras podem permitir que sejam estendidas e conduzidas, mas que ninguém as conduza de acordo com as suas próprias inclinações; antes, que essa pessoa as leve para a
fonte, isto é, a cruz de Cristo”.37 Não obstante, Lutero aceitava a cristologia do credo apostólico.
Zwinglio afirmou o principio solus Christus dizendo em seu terceiro artigo que, “Cristo é o único caminho para a salvação, para todos os que já existiram, existem e existirão”. Cristo era o verbo encarnado que nos redimiu da morte e nos reconciliou com Deus por Sua inocência, o único caminho
para a salvação.38 Sua cristologia admitia os conceitos dos quatro primeiros concílios gerais (Nicéia, 325; Constantinopla, 381; Éfeso, 431 e Calcedônia, 451), bem como dos credos apostólico, niceno e atanasiano. Sua visão de solus Christus repudiava qualquer honra a Maria. Em certa ocasião, Zwinglio
inventou uma fala para ela chamando as pessoas que a adoram de “gente ignorante”, pois ela não possui honra alguma, senão Deus. Ela é tão somente uma testemunha de Cristo, mostrando que a salvação está somente nEle.39 Zwinglio seja talvez o mais extenuador do princípio soli Deo gloria.
Calvino declarou que Cristo é “a eterna Palavra de Deus, gerada do Pai antes de todas as eras”.40 Jesus é verdadeiramente Deus porque venceu a morte, o pecado e as potestades do mundo do ar.41Sobre a dupla natureza de Cristo, o Calvino disse que “deve ser de nós enxotado o erro de
Nestório, que, em querendo antes separar que distinguir as [duas] naturezas, engendrava assim um duplo Cristo”.42Calvino exaltou Cristo como mediador. A maior providência de Deus para o homem se deu na obra de Cristo na cruz, pois “quando o Filho de Deus vestiu nossa carne, também concordou
voluntariamente em vestir as emoções humanas (...) Nisso, provou ser nosso irmão, para que pudéssemos saber que temos um Mediador que de boa vontade perdoa e está pronto para socorrer as enfermidades que experimentou em si mesmo”.43 Verdadeiramente temos um Sumo Sacerdote que se compadece de nós!
Espírito Santo
Martin Bucer (1.491-1.551), outro reformador francês, levou o princípio sola scriptura tão a sério que queria negar o termo Trindade em função do mesmo não estar presente na Bíblia. Embora Lutero não gostasse do termo niceno e calcedônio usado para a defesa da natureza divina de Cristo
(homoousious), ele exortou Bucer que a expressão Trindade deveria ser adotada.44 Além disso, Lutero também aceitava a formulação do credo apostólico.
O Espírito Santo é o agente revelador das Sagradas Escrituras, é Ele quem ilumina a mente do leitor. Na visão de Zwinglio, a interpretação da Bíblia não requer opinião humana. Uma vez que ele aceitava os quatro primeiros concílios gerais, bem como os credos apostólico, niceno e atanasiano, sua
opinião sobre o Espírito Santo não divergia da ortodoxia clássica.Para Calvino, o Espírito Santo é quem nos ensina, revela e confirma a Palavra de Deus através de Sua iluminação. Foi Ele quem inspirou os profetas e os Apóstolos.45 Nem Lutero e nem Zwinglio deram muita atenção à doutrina da Trindade, mas aceitaram as formulações ortodoxas, conforme já abordamos. Calvino, por sua vez, aprimorou bastante esse tema. Ele afirmou: “quando professamos crer em um só e único Deus, pelo termo Deus entende-se uma única essência e simples, em que
compreendemos três pessoas ou hipóstases”.46 Calvino fazia questão de discernir as pessoas da Trindade, a fim de evitar uma posição unicista: “nem o Filho é o Pai, ou o Espírito o Filho; ao contrário, que são distintos por determinada propriedade”.47 Uma das provas irrefutáveis sobre a
Trindade se dá, na fórmula batismal. Na visão de Calvino, nem os arianos e nem os sabelianos poderiam contra-argumentar tal base escriturística.48
Igreja (Sacramentos)
Lutero enxergava a natureza espiritual da Igreja, bem como seu caráter não institucional. Para ele, a Igreja é o povo de Deus, um corpo de cristãos, santos e ovelhas.49 Ele aceitava a formulação do
credo apostólico: comunhão dos santos. Aceitava, como Agostinho, Wycliffe e Huss a ideia de que a Igreja invisível é a reunião de todo o grupo dos predestinados. Não é uma assembleia física, mas uma assembleia de corações em uma única fé. Apesar da profunda apostasia em que a Igreja Católica se
encontrava, Lutero cria que a verdadeira Igreja nunca havia deixado de existir, mesmo que em alguns momentos tivesse um número bem escasso (dois, três, ou as crianças). Outro ponto importante da teologia luterana se dá a respeito da administração dos sacramentos. Ele não acreditava que o simples fato de participar da eucaristia concedia graça, conforme apontava a teologia romana. Lutero sustentava que, era necessário crer e se apropriar pessoalmente de tal graça. Não obstante, ele defendia que a fé, mesmo à parte dos sacramentos era suficiente para a salvação. Ele enxergava a necessidade do batismo, mas este era um sinal externo de uma graça interna. Lutero aceitava o pedobatismo, entretanto, repudiava a ideia de que a criança não batizada iria para o limbo. Sua maior contribuição à eclesiologia foi a doutrina do sacerdócio universal dos crentes, segundo a qual somos sacerdotes como ele é Sacerdote, filhos como ele é Filho e reis como ele é Rei. Finalizando a visão de Lutero sobre a doutrina da Igreja, ele rejeitou a ideia católica de que a Presença de Cristo estava presente “nos” elementos da eucaristia e postulou que estava “com, dentro dos e abaixo dos” elementos. Ao invés de
Transubstanciação, Lutero empregou a Consubstanciação. Sua posição foi motivo de desgastante embate com Zwinglio, conforme veremos abaixo.
Zwuinglio disse em seu oitavo artigo que, “todos os que permanecem no cabeça são membros e filhos de Deus, e tal é a igreja ou a comunhão dos santos, a noiva de Cristo, Ekklesiacatholica”. Ele aceitava apenas dois sacramentos: o batismo e a eucaristia. Quanto ao primeiro, Zwinglio rejeitou a ideia de que este livrava o homem do pecado original. A princípio, ele também rejeitou o pedobatismo, embora anos mais tarde tenha revisado suas bases bíblicas e adotado o batismo de crianças. Apesar de
aceita-lo, Zwinglio não cria que uma criança não batizada iria para o limbo, antes, todas as crianças que morressem na primeira infância (sendo filhos de pais cristãos) estavam salvas, pois a aliança da graça
estendia-se tanto a eles quanto a seu pais.50 Conforme comentamos, Lutero havia mantido a posição relista em torno da eucaristia assumindo, porém, ao invés da transubstanciação a consubstanciação. Zwinglio, por sua vez, negava a Presença física de Cristo nos elementos e ensinava a presença espiritual para os da fé. Ele cria que o ritual da eucaristia era um memorial que comemora a eficácia para o crente na morte de Cristo, o que lhe rendeu grandes desavenças com Lutero. Ele comparava a ideia de memorial com a festa anual dos “Dez Mil Cavaleiros”. Assim como as pessoas celebravam algum feito que ocorreu naquela mesma data, a eucaristia nos relembrava o ato sacrificial e expiatório de Cristo na cruz.51
Para Calvino, a igreja é a mãe de todos os cristãos, a escola de Deus, o reformatório divino, a coluna e baluarte da verdade. Ele enxergava grande importância na participação do cristão em uma comunidade visível, pois nesta vida, o local de santificação é a congregação, onde os eleitos participam
dos benefícios de Cristo.52 A igreja visível é um corpo misturado, no qual joio e trigo crescem no mesmo campo. Já a igreja invisível é constituída pelos anjos eleitos, homens piedosos do Antigo Testamento e várias almas predestinadas que se encontram fora do “pomar murado do Senhor“.
Calvino enxergava o batismo como uma confirmação externa da fé dos eleitos. Sua visão sobre a eucaristia buscou uma posição intermediária às de Lutero e Zwinglio. O sacramento não está vinculado meramente à obra passada do Redentor, mas também à presente obra espiritual de Cristo, que agora vive na glória. Calvino cria que Cristo, “embora não corporal nem localmente presente na Ceia, está, contudo, presente, e é desfrutado em Sua pessoa completa, corpo e sangue”53
Missão da Igreja
Os reformadores não postularam uma doutrina missiológica como vemos em nossos dias.
Entretanto, a restauração da pregação bíblica e expositiva perfazia o meio missionário de suas épocas.
Lutero enfatizava a pregação e cria que esta é a maneira do Novo Testamento e do Evangelho para a realização da missão. Ele também cria que a pregação deveria ser realizada pela palavra da boca e da viva voz, até porque, próprio Cristo não escreveu nada, nem ordenou que nada fosse escrito, mas sim que se pregasse a palavra falada. Sendo assim, a Palavra de Deus deve permanecer livre, para ser ouvida por todos.
Assim como Lutero, Zwinglio insistia na pregação do Evangelho e instou que isso fosse feito no idioma de cada povo. Deixar de fazer isso é pecado, pois a Palavra de Deus é Palavra de vida54. Sendo assim, o Espírito Santo é quem agia no convencimento do pecado no homem restaurando-lhe o livrearbítrio.
Calvino não permitia que a doutrina da predestinação fosse usada como pretexto para deixar de pregar o Evangelho a todos, afinal, não sabemos quem são os eleitos, senão apenas Deus. Sendo assim, o Evangelho deveria ser proclamado indiscriminadamente sob a confiança da atuação do Espírito Santo no convencimento do pecador e condução a Cristo.55
Considerações Finais
Lutero revelou-se um cisne notável. Sua ousadia e mente iluminada pelo Espírito Santo desencadearam um movimento sem precedentes. É impossível ler a história de como a Reforma se desenrolou sem crer num Deus que tudo governa e que está atuante em cada ato de providência soberana. Zwinglio foi também outra pessoa importantíssima nessa história. Sua coragem e perspicácia somaram grandes contribuições para as doutrinas protestantes. Calvino foi uma figura proeminente.
Seu brilhantismo certamente não provinha de si mesmo, mas da capacitação do Espírito Santo.
Em suma, as doutrinas protestantes podem ser resumidas nos 5 solas. Independentemente do
sistema teológico adotado (calvinista / arminiano), é de comum acordo que, somente pela graça é que o homem pode ser salvo, pois sozinho não possui condições de escolher a Deus, afinal, sua natureza está
corrompida pela pior das enfermidades, o pecado. Esta graça produz a verdadeira fé que nos justifica, pois nossas obras são insuficientes para satisfazer a Deus e nos conduzir à salvação. Não há um justo
sequer. Somente Cristo serve como nosso mediador, isto é, aquele que em sua dupla natureza se identifica conosco em nossas fraquezas, embora sem pecado, e que aplaca a ira de Deus sendo a perfeita propiciação pelos nossos pecados. Somente a Escritura nos aponta para o Cristo e por isso deve
ser pregada a tempo e fora de tempo. Ela é o nosso manual de fé e prática. Somente Deus é digno de toda glória.
1 Bacharel em Teologia pela Faculdade Nazarena do Brasil (FNB), especialista em Ciências da Religião pela Universidade Cândido Mendes, especialista em História da Igreja pela FaeteSF e Mestre em Teologia pela Faculdade Batista do Paraná. Professor de Teologia na FNB e no Seminário Teológico
Nazareno do Brasil (STNB), além de pesquisador de teologia armínio-wesleyana. Email: prviniciuscouto@yahoo.com.br.suas sugestões a meu respeito. Todavia, vocês que estão próximos de mim há um tempo considerável, quem vocês dizem que Eu Sou?”. Poderíamos conjecturar mais uma vez que, nesse momento os discípulos ficaram atônitos, uma
2 DUSING, Michael L. A Igreja do Novo Testamento. In: HORTON, Stanley M. (Org). Teologia Sistemática: uma perspectiva pentecostal. Rio de Janeiro: CPAD, 1996, pp. 546-548.
3 Ibid, pp. 538-539.
4 LATOURETTE, Kenneth Scott. Uma História do Cristianismo. São Paulo: Hagnos, 2006, vol. 1, pp. 361-419.
5 OCKHAM, Willian de. Opera Politica (1963), II, p. 854.
6 GONZÁLEZ , Justo L. Uma História Ilustrada do Cristianismo: A Era dos Sonhos Frustrados. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 1981, pp. 95-102.
7 GEORGE, Timothy. Teologia dos reformadores. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 1993, p. 55.
8 ATKINSON, James (Org.). Luther: Early Theological Works. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962, pp. 269,270.
9ZWINGLIO apud GEORGE, Timothy.Op. Cit. p. 113.
10CALVINO, João. Comentário de Salmos. São José dos Campos: Fiel, 2009, volume 1, p. 32.
11 HAGENBACH apud WILEY, Orton. Introdução à Teologia Sistemática. Campinas: Casa Nazarena de Publicações, 2009, p. 35.
12 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 83.
13 FURCHA, E. J.; PIPKIN, H. W (Orgs.). Huldrych Zwingli: Writings. Alisson Park: Pickwick, 1984, volume 1, p. 116.
14 CALVINO, João. Institutas. I, VI, 1.
15 RUPP, Gordon E.; WATSON, Philip S. (Orgs.). Luther and Erasmus: Free will and salvation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969, pp. 220, 252.
16 FURCHA, E. J.; PIPKIN, H. W (Orgs.).Op. Cit., volume 1, pp. 207-208.
17 Ibid, 1, p. 172.
18 HAROUTUNIAN, Joseph (Org.). Calvin: Commentaries. London: SCM Press, 1958, p. 132.
19 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., I, V, 4.
20 Ibid, II, I, 8.
21 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 214.
22 RUPP, Gordon E.; WATSON, Philip S. (Orgs.). Op. cit..p. 140.
23 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 78.
24 JACKSON, Samuel M. (Org.). The latin works of Huldreich Zwingli. New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1912, volume 3, p. 70.
25 HAROUTUNIAN, Joseph (Org.). Op. cit., p. 131.
26 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., II, XII, 1.
27 LUTERO apud GEORGE, Timothy. Op. cit. p, 78.
See Also the following publications in the previous edition 17:2
9a. Gabriel Benjiman (Africa), RESPONSE TO DEIRDRE BROWER LATZ AND RUBEN FERNANDEZ (revised)RESPONSE TO DEIRDRE BROWER LATZ AND RUBEN FERNANDEZ Gabriel Benjiman, Africa Region
Deirdre Brower Latz and Rubén Fernández raise many crucial issues which are shared in common as each one engages the subject. Not wanting to overlook the fact that the writer of each paper represents vastly different contexts and socio-religious landscapes, it will be the aim of this
response to identify positive commonalities under captions which I find helpful for conversation.
Deirdre Brower Latz (2018, p.1) asks: “What might we agree together about following more faithfully? What does it mean to hear the call ‘take up the cross and follow’?”
Contending for a renewed vision of the cross
Rubén Fernández and Deirdre Latz both argue for a renewed vision of the cross. The cross means different things to different people. To some it is simply a trinket, an expression devoid of any spiritual significance. To others it is a mandate to oppress in the name of God. To others yet,
it is hope. “…the cross then, and what this means, isn’t as simple as it seems.” (Deirdre Latz, 2018, p.2)
At the very least, the contentions rest in a corporate and personal ownership of the cross.
On the other end of the spectrum, the call is for a life shaping identity drawn from the cross.
Taking up the cross proposes a permanency of posture. Fernández expresses it as rescuing the call of Jesus: “The call of Jesus is a call to a commitment with him for life and that includes all aspects of the individual's life…a call to conversion, It is good to rescue the seriousness of Jesus'
call in these times...” (2018, p.10). Fernández asks again: “How much do we teach people what it would be like to take up the cross today” (p. 15).
Deirdre Latz emphasises that the greater the obedience in following, the truer is the
embeddedness of the cruciform faith upon the disciples’ identity. The significance of the cross is by no means a light consequence for a Christ follower. The deeper point of contention is that there must be significant themes which are pivotal and vital for our personal and corporate identity as Christ’s followers in the world. And still there must be a clear grasp of what it means to “take up the cross and follow” Christ in the generations and nations in to which we are given our existence.
Constituted by the culture and context?
This is where the conversation intensifies. Context and culture tend to catapult the
conversation in helpful directions. Latz (2018) presents the simple statement about the convictions of those who violate and oppress others with the sincere intent of being faithful to the cross. Reflection upon this constraint to be sincere, honest disciples of Jesus calls me to centre my thoughts around the African continent. Apart from the intense Arabic oppression and
opportunistic slave trades in Africa, the Christian, Western world approached Africa from the earliest times with equal vigour and violence. Colonialism! According to Fernández (2018), who references the colonisation of the Americas, suggests that colonisers came in the guise of
Christianising the continent and her inhabitants. It was no different for Africa- as witnessed in Fernández’ opening quote by Archbishop Bishop Tutu.
Questions arise centring on the convictions and faithfulness to Christ’s mission of
oppressive regimes in Africa. Were these Christians convinced that oppression and violence were the ways of expressing faithfulness to Christ? An example of this is the South African, Verwoerdian regime and its precision crafted beast- Apartheid. Were the Christians in this movement, under the conviction that their actions (even though violating the indigenous "native” inhabitants) were a faithful display of taking up one’s cross? Was this what it meant to those faithful Anglo- Boer disciples of Christ in South Africa to be on the battle field “denying themselves”? Was this Christianity influencing a culture of Afrikaner nationalism or was it a culture of nationalism bearing upon their hermeneutic of discipleship? Is there a possibility of a reprisal in South Africa of black nationalism and will it be justified in all of its outworking by the exogenous impact of the blended early Anglo-Boer portrayal of what it meant to be faithful as a follower of Christ? (Graybill, 1990). What part of the context and culture constrained these
South African disciples to be this way? Is it the culture and context which determine the hermeneutic which gives rise to the catechesis which confirms such disciples as being faithful?
How much of this was supported by the Church in general? How may we avoid the dangers of
such influences on the way we are cruciformed?
Courageously counter-cultural
Reflections on the idea of the church remaining the voice in community, sometimes a voice of the voiceless, is a prophetic role unifying those who seek to be more faithful to being Christ to the broken and bruised. Africa remains a sterling example of the ways the Church may be and the ways we ought not to be. Again, using apartheid as an example, some considered that choosing to remain silent against atrocities was a way of being “more faithful” to their current mission of the Church. Not wanting to upset national or ecclesial status quos. On the other hand, some sought to be more faithful to the image of the table flipping, whip crafting Christ. This tension of being faithful to the mission of the Church versus faithfulness to the mission of Christ,
presents a challenge to the understanding of what it means to “deny self” and “take up the cross.”
Is it not that in seeking to be more faithful to the ways of a ‘drastic-measures’ Christ, is the best guarantee of earning a cross? By doing just that- flipping tables, Jesus earned Himself a cross.
Maintaining a status quo does not furnish one with a cross. Is it not true then, that anyone who is denied a cross cannot truly be identified as being “more faithful”? Fernández (2018, p.16) observes: “My observation in Mesoamerica is that the leadership of the evangelical church in
general terms is of conformist type. What we do well is to preserve the status quo. We do not develop true discipleship on the road to the cross. We do not carry out real transformational leadership, like that of Jesus; we only put bandages on the wounds (and not that that's wrong, but is it enough?).”
Implicit in both Latz and Fernández’ writings are the tensions held between the Church as a moralizing agent (used to shape belief to guarantee a desired complicit behaviour in becoming by appearance ‘more faithful to Christ’ and by doing so to belong to one another in common culture and practice) and the Church as an agency of divine power, controlled by love,
challenging the status quo, causing those who are motivated by love for the people of God along with God-self. (Love here is a controlling element in power not a replacement for power). (Maginizer, 2007).
Fernández (2018) argues for a costlier discipleship which shapes the life of a follower of Christ. A call to discipleship in which “preachers must offer salvation” with more requirements (p.10). While this is in the making for courageous following, caution must be applied. The Church as a whole, especially those of a holiness bias, must be careful not to speak as though
there is more to salvation than the work of Jesus. This may be construed as a Jesus plus something that is required for life as a “more faithful follower of Christ.” Jesus + denominational regulations = salvation. OR, Jesus + the catechesis and confirmation = salvation. This is a dangerous implication.
Called to be the Church
The implications of contending for the collective and singular identity of a ‘more faithful’ disciple, the courage to be counter-cultural or to be constrained by culture will ultimately shape the church which we borrow from tomorrow’s people. The church does not belong to the generation who currently live in its shade and enjoy her fruit. The Church always belongs to the future and her prophetic voice seems more acceptable in hindsight. In Africa, the
Church loses the individual prophetic voices in the likes of Steven Bantu Biko and Robert Sobukwe, when the priority is about serving a Christ of our minds in the here and now rather than embracing a Christ who resembles a more biblical, eschatological image. There is a tendency for Nazarenes in Africa to embrace a relocation eschatology (“I am on my way to Canaan’s land”) as opposed to a restoration eschatology (God making all things new through His Church on earth). Perhaps, a reason for many Africans embracing a relocation eschatology was
embedded in the hope of escaping pain and suffering. The idea therefore of becoming more faithful disciples of Jesus may not fully accept the idea of the Church being environmental activists or seeing the responsibility of the disciple of Jesus ecological warrior. Being more faithful to the mission of the Bible’s Christ ensures that the Church we hand over is cutting edge and geared for the end goal.
Every disciple who desires to deny themselves and take up the cross seeks not only to leave an individualistic imprint. It must also be a collective, unified identity. Rubén Fernández (2018, p.14) argues for this when he states: “Young people are waiting for a militant, dissenting, reactive church. We are losing the new generations that reject a church interested in keeping
things as they are…Rather, we should ask ourselves, how can we help young people to see their careers as means to transform society?
The way to achieving this form of being more faithful as disciples of Christ, is to reject a one size fits all approach. We have to allow the corporate look of disciples to suit their context without falling foul of our cohesiveness. An example of this will have to be the absence of conversation concerning corporate worship. Liturgical styles differ vastly. As Africans dancing
and a deep expectation of transcending in worship through extemporaneous prayer is not unusual. This may not necessarily be the case with others who read their corporate prayers. Our identity as a global, corporate whole must continue to exist as a unity of unique offerings of voice, and solution to contextual troubles. Deirdre Latz (2018, p.10) says: “This kind of corporate discipleship should probably not look the same everywhere.”
Some Concluding Thoughts
How do we release our people from the bondage of hypocrisy and self-contradictions in the quest for being more faithful disciples? During the apartheid era, many of the more ethnically privileged South African Nazarenes took offence when their fellow marginalized Nazarenes suggested that being more faithful to Jesus would mean standing up against oppression and marginalization of the indigenous people. The then, advantaged and privileged few in our denomination often quoted scripture on honoring governments and obeying the laws of the country. Now under a new regime with equitably shared privileges, some of the previously advantaged members take to social-media slandering of the “kings” and “rulers” of their country.
There is a rising tension and frustration because the shoe is on the other foot. How does one seek to be a more faithful disciple of Christ without creating future opportunities for self-contradiction
and hypocrisy? How do we individually and corporately address social issues with a call for righteousness and Holy living without falling for the trap of perceived neutrality? Would it not be possible for followers of Christ to see God in Christ being a liberator challenging the
oppressive systems and to see God as a God of law and order maintaining systems of governance and their kingdoms while being united in love and fellowship? Is there any room for a faithful follower of Christ to simply tolerate others when the call
to faithful followers is a call to authentic, holy love? The answer may be found in presenting a lifestyle of love as true liturgy- an expression of faithful following.
Three Basic Characteristics
This authentic discipleship lifestyle must address the following basic characteristics of Jesus our Lord corporately and individually as identified by St Paul in Philippians. Firstly, disciples who truly emulate Jesus, possess a deep sense of forgiveness even unto death. This is
by no means an artificial or self-induced amnesia. It is a recognition by those who are sinned against that to be authentically Christ-like is to be a forgiver even in death (“…being conformed to Him even in His dying... Philippians 3:10)
Secondly, recognising sin for the sake of repentance is part of the call. It is also
imperative to find ways of restitution. Those who have lost for the cause of Christ may consider this a loss, as embraced by St Paul in his text on “taking hold of Christ”- Philippians 3:8-10, yet it would be blatant theft to take land and property, homes and families without recognising God’s
intention of restoring the same to those who lost these things. Being like Christ must seek to be repentant and restorative by ways of restitution.
Thirdly, I recognise in Paul’s statement (3:12) that to truly take a hold of that for which we are taken a hold of by Christ, we must seek His righteousness. This calls for a common corporate identity recognizable in any context. We are a people pursuing holiness. But what exactly does this look like when we campaign under different political camps? Is it not that our
righteousness must be exemplified more highly than our rights? And that our rights really must see the restoration of all people to the singular image of Christ?References
19a. General Superintendent Carla Sunberg, GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE INTRODUCTORY PLENARY: CHRISTOLOGYGLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE INTRODUCTORY PLENARY: CHRISTOLOGY
General Superintendent Carla Sunberg
Welcome to the 2018 Global Theology Conference for the Church of the Nazarene. We are here, gathered from every world region for the purpose of theological discussion, in service to the church.
Last summer we had our General Assembly, and many would say that it was a pivotal time in the life of the Church of the Nazarene. It seemed that God’s Holy Spirit was moving as the church family worked through difficult issues and wrestled with creating beautiful unity in the midst of diverse voices and perspectives from around the globe. It felt as if God was doing a new thing, and that we had all been invited to become participants in a holiness church that is willing to
grapple with what it means to create space for all of God’s children to find their place at the table.
Today, the strength of the church outside the United States and Canada is palpable as God is raising up leaders who will stretch our thinking and lead us into new territory. While we have had Global Theology Conferences before, I come here, to Florida, in anticipation that what began last summer in Indianapolis will overflow into our theological conversations.
Why do we need to gather and spend time in theological reflection? Because, in my opinion, the world is in desperate need of Christians who know what it is that they believe. Whether social, religious, or economic pressures, we all have issues which are unique to our local context. A strong theological foundation provides direction, leading the church through the challenges
which she faces. The more I travel the world, the more I realize we cannot ignore the need to intentionally create space for theological reflection.
The theme for this conference is "Christology.” While a variety of themes were considered, the Board of General Superintendents felt that it was vitally important for the church of the Nazarene
to spend time focusing on the One from whom we derive our name. We are the Church of Jesus, the Nazarene!
Traditionally Christology has been the study of the person, nature, and role of Christ. The Board of General Superintendents brought the theme to the GTC committee, which is made up of representatives from all six regions. The committee, in turn, helped to design the framework, bearing in mind the traditional forms of study in relation to Christology, while at the same time taking into account some of the current realities of the church. This conference has been divided into three major sections, using scriptural references to lead us into our conversation:
1. “Who do You Say I Am?” - Knowing and Becoming More Like Jesus Christ
2. “Take Up Your Cross and Follow Me” - Becoming More Faithful to Jesus Christ
3. “As the Father Sent Me So I Send You” - Joining the Mission of Jesus Christ My life has changed radically since we began planning this conference. I had served as the coconvener, along with Dr. Dan Copp, and we worked with the committee to plan this event.
Today, we are glad to welcome Dr. Jeren Rowell into the role which I had previously held.
This new season of ministry has taken me to the beautiful continent of Africa where I have spent more of my time since October, than anywhere else in the world. Whether Africa, or any other region, we have to recognize that this conversation on Christology is timely. There have been
numerous occasions in the past few months when I have had to stop and ask myself whether the Christ I have been serving and representing is the Christ of the Bible, or one of a particular cultural construct. We, as a global church must ask ourselves some difficult questions about our Christology, and how we have defined our understanding of Christ through the years. The beginning chapter of our story in the church of the Nazarene has been written, but we have
entered a new era, where new chapters, filled with many stories must be written.
Nigerian author and novelist Chimamanda Adichie warns us that there is danger in a single story.
She says, “Show people as one thing over and over again, and that’s what they become.” She warns that we risk critical and cultural misunderstanding when we fail to understand that every life, every situation, has their own overlapping story What is the Danger of a Single Story?
Adichie say, “The single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete.”
When we hear the same story over and over again, it becomes the only story we ever
believe. And this stands especially true for the story of Africa.
Too often do we hear this version—Africa, the poorest “country” in the world where only rural landscapes exist and where people live in terror amongst wild animals.
Too often do we treat Africa as one narrative, one we have fostered over generations and generations, becoming so institutionalized that even those who graduated from universities will sometimes slip and refer to Africa as a country or their language as “African.”
This is the danger of a single story, and it brings to mind a quote by American writer Alvin Toffler: “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.”
We must learn to unlearn these perpetuated stereotypes in order to allow ourselves to see that there is more than this one narrative to Africa—to anything, really.
“Stories matter. Many stories matter. Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign, but stories can also be used to empower and to humanize. Stories can break the dignity of a people, but stories can also repair that broken dignity.”1
We must recognize that we, as the Church of the Nazarene have had a Christology that has been shaped and marked by Western European, and American cultural influences and experiences.
There have been aspects of American faith which have influenced the ways in which we have imagined Christ. And this may be the danger of the single story.
The concept of the Manifest Destiny had an impact on American expansionism, and even
missions in an era of colonialism. There were those who adopted an image of Christ which did not include people of color. Our own “Home” and “Overseas Missions” departments were divided between people of white European descent and the rest of the world. Europe was a part of home missions, while the native Americans were administered under “World Missions.” We may not have consciously realized that our structures reflected a particular Christology and
perspective on the Imago Dei.
For example – how do we see Jesus? In our different cultural contexts and experiences, we may each visualize Jesus differently.
These are different faces of Jesus: I grew up in Europe where Jesus was always white. I remember moving to Russia and seeing this
icon in the Kremlin for the first time. This is known as the Icon of the Savior, Image Not-Made-By-Hands. Didache: Faithful Teaching 17:2 (Winter 2018) ISSN: 15360156 (web version) – http://didache.nazarene.org
It was in that moment that I realized that this was probably a much closer representation of the real Christ than what I had created in my imagination.
Without knowing it’s happening, the danger of a single story is that we may begin to form our Christology in our own image. When we look at the different faces of Jesus, we discover the reflection of many cultures. Does one picture make us more comfortable than another? Didache: Faithful Teaching 17:2 (Winter 2018) ISSN: 15360156 (web version) – http://didache.nazarene.org
This is why now, in this time, the Church of the Nazarene has to ask herself difficult questions about whether there has been a more dominant story.
The Jesus Film has been successful at bringing the gospel to millions of people. This is the Jesus of the Jesus Film. The film has been a powerful tool, yet, one
of our own theologians, Dr. Bill Kwon has asked whether the viewers are able to deconstruct the Western themes shown in
this film?
Franz Fanon, a writer in post-colonial studies, tells that an inferiority complex develops when there is an “unconscious and unnatural training of black people, from early childhood, to associate ‘blackness’ with ‘wrongness.’”3 This was illustrated to me when my South African colleagues told me that during Apartheid, young black and colored children wanted to grow up to
be white. The danger of a single story begins to unfold when we use a series of colors to tell the gospel, where black is bad and represents sin, and white is a cleansed heart, and represents all that is good. When we present Christ in a particular way, framed by one culture, we come
dangerously close to the possibility of creating an inferiority complex in those who are not from the Christ culture.
The value of this conference is that we will spend time speaking with one another, listening to our sisters and brothers, and opening our minds and hearts to discover that we are not trying to prove a “right” answer. We are engaged in a practice that will help us shape the future of who we
are as Nazarenes, as we embrace the global nature of who we have become, the reflection of Jesus in many different cultures. Philip Jenkins, distinguished professor of History at Baylor University warns us that it is wrong to simply take the ways in which we have done things in the past and add something “global” to it. Instead, he says, we must embrace a new perspective which is entirely global.4
There is good news for us. We come from Methodist roots and while historically, the Reformed and Evangelical movements seemed to embrace the concept of the Manifest Destiny, the Methodists began to question the ideas that were being brought forth. This healthy introspection has been a feature of the Wesleyan/Holiness movement.
A Christo-centric doctrine of holiness should bring us to a place of reflection and selfexamination. This is also found in the language of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Philippians. In Phil 3:7-11 we read:
Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the
resurrection from the dead.
We are here, at this conference, to examine our Christology; to ask ourselves hard questions regarding our past and the future into which God may be leading us. But ultimately, we want to know Christ, and this is more than head knowledge. This is where we affirm our thoroughly Trinitarian and Christo-centric understanding of holiness. When we become “partakers of the divine nature,”5 we truly “know” Christ. An early commentary on Song of Solomon invites us
into an understanding of the beauty found in participation with God, who is beauty and far beyond our comprehension. When our desire is to know Christ, then we will be led to a new level, where human perception cannot reach. One where we are “led to a desire for that beauty of which the heavens tell the glory and the firmament of all creation proclaims the knowledge. In this way, the soul, rising and leaving behind all notice of unimportant things, arrives at a
knowledge of the grandeur beyond the heavens.”6 This is intimate communion with Christ.
Our prayer is that this time together will not simply be an intellectual pursuit, but intimate communion with Christ, as we desire to know him more.
As the Board of General Superintendents began to ponder this conference, the question of Christology emerged in relation to praxis. We are challenged to reconsider how our Christology informs our praxis, specifically in areas such as discipleship, evangelism, church planting, passion for the lost, compassionate ministries, etc.
Christology has informed the Church of the Nazarene from the very beginning. Our second Article of Faith affirms our understanding:
We believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead; that He was eternally one with the Father; that He became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, are thus united in one Person very God and very man, the God-man.
We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that He truly arose from the dead and took again His body, together with all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven and is there engaged in intercession for us.7
Do we think that we have wandered far from our second article of faith? Most of us would probably say a wholehearted “no,” and yet, is it possible that we have drifted and unconsciously adopted practices, either informed by a singular Christology, or not informed by Christology whatsoever? These are the questions that we are being asked.
We affirm that we are to make “Christlike disciples in the nations,” but maybe we need to get back to Jesus. In Ephesians 4:20 we read, “That is not the way you learned Christ!”8 For the church in Ephesus there had been some drifting from the original teaching, creating a dangerous trajectory, and there was need of correction. This was Paul, pointing to the very substance of
Apostolic preaching. What humans are to attain to, to reach the mark, is Christ himself. This is not just about a doctrine of Christ, but Christ is the direct object of the accusative in the sentence.
We are to intimately “know” the person of Christ, and it is in knowing him that we put on his character, holy love, and are transformed into God’s holy people. The hope then, of this conference, is that we will embrace a truly full-bodied Christology that informs our praxis in a culturally diverse, beautiful global church.
In our first session, we will take time to discuss who Christ is, and this, within our many and varied contexts. Veli-Matti Karkkainen encourages us to remember to embrace a high Christology that acknowledges that “material primacy belongs to the eternal Son, who has become man by his incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth.” However, this cannot be divorced “from the history of Jesus” or we will be in danger of “violation of the biblical insistence on Jesus as the way to the knowledge of God (John 14:6).”9 The incarnation becomes vital to our
understanding. Kara Lyons-Pardue, in her new book Following Jesus: Prophet, Priest and King, edited together with Tim Gains tells us that we must embrace the reality of Jesus’ incarnation, “that is, that the Son, truly God, was born and grew and became a man, truly human. And this “ties together forever the course of human history and the reality of God.” We must take history
seriously if we are to understand Jesus. At the same time, we must also take seriously our context. “Where we are in space, time, and culture must necessarily shape our understanding of Jesus. This is not an imposition on or a lessening of Jesus’ identity; it is a necessary corollary of
us taking Jesus as real, living, and reigning.”10
Knowing Christ is knowing who Jesus is. As we acknowledge the layers of culture which may have influenced our image of Christ, we just may discover a genuine Jesus who speaks volumes into the varied settings of Christianity today and we can attempt to answer the question of Jesus, “Who do you say I am?”
Once we wrestle with who Christ is, we have a clearer view of the one whom we are to follow.
The mission of the Church of the Nazarene is to “make Christlike disciples in the nations.” Jesus challenged his listeners, calling them to “take up [the] cross and follow [him].” This was said to a group of people who had no idea that Jesus would eventually die on a cross. The call was
rooted in a vision of submission to Roman authority which was played out before them daily.Jesus was asking the people to consider a new kind of submission, and that was to the authority of God’s kingdom. This was discipleship, that might just cost his followers everything.
The Board of General Superintendents believes we need a renewed emphasis on disciple-making and Christian formation which must include the life of the local church. Discipleship happens in community, both in the local church, the district, and in gatherings such as this one, on the
denominational level. When we are together, we sharpen one another and there is a type of synergy in which we “provoke one another to love and good deeds.”11 Disciple-making is a part of our DNA, going back to the days of John Wesley and the accountability for spiritual growth and development that was found in his class meetings. There is no cheap discipleship, and there will be those among us who will pay the ultimate price, sharing in Christ’s sufferings.
Finally, a thoroughly Trinitarian Christology will bring us to a discussion of the Missio Dei. In the last ten years the church of the Nazarene has added approximately 800,000 members. Nearly
32% of the people who call themselves Nazarene have just recently joined this family, bringing its own particular challenges. How do we stay true to our Christology in a period of rapid growth? What is God’s vision for our future?
This past weekend I was privileged to be with the leadership from West Africa. There, our team from Nigeria placed before us a vision and dream of joining the mission of Jesus in their vast country, with 200,000,000 people, the seventh most populated nation in the world. This is half
the population of the entire West Africa field, a continent, in and of itself.
This history of the Church of the Nazarene in Nigeria is unique. Near the close of World War II Mr. Dan Iwok, a Nigerian solder, was sent to Burma to serve. There he met Nazarene soldiers and chaplains who gave him gospel tracts and a Nazarene Manual. On return to Nigeria he read these “eternal gifts” and fell in love with the Church of the Nazarene. He organized in Nigeria as
an independent church in 1945.
In 1946 Dr. Hardy Powers, General Superintendent made his way to Nigeria to meet with this church but it was not until 1988 that they were able to officially affiliate with the International Church of the Nazarene. This independent Nigerian Church of the Nazarene was planted because
a soldier gave a man a Manual. A huge celebration was held on the day of the merger where they sang, “The Lord has given the joy of my heart, after so many years of my sorrows; the Lord has given me the joy of my heart.”
Adjustments had to be made after the merger, as there were those who could not accept our theology. There were losses, but today the number of churches has tripled since that organizational celebration. We currently have work in two of the thirty-six states in the country.
The vision is to join Jesus in the mission by eventually practicing presence in every state. At the same time, the urban centers are experiencing explosive population growth. Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city had a population of 21 million in 2016, and is expected to reach 25 million by 2020. Lagos will become one of the world’s megacities, doubling in size by 2050. At that time Nigeria will have a population larger than the United States. Today these church leaders are asking all of us to join with them in their vision to reach their country, every state, and the urban centers, doing mission in ways we have never done before.
Joining in the mission of Jesus Christ means that we become channels of prevenient grace
intersecting with society and culture. Responding to need through a wholistic encounter with Christlike disciples.
The Father sent Jesus into the world, and now, Jesus sends us, his followers. Having been a more rural church, we must consider how we follow Jesus into the sprawling urban centers of the world. At the same time rural areas remain in great need with diminished access to goods and services. In the United States alcoholism and drug abuse threatens to destroy rural communities.
There is a need for faithful kingdom presence across a myriad of social contexts.
In the meantime, our dividing lines are becoming blurred. Just when we get used to the Global structure of the Church of the Nazarene, things become less cut and dried. Just last week the Upstate New York District announced the merger of a Congolese congregation with the Church of the Nazarene. Our Sudanese leadership in West Texas is helping to plant churches in their
home country. When you attend the Metro New York District Assembly you feel as if you’ve landed at the United Nations, where multiple languages are spoken and cultures celebrated. In Zambia you discover a large Chinese population. In Spain there is a new Ukrainian church plant.
The Seminary in Costa Rica is helping to service Spanish-speaking needs in multiple locations in North and South America. And who knows, the vision of the church in Nigeria just may spill over to Houston, Texas where we find the largest Nigerian population in the United States. All of
this shows our old lines, ways of understanding things, are blurring.
David Busic in his Quadrennial address at the 39th General Assembly challenged the church and asked the question, “Can we be a movement again?” The reality is that movements are messy, including a movement of God’s people as they join Jesus in mission. This week could be challenging as we learn even more how old lines have blurred and we need to create a new understanding of who we are as a global movement of people who join Jesus in the mission of God.
Christology. We have much to ponder and to consider as we look to write chapters and stories filled with glorious diversity as we allow God to knit us together. The words of Isaiah challenge us… Isaiah 43: 18 Do not remember the former things, or consider the things of old.
A holiness people, who want to know Christ, participating in fellowship with a holy God. Who knows what God may want to accomplish this week, in Florida.
1 Review by Chelsea Yee. https://borgenproject.org/review-chimamanda-adichies-danger-of-asingle-story/ (13 March, 2018)
2 https://orthodoxwiki.org/Image_Not-made-by-hands The tradition of this icon is that it was created during the time of Christ. We are told of a man named, Abgar, who was the ruler in the Syrian city of Edessa. This man, Abgar, was afflicted with leprosy. News of Jesus’ miracles reached as far as Syria and Arabia. Agbar had never seen Jesus, but he wrote a letter, asking Jesus to come and heal him. He sent the letter with his court painter, Ananias. The plan was for Ananias to paint an image of this healer, Jesus. When Ananias arrived in Palestine, he was
unable to get near Jesus because of the great crowds. He tried to produce an image of Jesus while standing at a distance but was unsuccessful. We are told that Jesus called to Ananias and promised him that he would send a disciple to heal Abgar from his leprosy and instruct him in salvation. After this, Jesus called for water and a towel. When he wiped his face with the towel,
there remained his Divine Image. The towel and a letter were sent back to Edessa with Ananias. Abgar was grateful for the gifts and his body began to heal. Eventually Thaddeus, one of the 70 Apostles arrived, preaching the gospel and baptized the Abgar and the entire community of Edessa. Abgar wrote on the image, now called “not made by hands” the words, “Christ-God, everyone trusting in you will not be put to shame.” He mounted this image, placing it over the
gates of the city. Since that time reproductions have been made and can be found throughout the world.
3 Franz Fanon, Black Skin, White Mask
4 Philip Jenkins, ATS President’s Gathering
God is exalted and worshipped for He is sovereign (He has the authority and power to redeem His creation from sin, and its power). In His glory (presence) we are continually enabled to live in and for Him and be His holy representatives in the world; bringing many into the knowledge
of God’s love and grace.
Jesus, the Son of God, came into the world, in human likeness to reconcile us to God. In Christ, humanity is given the grace to be restored into a holy relationship with God. "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the
cross." Colossians 1:19-20
In Jesus, all the fullness of Godhead dwells (Colossians 1:15) and He is "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being.”
So, indeed the hour has come for God to glorify the Son — for all has been done to bring humanity into communion with Godhead.
There is a sense in which I am persuaded that the hour that was referred to in John was not only in relation to the death of Christ but to the overall work of God that is fulfilled in Christ. If this is true, then even now the hour has come for the Father to glorify his Son. In Christ’s continued presence with us through the Holy Spirit, God continues to be known by us and to know us. Our theological conversations should be centered in a desire to know and be known by Christ; they should be centered in the desire to live in a relationship with the true One God — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, my hope and prayer for us as we begin our theological reflections on Christology is that:
– our conversations will lead to the hour when Christ is revealed afresh in our lives, so we can know Him more and more, and experience His nearness, love, sovereignty, and redemptive work in us and His creation. And in knowing Him, may we discern with
clarity how He would want the Church of the Nazarene to represent Him in the world
today. May we know how He wants us to participate in His redemptive works even in
areas of life that are unprecedented in anything we have known and done through our
ministry in the past. Of course, this will require our willingness for Him to know us more and more. God wants to hear and know our struggles, where we are uncomfortable and uneasy as we attempt to discern and follow Him in those unprecedented areas of ministry.
Our discomfort and uneasiness are a result of the ideas and images of who God is, and
how He works to bring redemption — ideas and images we have already formed because of that which is precedented.
As He knows us, He can free us from those ideas or images we have formed in our lives
which might be a hindrance for us to be participants in ways He is calling us to today. He can give us a new revelation so we can follow Him with integrity. But we must be willing
to listen to Him as we converse, pray, and worship together.
May this be God’s hour for the Church of the Nazarene!
21a. General Superintendent David Busic, CLOSING SERMON: “WHO IS JESUS?” MARK 8:27-30
Didache: Faithful Teaching 17:2 (Winter 2018) ISSN: 15360156 (web version) – http://didache.nazarene.org
We have gathered as a global church over these last three days to discuss, wrestle, and pray about the theology of our church: specifically, what it means to be a holiness people centered in Christ.
On behalf of the Board of General Superintendents, I want to thank all of you for what you have contributed this week. You are a gift to the Church. Thank you for loving God with all your hearts and all your minds and for loving your church as yourself. We are grateful for your consecrated lives and how we are learning how to be the people of God together.
Mark 8:27-30
27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and ON THE WAY he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?”
28 And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29 He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.”
30 And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.
A few years ago, I was on a flight from Kansas City to Los Angeles. There was a woman sitting next to me, and as often happens we began to talk about our lives. She told me that she was a movie director
from Hollywood. (I couldn’t help but wonder how successful her career had been in the movie industry since she was riding in economy coach with me . . . but I didn’t mention that. Some things are better left
unsaid. J) Then she asked me what I did for a living. I told her I was a pastor, and suddenly the conversation took a dramatic turn. Her face turned bright red and her voice became elevated.
She told me she was definitely NOT a Christian and began to share her disdain for everything evangelical: including the religious right; and people who picket funerals and blow up abortion clinics; and who support the death penalty; and vote for gun legislation; and lots of other things she mentioned, all because I said I was a pastor. When she realized, I wasn’t going to fight back, she began to calm down and quietly said: “Christianity changed my grandfather. When he became a Christian, he was never any fun anymore. He lost his joy and nothing was ever the same in our family.” And for the next hour we talked about the difference between religion and Jesus.
There is a difference, you know, between religion and Jesus. Religion as a set of rules to maintain, and as standards to meet, can become oppressive and beat people down. But religion is not the gospel. The gospel is GOOD NEWS that brings freedom and life through a real relationship.
The Christian gospel is not first a truth to be believed — it is an invitation to meet the one true and living God in Jesus Christ.
§ He is the Way who shows us the way
§ He is the Truth who reveals what is true
§ He is the Life who gives us life
Or as Tom Noble reminds us: “Salvation is being personally united to a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
I’m haunted by what Fleming Rutledge has written: “We have not become a secular society so much as we have become a generically religious one. AND THAT Popular religion tends to be an unholy blend
of whatever presents itself.” As a result, the newest forms of spirituality are typically highly individualistic, self-referential, self-indulgent, and only barely related to the history or tradition of ANY
world religion, much less to Christianity. And so, in such as a time as this, we believe there is no more important calling for the church in our time than reclaiming the self-identification of the God who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who is this God of which we speak? In her book, The Crucifixion, Fleming Rutledge writes:
God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
This is God’s self-identification. This is the way God chooses to be known (Ex 3:6). The particularity of this God is startling; the God of Israel aligns himself with specific human beings with individual names
who live in identifiable places on the map. People with life stories that are imperfect, messy, and by no means always edifying.
This God, unlike the gods of religion, has chosen of his own sovereign will (free will, I might add) to select a distinct group of people simply because he chooses to do so. The “irreligiousness” of this choosing is that it has nothing to do with any spiritual accomplishments by the chosen ones. Instead, they are selected in spite of themselves! For if there is one thing certain about the children of Israel, it is
that they did not deserve their election.
This undeserved, grace-filled, “chosen-ness” is palpable whenever God is called “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
God is the God revealed most fully and definitively in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
It is this astonishing fact that displays the uniqueness of the God proclaimed in the Bible.Resurrection in and of itself was not unheard of; after all, stories of gods who died and rose again were told everywhere
in the ancient world. But the unique feature of Christian proclamation is the shocking claim that God is fully acting, not only in Jesus’ resurrected life, but especially in Jesus’ death on the cross.
To say it another way, the death of Jesus in and of itself would not be anything remarkable. Lots of people in the Roman world were crucified. But what is remarkable is that the Creator of the cosmos is
revealed, unveiled, and made known in the suffering life and atoning death of Jesus of Nazareth.
God is the Triune God
One God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus of Nazareth was not a randomly disconnected holy man. If he is not the second person of the Trinitarian Godhead and the only begotten Son of the Father, then God’s self was not directly involved on the Cross.
The Nicaean and Chalcedonian definitions remain the standard by which we test all our Christological assumptions: Jesus was of one substance with the Father and was both fully divine and fully human — not half one and half the other — fully both. Which means the beauty of the Christ event finds its
meaning in the fact that the three-personal God is directly acting as ONE throughout the entire sequence from creation to incarnation to crucifixion to ascension and to the final eschaton.
Father-Son-and Holy Spirit in the divine interdependent dance. Which ultimately means that our Christology can never be independent from our Theology and Pneumatology – and that our ecclesiology
and missiology must always flow from Trinitarian beginnings.
Jesus, of course, is very popular today.
We now have Jesus breath-mints, Jesus dog collars, Jesus band aids, and Jesus bobble heads. You can put Jesus on the bumper of your car or buy Jesus bubble bath. (If you don’t believe me go visit a Christian bookstore; if for nothing else than for the potpourri!)
What have we done with Jesus?
We have . . .
o commercialized him
o consumerized him
o culturalized him
o secularized him
o domesticated him
o nationalized him
o and personalized him into what we want him to be.
We have recreated Jesus into the Savior we want him to be.
We have taken his words and made them fit our agendas. We have made him look like us, think like us, and speak like us. In short, we have fashioned Jesus into our image. But not every Jesus is the REAL Jesus.
That is why the ultimate question of the Church for our time is: Who is Jesus? If we get the answer right, it changes everything. But if we get the answer wrong, it also changes everything.It is the central
question of Mark’s Gospel, asked by Jesus himself in the conversation at Caesarea Philippi: “But who do you say that I am?” (Mk 8:29).
You remember that the Gospel of Mark begins with a powerful, politically-loaded statement of purpose:
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1)
This opening revelation sets up a dramatic irony that serves as the driving force of the story: we as readers know the identity of Jesus from the first line, but none of the characters in the story knows it –
except, of course, the demons.
Only at the end of the story does a human character rightly express the confession of who Jesus is – and that from the outsider Gentile centurion, witnessing Jesus’ horrific death on the cross. He is the first to speak the truth: “Truly this was God’s Son!” (Mk 15:39).
Here we find the intended goal of Mark’s Gospel: Jesus is finally and most completely revealed as the Son of God when he is known and shown as the Crucified One.
Now if we were to stop in the middle of the Gospel a different ending might have been predicted. Jesus explodes on the scene announcing the kingdom of God and performing miracles with breathtaking speed:
o he casts out demons
o heals the sick
o raises the dead
o calms the sea and wind
o walks on water
o and multiplies bread to feed enormous crowds (not once, but twice in Mark – and
significantly, the second feeding being in “Gentile” territory!)
He is, as it were, the divine superhero who demonstrates the power of God and is Lord over the powers and forces of evil. He is Daniel’s “Son of Man,” coming on the clouds with divine authority and power.
And so we can understand how the disciples could misinterpret the meaning of Jesus’ identity, until finally it’s made clear that the insiders have become outsiders. Their misunderstanding of Jesus’ purpose reaches epic proportions that finally comes to a head in Mark 8. It is the midpoint of Mark’s story. The first half of the Gospel began with announcing Isaiah’s “Way” (Mk 1:2); the second half opens “ON the Way” (Mk 8:27). On the way to the cross, but also on the way to discipleship.
Following the second feeding of the crowds is a very important story of the healing of a blind man in Bethsaida – but the healing is not immediate; it is completed in stages.
The first touch of Jesus to the blind man brings partial vision: he can see people (which is far better than he had ever been able to see before), but they look like trees walking around. It was only after a second touch from Jesus that the man’s sight was fully restored and he could see clearly. This “not seeing clearly” moment is strategically placed immediately before the Caesarea Philippi location, where a pantheon of gods were worshiped, and the Caesarea Philippi question: “But who do you say that I am?”
Mark’s point is well made. Up until this moment the disciples have seen Jesus, but only partially. He is the walking around Savior” appearing as a tree. They can see – but they can’t really see. They need their vision completely healed.
And so, Jesus says: “But YOU – who do YOU say that I am?” “You are the Messiah! The CHRISTOS – the anointed one from God.”
The answer is technically correct – but philosophically wrong.
And here again is where Mark gives us a different perspective than Matthew. Although Peter is praised in Matthew for his insight . . . even to call it divine revelation . . . in Mark he is rebuked; and not gently, by the Jesus with the cocker-spaniel hairdo and soft hands. It is an intense reprimand! Jesus gets into Peter’s face; perhaps the strongest rebuke of a disciple from Jesus in the entire gospel record.
In fact, the verb “rebuked” is the same word used earlier in Mark when Jesus silences the demons after their pronouncement that he is the Son of God. And so, while Peter is not possessed, ironically, he unwittingly serves as Satan’s messenger at the precise moment when he has also received partial sight.
So, the Messianic secret, “Don’t tell anyone” turns out to be much more than waiting to be revealed at the appropriate time. Jesus is not rejecting the title – he is rejecting the MEANING. It is a strong
statement of censure from Jesus, and the reason, it appears, is not to confuse people as to what kind of Messiah he will be. He will not be the nationalistic, militaristic Messiah of their expectations, oriented to
the exercise of unchecked raw power.
But rather, with great love, “[Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” (Mk 8:31)
He IS Daniel’s “Son of Man,” coming on the clouds . . . but he is ALSO Isaiah’s suffering servant. As John says, he is the Lion and the Lamb.
So “Messiah” is redefined … and given its meaning … in terms of the suffering Son of Man.
How can this be?
Peter is understandably shaken, if not appalled:
“Take it back, Jesus. You start talking like that and we can forget about the revolution.” “The people need a leader who can inspire them – and suffering and rejection and death doesn’t inspire.” “I owe you big time. I was just a fisherman when you chose me. But I’m smart enough to know that we are never going to throw off the Roman oppression if you start down this path.” “Call me ‘Satan’ if you want to – but you’re talking like a crazy man!”
But Jesus will not give in. In fact, Mark says Jesus turns up the heat, and says to the whole crowd:
“Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” (Mk 8:34)
It is difficult for us to grasp how jarring this statement would have been to those who first heard it. The cross for a first century person was more than a metaphor. It was the very real and very public execution
instrument of the state for slaves and revolutionaries. It would be the equivalent today of saying: Take up your electric chair or take up your gas chamber and follow me. It was a torturous, violent, humiliating way to die intended to discourage people from messing with the powers that be.
That’s why it’s not enough for us to say that our cross to bear is like a heavy burden that we might have to endure in life. NO! A thousand times NO!
o A difficult person might be a pain in the neck, but they are not our cross to bear.
o Facebook might be a thorn in our flesh, but it is not our cross to bear.
o Giving up chocolate or diet coke for Lent is not our cross to bear.
o Not even accreditation boards or IBOE curriculum reviews are our cross to bear!
No, to deny ourselves and take up our cross is to follow Jesus.
It is knowingly and willingly laying down one’s life for the sake of others. It is embracing the redemptive self-giving way of Jesus that willingly suffers with them and for them and against the powers of evil and oppression that create it. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: “When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die.” This is not cheap grace – this is costly grace.
Apparently, it is not enough for us to understand Jesus as the crucified Messiah –now the identity of Jesus must become the identity of his disciples. And until that aspect of discipleship is made clear, our
vision is still cloudy, and our spiritual healing is incomplete.
The Cross
It’s intriguing that after this conversation at Caesarea, the miracles in Mark are far less frequent. In fact, only three more remain in the entire Gospel. The focus now turns to the inexorability of the cross. Jesus the miracle-worker, who is Lord over nature, sickness, and demons now submits his power to become the suffering Son of Man. Mark will not let us escape the fact that those who perceive Jesus primarily as a purveyor of supernatural or political power have failed to understand him.
Peter’s answer is correct, but incomplete. And it is the same mistake the Church continues to make even today. We often answer correctly, but not rightly. We see, but we do not see. Jesus is walking around in his full glory, and yet we see a tree.
The question, “Who do you say that I am?” finds its final answer in the confession, “Truly this man was the Son of God” – a confession that can only be truly expressed at the foot of the cross.
And so now we understand that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
And later, at his final meal with the disciples, Jesus distributes bread and wine with the revelatory words: “This is my body,” and “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Mk 14:22-24)
The gospel of Mark is a manifesto of radical discipleship. The Jesus of the gospel calls for a revolution, but not of what we think or want. The norm for our discipleship is defined by the cross. Jesus’ obedience as the Son of Man, interpreted as the suffering servant who lays down his life for others and for the sake of the kingdom of God, must now be our pattern for faithfulness.It is, as Ched Myers says, “a revolution of means as well as ends,” inviting us, yes, even instructing his beloved to reject “the deadly logic of domination.” The contradiction of the cross — a life that is given, not taken — is the only power that
can heal the world.This will require that we see the Messiah as he really is — to refuse to settle for seeing trees walking around — and to willingly, joyfully, take up our cross and follow Jesus.
This, I believe, is the task of Christian theology: to help the whole Church see the real Jesus, in all of his “Son of Man” and “Suffering Servant” glory. Both combined! For this is the Jesus that, redeems and is
redeeming, the whole world.
This is the Jesus that calls us out of a life centered in individualism and self-interest and into life according to redemptive love.
I had conversation with Verne Ward, our Global Mission Director, a few weeks ago. He had come from a training time with a group of Nazarenes who were wanting to go to neighboring countries where the church is not yet. Places where there are very few, if any, Christians – 99.9% from a majority religion.
People who have not yet heard the story of Jesus. One year ago, 17 were sent out – eight families and one single person. And now they had come back to report on their work. To everyone’s surprise they had planted 31 new churches and testified that there were strong fellowships of believers and seekers.
It was hard to believe! How could that be? In some of the most difficult and heavily persecuted parts of the world? A question was asked of one of the men who had planted the churches: “What is the risk for the people we are sending?”
The man quickly responded, “There is no risk.”
People in the room looked at each other with puzzled looks on their faces. Another person asked the same question in another way: “We know that Christians have lost their lives in these places. What is the inherent risk of sending these Nazarene families into this area to share the Gospel?” The leader
responded again: “There is no risk. You know who we are! We have given everything to Jesus! We hold nothing back, we are completely his.
There may be cost, but we leave the cost to the Lord, because only the Lord knows the cost.
But there is nothing left to risk! You cannot risk what you have already given away. He owns it all.
There is no risk.”
I confess, I don’t understand discipleship like that. I am learning from my brothers and sisters what it means to deny myself, and take up my cross, and to follow Jesus. But this much I know: The cross is not an optional form of discipleship. It is the WAY of discipleship. It is not the power steering/moon roof upgrade for a few special Christians. It is the call of us all. And this discipleship is volitional – it is not
coincidental or incidental or accidental. We TAKE UP our cross.
I was flying home from South America just a few days ago. My seatmate asked me about my job. She had an interest in the Church of the Nazarene in Africa. I told her about a young college student named Harmon Schmelzenbach who felt a strong call to go to Africa; and how his college promised to provide support of $200 a year. And how he went in obedience to the call. He met his wife Lula on the voyage over. Of how they finally landed in Swaziland where they labored for many years without a single
convert. And how they buried three children there and despite warnings not to go into the mosquito infested valleys, Harmon continued to go and eventually died in his early 40’s of malaria related diseases. But also of how God used them to lay a foundation of holiness evangelism in Africa, and how today, one hundred years later, there are over 700,000 Nazarenes in Africa.
She was amazed. She said: “There is going to be a really big mansion in heaven for Christians who make those extraordinary kinds of sacrifice.” I had a moment of reflection. I answered: “What if the
Schmelzenbach’s commitment to Christ and the gospel is actually the norm, and it’s the rest of us who are the unusual ones?”
She said: “I’d like to believe that is true.”
Discipleship as the way of Jesus is not an option for the super-spiritual among us. It is the WAY.
There is a difference between GIVING UP and TAKING UP. One is resignation – the other is selfdonation. It is significant, I think, that we are thinking about our Christology just a few days before holy week.
Mark’s version of Good Friday says it this way: “At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ (which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’)” And then . . . “With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.”
When Jesus was on the cross, he was not there as a victim. He chose to be there. He laid his life down.
He took up the cross.And yet, Jesus did not do away with the darkness with a word of command or the wave of his hand in divine power. He could have; but he didn’t. Do you know what he did instead? He entered it! He entered the darkness. He reached to the lowest depths where the most desolate of the world lies helpless. He entered the pain, the suffering, the loneliness, the despair, the FORSAKENESS of our lives.
And while I don’t claim to understand everything there is to know about the mystery of this moment for Jesus, I think I believe this much . . . that because Jesus denied himself and took up his cross . . . at our most hurt, our most frightened, our most forsaken moments, we have a companion who HAS been there and WILL be there with us.
And nothing we THINK or DO in this state can shock him. If all we can do is cry out, he cried out first.
He went to the darkest places we could ever go, and there he defeated the powers of sin and death . . . and God in Christ, entered into all the suffering that we could ever know:
§ In that moment, he lay among the charred bodies of the babies burned alive in Auschwitz.
§ He shared the numbed horror of their parents beyond consolation.
§ He entered the pain of the atrocities of Bosnia and Rwanda.
§ He entered the confusion of a crack addict lying in an alley.
§ He entered the sickness of chemotherapy.
§ He inhabited the loneliness of those wasting away in nursing homes.
§ He wept with those aching with grief wondering if they can go on with the empty place in their heart.
Only Christianity tells us this truth: God suffers FOR us and WITH us. Why? Because Jesus is Lord! He is Lord of the light, and he is Lord of the night! He is Lord of the best of times, and he is Lord of the
darkness. And because he has been there and back, and is NOW THE VICTOR, we are not and will not be forsaken.
Only Christianity Jesus took all our sin, and our brokenness, and plumbed the depths of darkness, because only then could he bring with him all he found there into the dawn of a new morning. He died the death of the most forsaken, so that even the most forsaken might share his resurrection.
***
7. Vinicius Couto, TEOLOGIA DOS REFORMADORES: UMA INTRODUÇÃO HISTÓRICA AOS PRINCIPAIS PENSAMENTOS DE LUTERO, ZWINGLIO E CALVINO
See Also the following publications in the previous edition 17:2
9a. Gabriel Benjiman (Africa), RESPONSE TO DEIRDRE BROWER LATZ AND RUBEN FERNANDEZ (revised)
19a. General Superintendent Carla Sunberg, GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE INTRODUCTORY PLENARY: CHRISTOLOGY
20a. General Superintendent Fili Chambo, GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING PLENARY: ONENESS
21a. General Superintendent David Busic, CLOSING SERMON: “WHO IS JESUS?” MARK 8:27-30
***
GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING REFLECTION Deirdre Brower Latz, Nazarene Theological College, Manchester, UK
The GTC 2018 was notable for me for several reasons. From its inception and communication it was intentionally and obviously in multiple languages. Framing the conference for the global church had been considered carefully, and the spread of people presenting and responding was thoughtful, so each region had representation in various ways. The papers, although varied in their approaches, demanded constant thought. Participants had given their time to read and wrestle and sought to interrogate them in ways that got to the problems they experienced in reading them. During the conference, cultural
expressions of response emerged – asking questions through story, the desire to be heard/give a view, and on-the-ground issues – as key ways of interpreting our theology. Our floundering attempts to manage our responses (particularly to different modes of asking questions) were interesting. Although there are issues that unite us, still others emerged that ensured we are/were always aware of our rich diversity.
From memory, it felt as if there was much greater self-awareness and confidence in voices from each continent in shaping theology and in the leadership offered than in previous conferences. It was also clear that there is substantial disagreement even in regions described as monolithic (‘South
America’, ‘Africa’, ‘North America’, 'Eurasia’) regarding key issues: these are often disagreements of practical engagement based on theological frameworks that have been communicated over time. The Latin/Brazilian Church expressed some clear difference in relation to the issue of our rapprochement (or not) to Roman Catholicism, for example. The African continent had many views relating to apartheid – from its significance as a seminal issue for the church to those who expressed the desire for it to be ‘over.’ These differences are fascinating. However, central to the room was a growing awareness that our theology impacts the world around us for the sake of transformation, including in arenas of justice and righteousness. The integrity of the church in relation to the wider communities we participate in and our own practice and expression of justice emerged in more than one conversation.
There was a small percentage of women present – many of those selected were not necessarily practising theologians as academicians but were hybridised in their/our roles (chaplains, district leaders, field educational coordinators, adjuncts, bi-vocational, Generals, GMC workers, as well as Principals). It was also interesting that the majority of North American participants were white. I wonder what these indicators express of our church and its formation on the ground and our gaps.
From the perspective of a practical theologian, I thought it was a powerful expression of the significance of the way theology profoundly shapes our practice. I was intrigued by comments in the plenary that called for more biblical exegesis, since I believed each paper was rooted in a perspective on the bible that was grounding the conversation. It was good – I thought – that the papers were less in silos and more integrative of biblical-theological- historical-practical approaches, some more so than others. I certainly believed that a biblical emphasis came through in responses to questions raised from the floor.
However, I agree that the idea of the Kingdom of God and various aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry, speaking and modelling could have taken us further in the development of our Christological understanding.
Throughout people swiftly moved towards missiology/ecclesiology and the practical
implications of the papers. Participants felt a freedom to critically engage in ways that were liberating for us in terms of our own experience of the church – and upon our return to our own places we can reflect further on the learning and our own expressions of Christology.
There were two or three themes that I know we (the church, we NTC) will consider more. The idea of discipleship and corporate discipleship; the framing of our contexts as the primary place of theological reflection; the significance of good theology as a critical feature of the church and our practice. It was clear some of the historically ‘dealt with’ matters of Christ as human-and-divine are still causing consternation and in some settings our articulation is unclear: grounding in deep theology matters. Our stance in terms of the resurrection and eschatology bear greater conversation. The difference between contextualisation and assimilation or syncretism needs to be considered more fully – and the parameters of global/local. On the whole, I became more convinced than ever that in our global family theological conversation really matters. I left asking how the richness of this experience could be
disseminated or experienced at much more local or district levels.
***
REFLEXIÓN FINAL DE LA CONFERENCIA GLOBAL DE TEOLOGÍA Deirdre Brower Latz, Nazarene Theological College, Manchester, Reino Unido
La CGT 2018 fue significativa para mí por varias razones. Desde su concepción y comunicación fue intencional y obviamente multilingüe. La conferencia de la iglesia global fue meticulosamente calculada, y los presentadores y reactores fueron seleccionados cuidadosamente, por lo que cada región tuvo representación de una u otra manera. Las ponencias, aunque tuvieron varios enfoques, exigían una constante reflexión. Los participantes tomaron un tiempo para leerlas y analizarlas e intentaron cuestionarlas de tal modo que los llevó a entender mejor los asuntos con los que batallaron al leerlas.
Durante la conferencia, emergieron expresiones culturales de participaciones – ya sea haciendo preguntas a través de la narrativa, por el deseo de ser escuchado o de dar una opinión, y asuntos que suceden en su lugar de procedencia- así como formas muy únicas de interpretar nuestra teología. Fue
interesante la forma en que tambaleamos en nuestro deseo de presentar nuestras respuestas (particularmente a las diferentes formas en que se nos hicieron las preguntas). Aunque hay asuntos que nos unen, surgieron otras que nos aseguraron que siempre estamos/estuvimos conscientes de nuestra rica diversidad.
De lo que puedo recordar, se sintió como que hubo un incremento en la conciencia y
autoconfianza de las voces de cada continente al tratar de darle forma a la teología y en el liderazgo presentado en comparación con las conferencias anteriores. También quedó claro que existe un desacuerdo sustancial incluso en las regiones descritas como monolíticas ("América del Sur" "África", "América del Norte" y "Eurasia") con respecto a asuntos claves: a menudo son desacuerdos sobre manifestaciones prácticas basadas en marcos teológicos que han sido comunicados a través del tiempo.
La Iglesia latina/brasileña expresó una clara diferencia en relación al tema de nuestro acercamiento (o no) al catolicismo romano, por ejemplo. El continente africano tenía muchos puntos de vista relacionados con el apartheid, desde su importancia como un tema seminal para la iglesia hasta aquellos que expresaron el deseo de que se "superara". Estas diferencias son fascinantes. Sin embargo, en nuestro grupo se observó un incremento en la conciencia de que nuestra teología afecta el mundo que nos rodea en aras de la transformación, incluyendo las áreas de justicia y rectitud. En más de una conversación se abordaron los asuntos de la integridad de la iglesia y su relación con las comunidades más extensas con las que interactuamos así como nuestra propia práctica y expresión de justicia.
Hubo un bajo porcentaje de mujeres que se hicieron presentes, muchas fueron seleccionadas no necesariamente porque fueran teólogos practicantes en la academia, sino que por sus/nuestras funciones híbridas, (entre ellas, capellanes, líderes distritales, coordinadores de educación de área, adjuntos bivocacionales, Generales, empleadas del CMG, así como Directoras). También fue interesante que la mayoría de los participantes norteamericanos eran blancos. Me pregunto qué demuestran esos indicadores acerca del estado de nuestra iglesia y su formación en el campo así como de nuestras lagunas.
Desde la perspectiva de un teólogo práctico, me hizo pensar en la profunda importancia que tiene la teología en darle forma a nuestra práctica. Me intrigaron los comentarios en el pleno que pedían más
exégesis bíblica, ya que estaba convencida de que cada artículo estaba enraizado en una perspectiva bíblica lo cuál era el cimiento de nuestras conversaciones. Salío muy bien, me dio la impresión, que los documentos, algunos más que otros, no tenían el aspecto de ser graneros aislados sino que adoptaron
enfoques bíblico-teológicos-históricos- prácticos. Creo que verdaderamente surgió un énfasis bíblico en las respuestas a las preguntas planteadas desde el pleno. Sin embargo, concuerdo con la idea de que el reino de Dios y los varios aspectos de la vida y el ministerio de Jesús, de los cuales nos habla y nos modela, nos hubieran podido llevar más allá en el desarrollo de nuestra comprensión cristológica.
Durante la conferencia las personas tenían la tendencia de moverse rápidamente hacia la misiología/eclesiología y las implicaciones prácticas de las ponencias. Los participantes sintieron la libertad de aportar críticamente en maneras que fueron liberadoras respecto a nuestra propia experiencia dentro de la iglesia, y así, al regresar a nuestros lugares, podemos reflexionar más sobre el aprendizaje y
nuestras propias expresiones de la cristología.
Hubo dos o tres temas a los cuales (la iglesia, nosotros, NTC) le prestaremos más atención. La idea de discipulado y discipulado corporativo; la estructura de nuestros contextos como el lugar principal de la reflexión teológica; la importancia de la buena teología como una característica crítica de la iglesia y nuestra práctica. Quedó claro que algunos de los asuntos históricamente "resueltos" que tratan sobre la naturaleza de Cristo como humano y divino, siguen causando consternación y en algunos contextos nuestra articulación no es tan clara: es importante estar cimentados en una teología profunda.
Nuestra postura en términos de resurrección y escatología produce que haya una mayor conversación.
La diferencia entre la contextualización y la asimilación o el sincretismo debe considerarse más a fondo, y los parámetros de lo global/local. En general, me convencí más que nunca, la importancia que cobra la
conversación teológica dentro de nuestra familia global. Salí preguntándome cómo la riqueza de esta experiencia podría ser diseminada o experimentada a niveles mucho más locales o distritales.
***
REFLEXION FINALE CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE SUR LA THEOLOGIE Deirdre Brower Latz, Institut Théologique Nazaréen, Manchester, Royaume-Unido
J'ai été marqué par la CIT 2018 pour plusieurs raisons. L’utilisation intentionnelle de plusieurs langues pour toute communication dès le début. La planification de la conférence au niveau de l’église internationale était minutieuse et la sélection des personnes qui devaient présenter et répondre était bien réfléchie afin que chaque région soit représentée à plusieurs niveaux. Les documents ont nécessité une constante réflexion malgré leur différence d’approche. Les participants ont consacré du temps à les lire et débattre pour discuter des difficultés rencontrées. Durant la conférence, notre théologie a été
interprétée de façon stratégique - d'aucuns se sont servis d'expressions culturelles pour répondre à des questions et d'autres ont posé des questions en racontant une histoire - ils voulaient être entendus, donner leurs points de vue, et discuter des difficultés de terrain. Il est intéressant de constater que nous avons eu du mal à répondre à certaines questions (particulièrement celles formulées différemment). Certains problèmes nous ont unis et d'autres nous ont rappelés la richesse de notre diversité.
Pour rappel, lorsque l'on compare les conférences précédentes a celle-ci, on a l'impression qu'il y a une meilleure conscience de soi et plus d'assurance dans l'intervention de chaque continent concernant l'aspect du leadership et de la théologie. Il est clair qu'il existe une grande divergence d'opinions concernant les questions fondamentales, ceci même au niveau des régions considérées monolithiques («Amérique du Sud », « Afrique », « Amérique du Nord », « Eurasie ») : ce sont souvent des divergences d'engagement pratique basées sur des cadres théologiques qui ont été constamment communiqués. Par exemple, l'Église Latino-Brésilienne a eu une opinion différente concernant la question de notre
rapprochement (ou non) avec le catholicisme romain. Le continent Africain avait beaucoup à dire concernant la question de l'apartheid - sa pertinence en tant que problème fondamental pour l'église et ceux qui ont exprimé le désir d'y mettre « fin ». Ces divergences sont fascinantes. Par ailleurs, il y avait une prise de conscience accrue concernant l'impact que notre théologie a sur le monde autour de nous, notamment dans le secteur de la justice et de la droiture. La discussion a également tourné autour du
sujet de l'intégrité de l'église envers les communautés élargies dans lesquelles nous intervenons et notre propre pratique et perspective de la justice.
Peu de femmes étaient présentes - la plupart des personnes choisies ne pratiquaient pas nécessairement la théologie en tant qu'académiciens mais étaient hybrides dans leurs rôles (d'aumôniers, de chefs de
district, de coordinateurs pédagogiques, d'auxiliaires, de bi-vocationnels, de généraux, de travailleurs GMC, et de directeurs). Il était également intéressant de noter que la plupart des participants Nord- Américains étaient blancs. Je me demande ce que ces indicateurs disent de notre église, de sa formation sur le terrain et de ses lacunes.
En tant que théologien pratique, je pensais qu'il s'agissait d'une grande révélation de l'impact significatif de la théologie sur nos activités. Lors de la session plénière, j'étais sidéré par les commentaires qui
suggéraient une exégèse biblique, parce que je pensais que la bible devait servir de référence pour l’élaboration de chaque document pour une meilleure orientation de la discussion. Je pensais qu'il serait
préférable que les documents soient moins en « silos » et plus axés sur l’intégration des approches bibliques, théologiques, historiques et pratiques. Je suis certain que la bible a servi de référence pour
répondre aux questions des participants. Je reconnais cependant que prendre l'exemple du Royaume de Dieu et des différents aspects concernant la vie, le ministère et les paroles de Jésus, aurait pu nous aider à mieux comprendre la Christologie.
Durant la conférence, les participants sont brusquement passés d’un sujet à un autre ; la missiologie/l'ecclésiologie et les implications pratiques des documents. C’était une belle expérience pour l’église de les voir se sentir libres de prendre part à la discussion de façon critique - et lorsque nous rentrerons chez nous, nous pourrons mieux réfléchir sur ce que nous avons appris et sur notre propre perspective de la Christologie.
Nous (l'église et le NTC) prendrons en considération deux ou trois thèmes. Le concept du discipolat et le discipolat social ; l'encadrement de nos contextes comme base principale de réflexion
théologique; l'importance d'une bonne théologie comme caractéristique critique de l'église et de notre pratique. Il est évident que les questions historiquement « traitées » sur le Christ en tant qu'humain et divin causent toujours la consternation et que notre perspective n'est pas toujours claire : il est donc important de se baser sur une théologie approfondie. Notre position concernant la résurrection et
l'eschatologie nécessite une discussion plus approfondie. Il faudrait également prendre en considération la différence entre la contextualisation et l'assimilation ou le syncrétisme ainsi que les paramètres du terme international / local. En somme, je suis plus que jamais convaincu de l'importance de la conversation théologique au sein de notre famille internationale. J'ai quitté en me demandant comment diffuser et partager cette riche expérience au niveau local ou au niveau du district.
***
REFLEXÃO DE CONCLUSÃO DA CONFERÊNCIA GLOBAL DE TEOLOGIA Deirdre Brower Latz, Nazarene Theological College, Manchester, Reino Unido
A CGT de 2018 foi marcante para mim por várias razões. Desde o seu início e comunicação, ela aconteceu intencionalmente e obviamente em múltiplos idiomas. O moldar da conferência para a igreja global foi considerado cuidadosamente e a difusão das pessoas apresentando e respondendo foi muito
bem pensada, então cada região teve a sua representação de várias formas. Os trabalhos, embora variados em suas abordagens, demandavam constante pensamento. Os participantes deram o seu tempo para ler e debater, e buscaram interrogá-los de maneiras que alcançavam os problemas que eles experimentaram ao lê-los. Durante a conferência, expressões culturais de resposta emergiram – fazendo perguntas através de histórias, o desejo de ser ouvido/de apresentar uma perspectiva e questões bem ‘pés no chão’ – como maneiras chave para interpretar a nossa teologia. As nossas tentativas atrapalhadas para lidar com as nossas respostas (especialmente aos diferentes modos de fazer perguntas) foram
interessantes. Embora existam questões que nos unem, ainda há outras que emergiram que mostram que somos/fomos sempre conscientes de nossa rica diversidade.
Puxando pela memória, comparando com conferências anteriores, eu senti que houve muito mais auto consciência e confiança nas vozes de cada continente ao moldar a teologia, e na liderança oferecida.
Também foi claro que há um desacordo substantial até em regiões descritas como monolíticas (‘América do Sul’, ‘África’, ‘América do Norte’, ‘Eurásia’) em relação a questões importantes: são desentendimentos geralmente de envolvimento prático baseado nas estruturas que têm sido utilizadas através dos tempos. A Igreja Latina/Brasileira expressou clara diferença em relação a questão sobre a nossa aproximação (ou não) com o Catolicismo Romano, por exemplo. O continente africano tinha muitas visões em relação ao apartheid – desde a sua importância como uma questão seminal para a igreja como aqueles que expressaram seu desejo para que isso estivesse ‘terminado’. Essas diferenças são fascinantes. Entretanto, o central do evento foi a crescente consciência de que a nossa teologia impacta o mundo ao nosso redor para a sua transformação, incluindo as arenas de injustiça e retidão. A integridade da igreja em relação as comunidades mais amplas nas quais participamos e a nossa própria prática e expressão de justiça emergiu em mais de uma conversa.
Havia uma pequena porcentagem de mulheres presentes – muitas das selecionadas não eram necessariamente teólogas praticantes ou acadêmicas, mas foram aproveitadas em seus/nossos papeis (capelãs, líderes distritais, coordenadoras de educação de área, adjuntas, bi-vocacionais, líderes da igreja Global, funcionárias do CGM, como também diretoras). Também foi interessante que a maioria dos participantes norteamericanos eram brancos. Eu me pergunto se esses indicadores expressam quem a nossa igreja é, sua formação de base e as nossas brechas.
Da perspectiva de uma teóloga prática, eu achei que foi uma expressão poderosa da importância da maneira que a teologia profundamente molda a nossa prática. Eu fiquei intrigada por comentários na plenária que pediam mais exegese bíblica, já que eu acredito que cada trabalho foi fundamentado na perspectiva bíblica que era a base da conversa. Foi bom – eu pensei – que os trabalhos não foram de forma geral isolados, mas tiveram abordagens mais bíblica- teológica-histórica-prática integrativas, alguns mais que outros. Eu certamente creio que uma ênfase bíblica esteve presente através das respostas às questões levantadas pelas pessoas ali. Entretanto, eu concordo que a ideia do Reino de Deus em vários aspectos da vida e ministério de Jesus, falando e moldando, poderia ter sido levada mais adiante no desenvolvimento de nosso entendimento cristológico.
No decorrer da conferência, as pessoas se moveram rapidamente para as implicações
missiológicas/eclesiológicas e práticas dos trabalhos. Os participantes se sentiram à vontade para engajar de maneiras que nos liberavam nas questões de nossas próprias experiências com a igreja – e com o nosso retorno para os nossos próprios lugares, podemos refletir mais sobre o aprendido e sobre nossas próprias expressões de cristologia.
Há dois ou três temas que eu sei que nós (a igreja, nós NTC) consideraremos mais. A ideia de discipulado e discipulado corporativo; a estrutura de nossos contextos como lugar primário de reflexão teológica; a importância de boa teologia como uma característica crítica da igreja e da nossa prática.
Ficou claro que algumas questões históricas ‘lidadas’ por Cristo como humano-e-divino ainda estão causando consternação e em alguns cenários a nossa articulação não é clara: o fundamento em teologia profunda importa. A nossa postura em relação a ressurreição e escatologia carregam uma conversa maior. A diferença entre contextualização, assimilação ou sincretismo precisa ser considerada mais profundamente – e os parâmetros do global/local. No geral, eu fiquei mais convencida do que nunca de que conversa teológica na nossa família global realmente importa. Eu parti me perguntando como a riqueza dessa experiência poderia ser disseminada ou experimentada em níveis muito mais locais ou distritais.
***
GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS Dick O. Eugenio, APNTS faculty
I am grateful for the privilege of addressing the delegates and sharing my simple thoughts. I truly appreciated the multi-generational character of the conference, evidenced by the presence and role played by younger minds such as I. Moreover, the multi-cultural dimension of the discussions added a memorable atmosphere. While the intellectual stimulation and mutual edification during the conference were splendid, the social interaction among global Nazarenes in formal deliberations and informal dialogs was particularly enriching and encouraging. I am truly blessed to have been a part of the conference.
The conference may have ended, but my mind is still stirred by the insights and questions uttered throughout the event. During the final plenary session, I realized that the conference is dealing with at least three different tensions and delegates are in pendulum swing between two ends of each continuum.
First, there was a noticeable tension between the descriptive and the prescriptive elements of theological reflections. Majority of the papers, including mine, were descriptive, because they sought to articulate biblical-theological themes and define specific historical-contextual realities. Delegates, however, were
indubitably more concerned for prescription than mere description. There was a sense of impatience to move beyond intellectualism toward actual missional-ministerial engagement. Even small group discussions lean towards asking the question: “So what now?” Like textbook Evangelicals, Nazarenes are predominantly activists. This is both positive and negative, but as a theologian, I wonder if there will ever be a space where reflection is afforded an integrity in its own right when we meet as a global church,
where and when we think together about definitions. We cannot leave theological reflections confined within our institutions, especially because our definitions should reflect both the multi-cultural and multi-generational nature of the church.
The second tension is between reactive and constructive ways of thinking. Several of the papers and questions were reacting to something, and the approach to definition was to ask how we are different from specific groups or ideologies. Following the way of negation, the procedure is to begin by thinking what we should not be and not do. While there is merit in this tactic, to begin our self-definition with criteria such as “we are not colonial,” “we are not Pentecostal,” or “we are not Roman Catholics” puts a lot of constraint about what we can say about ourselves. The resulting reflection can be denominationally parochial. Thankfully, there are delegates who are more constructive in their proposals, particularly from the younger generation. Their concern is not to look at the past and what socio-political issues the church is coming from. With tendencies towards historical disconnectedness and circumstantial apathy, the emphasis is not to look at the past but to imagine the future. The proposal is not to spend time in
reminiscing the bitter events of the past, but to forgive, forget, and move on. Our efforts, constructivists argue, needs to be spent more beneficially in thinking about the future and how we can get there with
grace. Personally, I lean towards this. We need not waste our time anymore in discussing the errors of our Christian predecessors. They just conjure bitter thoughts and open healing wounds. We need to move on and devote more time in how we may respond to the contemporary situation.
Finally, there is tension between restorationism and progressivism. Our Christological definitions need to be biblically and theologically faithful to the Christian tradition, which means that century-old jargons and categories (such as Christ’s divine-human natures) inevitably emerge in the discussions, but we are also challenged to make our presentations of who Christ is relevant to our own contexts. Our
understanding of what it means to imitate and follow Jesus Christ today also needs to balance between what taking up the cross meant in the New Testament times and how it needs be translated and lived out in the contemporary world. Missions, in obedience to Christ’s sending, need to balance between faithful imitation of how Jesus Christ did His and imaginative creativity of how we do ours today. The tension is between what aspects of New Testament Christology, discipleship, and missions can be restored for use today, and what progressive innovations can be employed today which may retain the label “Christian.”
We certainly cannot argue that the solution is to return to New Testament Christianity (as some groups throughout history have proposed), but we also cannot abandon apostolic definitions because we think of
them as completely irrelevant in our current generation. We need the via media. We need to think together in order to define the criteria and boundaries that accommodate the best of each end, because whether we like it or now, we need to be restorationist and progressivist at the same time.
***
FINALES DE LA CONFERENCIA GLOBAL DE TEOLOGÍA
Dick O. Eugenio, Facultad de APNTS
Estoy agradecido por el privilegio de dirigirme a los delegados para compartir mis humildes pensamientos. Realmente aprecié el carácter multigeneracional de la conferencia, evidenciado por la presencia y el papel desempeñado por mentes más jóvenes como yo. Además, la dimensión multicultural
de las discusiones permitió que se creara una atmósfera memorable. Si bien la estimulación intelectual y la mutua edificación durante la conferencia fueron espléndidas, la interacción social entre los nazarenos globales en deliberaciones formales y diálogos informales fue particularmente enriquecedora y alentadora. Me siento realmente bendecido por haber sido parte de la conferencia.
La conferencia pudo haber terminado, pero mi mente aún está conmovida por las ideas y las preguntas que se suscitaron a lo largo del evento. Durante la sesión plenaria final, me di cuenta de que la conferencia trató al menos con tres tensiones diferentes y los delegados se posicionaron en una oscilación pendular entre los dos extremos de cada continuo. Primero, había una tensión notable entre los elementos de reflexiones teológicas descriptivos y preceptivos. La mayoría de los artículos, incluido el mío, eran descriptivos, porque buscaban articular temas bíblico-teológicos y definir realidades histórico-contextuales específicos. Los delegados, sin embargo, estaban indudablemente más preocupados por la prescripción en mayor medida que la mera descripción. Había una sensación de impaciencia por ir más allá del intelectualismo hacia un verdadero compromiso misional y ministerial. Incluso las discusiones en grupos pequeños se inclinaban a hacer la pregunta: "¿Y ahora qué?" Como buenos evangélicos de libro de
texto, los nazarenos son predominantemente activistas. Esto es positivo y negativo a la vez, pero como teólogo, me pregunto si alguna vez habrá un espacio donde la reflexión sea recibida por lo que representa
en sí misma cuando nos reunamos como iglesia global, en un espacio donde y cuando nos dediquemos solamente a pensar sobre ciertas definiciones. No podemos dejar las reflexiones teológicas confinadas dentro de nuestras instituciones, especialmente porque nuestras definiciones deben reflejar tanto la naturaleza multicultural como multigeneracional de la iglesia.
La segunda tensión se encuentra entre el pensamiento reactivo y constructivo . Varios de los documentos y preguntas estaban reaccionando a algo, y el enfoque de la definición se centró en preguntarnos cómo nos diferenciamos de ciertos grupos o ideologías específicos. Siguiendo el camino de la negación, el procedimiento comienza con el pensamiento de lo que no deberíamos ser ni hacer. Si bien esta táctica tiene mérito, si nuestra autodefinición comienza con criterios como "no somos coloniales", "no somos pentecostales" o "no somos católicos romanos" lleva a imponer una gran restricción sobre la definición que tenemos de nosotros mismos, pudiendo dar como resultado que el resto de la reflexión sea denominacionalmente parroquial. Afortunadamente, hay delegados que son más constructivos en sus propuestas, especialmente los de la nueva generación. Su preocupación no es mirar al pasado y los
problemas sociopolíticos que la iglesia acarrea con tendencias hacia la desconexión histórica y la apatía circunstancial, su énfasis no es mirar al pasado, sino imaginar el futuro. La propuesta no es pasar tiempo
recordando los amargos acontecimientos del pasado, sino perdonar, olvidar y avanzar. Los constructivistas argumentan que nuestros esfuerzos deben enfocarse en pos de un pensamiento futurístico y en cómo podemos llegar allí con gracia. Personalmente, me inclino hacia esto. No necesitamos perder más tiempo discutiendo los errores de nuestros predecesores cristianos. Estos simplemente conjuran pensamientos amargos y abren heridas que están en el proceso de sanidad. Necesitamos avanzar y dedicarle más tiempo al tipo de respuesta que podemos ofrecer ante las situaciones contemporáneas.
Finalmente, hay tensión entre restauracionismo y progresismo. Nuestras definiciones cristológicas deben ser bíblica y teológicamente fieles a la tradición cristiana, lo que significa que las jergas y categorías centenarias (como la naturaleza divina-humana de Cristo) inevitablemente surgen en las discusiones, pero también se nos desafía a hacer nuestras presentaciones sobre la relevancia de quién es Cristo en nuestros propios contextos. Nuestra comprensión de lo que significa imitar y seguir a Jesucristo hoy en día, también necesita un equilibrio entre lo que significaba tomar la cruz en los tiempos del Nuevo Testamento y cómo debe ser traducido y vivido en el mundo contemporáneo. Las misiones, en obediencia al mandato de Cristo, necesitan un equilibrio entre la fidelidad de imitar la forma en que Jesucristo realizó su misión y la creatividad imaginativa en la forma en que realizamos nuestra misión hoy en día. La tensión se encuentra en qué aspectos de la cristología, el discipulado y las misiones del Nuevo Testamento pueden restaurarse y ponerse en práctica en la actualidad, y qué innovaciones progresivas se pueden emplear hoy en día que pueden conservar la etiqueta de "cristiano". Ciertamente no podemos
argumentar que la solución es volver al cristianismo del Nuevo Testamento (como algunos grupos a lo largo de la historia han propuesto), pero tampoco podemos abandonar las definiciones apostólicas solamente porque las consideramos completamente irrelevantes para nuestra generación actual.
Necesitamos adoptar un camino centrista. Juntos tenemos la necesidad de pensar para definir los criterios y los límites que adopten lo mejor de cada extremo, porque nos guste o no, necesitamos ser restauracionistas y progresistas al mismo tiempo.
***
REFLEXIONS FINALES SUR LA CONFERENCE THEOLOGIQUE INTERNATIONALE Dick O. Eugenio, professeur de l'APNTS
Je suis reconnaissant du privilège qui consiste à m'adresser aux délégués et à partager quelques simples réflexions. J'ai vraiment apprécié le caractère multi générationnel de la conférence, mis en
évidence par la présence et le rôle joué par des esprits plus jeunes comme le mien. De plus, la dimension multiculturelle des discussions a ajouté une atmosphère mémorable. La stimulation intellectuelle et
l'édification mutuelle pendant la conférence étaient splendides, et les interactions entre les nazaréens du monde entier dans les délibérations formelles comme dans les dialogues informels ont été particulièrement enrichissantes et encourageantes. Je suis vraiment béni d'avoir pu prendre part à cette conférence.
La conférence a peut-être pris fin, mais mon esprit est toujours stimulé par les idées et les questions qui ont émergé tout au long de l'événement. Au cours de la dernière séance plénière, j'ai réalisé que la conférence a abordé au moins trois tensions différentes et que les délégués sont en mouvement
pendulaire entre les deux extrémités de chaque continuum. Premièrement, il y avait une tension notable entre les éléments descriptifs et les éléments prescriptifs des réflexions théologiques. La majorité des
dissertations, y compris la mienne, étaient descriptives, car elles cherchaient à exprimer des thèmes biblico théologiques et à définir des réalités historico contextuelles spécifiques. Les délégués, cependant, étaient indubitablement plus préoccupés par la prescription que par la simple description. Il y avait un sentiment d'impatience pour aller au-delà de l'intellectualisme vers un réel engagement missionnaire et ministériel. Même les discussions en petits groupes tendent à poser la question : « Et maintenant, que
faire ? » À l'image des évangéliques, les Nazaréens sont principalement des activistes. C'est à la fois positif et négatif, mais en tant que théologien, je me demande s'il y aura un jour un espace où la réflexion en elle-même se verra accorder une intégrité en tant que telle, quand nous nous rencontrons en tant qu'église mondiale dans des lieux et à des moments où nous menons ensemble une réflexion sur nos définitions. Nous ne pouvons pas confiner la réflexion théologique à nos seules institutions, d'autant plus que nos définitions doivent refléter à la fois la nature multiculturelle et multi générationnelle de l'église.
La deuxième tension se situe entre des façons de penser réactives et constructives. Plusieurs dissertations et questions réagissaient à quelque chose, et l'approche de la définition consistait à se demander en quelle mesure nous sommes différents de groupes ou d'idéologies spécifiques. En suivant la voie de la négation, ce processus consiste à commencer par penser à ce que nous devrions ne pas être et ne pas faire. Bien qu'il y ait du mérite dans cette tactique, commencer à nous définir nous-mêmes avec des critères tels que « nous ne sommes pas coloniaux », « nous ne sommes pas pentecôtistes » ou « nous ne sommes pas catholiques » impose de nombreuses contraintes sur ce que nous pouvons dire de nous-mêmes. La réflexion qui en résulte peut être étroite pour notre dénomination. Heureusement, il y a des délégués qui sont plus constructifs dans leurs propositions, en particulier dans la jeune génération. Leur préoccupation n'est pas de regarder au passé et aux problèmes sociopolitiques des origines de l'église. En tendant vers la déconnexion historique et l'apathie circonstancielle, l'accent n'est pas placé sur le fait de regarder au passé mais plutôt d'imaginer le futur. La proposition ne consiste pas à passer du temps à méditer avec amertume les événements du passé, mais à pardonner, oublier et passer à autre chose. Nos efforts, affirment les constructivistes, doivent être consacrés plus utilement à la réflexion sur l'avenir et la façon dont nous pouvons y arriver avec grâce. Personnellement, je penche dans cette direction. Il n'est pas nécessaire de continuer à perdre notre temps à débattre des erreurs de nos prédécesseurs chrétiens. Ceci ne fait que provoquer des pensées amères et rouvrir des blessures en voie de guérison. Nous devons passer à autre chose et consacrer davantage de temps à la façon dont nous pouvons répondre à la situation
contemporaine.
Enfin, il y a une tension entre restauration et progressisme. Nos définitions christologiques doivent être bibliquement et théologiquement fidèles à la tradition chrétienne, ce qui signifie que des jargons et des catégories qui datent de plusieurs siècles (comme les natures divine-humaine du Christ) émergent inévitablement dans les discussions, mais nous sommes également appelés à rendre nos présentations sur l'identité du Christ pertinentes pour nos contextes particuliers. Notre compréhension de ce que signifie imiter et suivre Jésus-Christ aujourd'hui doit aussi trouver un équilibre entre ce que signifiait porter sa croix à l'époque du Nouveau Testament, et la façon dont cela doit être traduit et vécu dans le monde contemporain. La mission, dans l'obéissance à l'envoi du Christ, doit trouver l'équilibre entre l'imitation fidèle de la façon dont Jésus-Christ a réalisé la sienne, et la créativité et l'imagination
dans notre manière de réaliser la nôtre aujourd'hui. La tension est entre les aspects de la christologie, du discipulat et de la mission du Nouveau Testament qui peuvent être restaurés et utilisés aujourd'hui, et les innovations progressistes qui peuvent être employées aujourd'hui tout en conservant l'étiquette «
chrétienne ». Nous ne pouvons certainement pas argumenter que la solution consiste à revenir au christianisme du Nouveau Testament (comme certains groupes l'ont proposé au cours de l'histoire), mais nous ne pouvons pas non plus abandonner les définitions apostoliques en les considérant comme complètement hors de propos pour notre génération actuelle. Nous avons besoin d'une voie médiane.
Nous devons réfléchir ensemble afin de définir les critères et les limites qui conviennent le mieux à chaque finalité, car que cela nous plaise ou non, nous devons être simultanément acteurs de restauration et de progrès.
***
GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS Dick O. Eugenio, APNTS faculty
Sou grato pelo privilégio de me dirigir aos delegados e compartilhar minhas simples reflexões. Eu apreciei verdadeiramente o caráter multigeracional da conferência, evidenciado pela presença e pelo papel
desempenhado por mentes jovens como a minha. Além disso, a dimensão multicultural das discussões adicionou uma atmosfera memorável. Enquanto o estímulo intelectual e a edificação mútua durante a conferência foram esplêndidas, a interação social entre os nazarenos globais em deliberações formais e diálogos informais foi particularmente enriquecedora e encorajadora. Eu fui verdadeiramente abençoado por ter feito parte da conferência.
A conferência pode ter terminado, mas minha mente ainda está comovida pelas percepções e perguntas proferidas durante o evento. Durante a sessão plenária final, percebi que a conferência estava lidando com pelo menos três tensões diferentes e os delegados estavam oscilando entre os dois extremos de cada segmento de continuidade. Primeiro, houve uma tensão perceptível entre os elementos descritivos e prescritivos das reflexões teológicas. A maioria dos trabalhos, incluindo o meu, eram descritivos, porque procuravam articular temas bíblico-teológicos e definir realidades histórico-contextuais específicas. Os delegados, no entanto, estavam indubitavelmente mais preocupados com a prescrição do que com a mera descrição. Havia uma sensação de impaciência para que pudéssemos ir além do
intelectualismo em direção ao real engajamento missional-ministerial. Até mesmo nas pequenas discussões em grupo havia a tendência de se fazer a pergunta: "E agora?" Como livro evangélicos, os nazarenos são predominantemente ativistas. Isto é tanto positivo quanto negativo, mas como Teólogo, eu me pergunto se algum dia haverá um espaço para que a reflexão providencie uma integridade própria quando nos encontrarmos como uma igreja global, onde e quando pensarmos juntos sobre definições. Não
podemos deixar as reflexões teológicas confinadas em nossas instituições, especialmente porque nossas definições devem refletir tanto a natureza multicultural e multigeracionais da igreja.
A segunda tensão foi entre as formas de pensar, reativas e construtivas. Vários dos artigos e perguntas estavam reagindo a algo, e a abordagem da definição era perguntar como somos diferentes de grupos ou ideologias específicas. Seguindo o caminho da negação, o procedimento é começar pensando o que não devemos ser e o que não devemos fazer. Embora haja mérito nessa tática, começar nossa auto definição com critérios como “não somos coloniais”, “não somos pentecostais” ou “não somos católicos
romanos” coloca muita restrição sobre o que podemos dizer sobre nós mesmos. A reflexão resultante pode ser denominacionalmente paroquial. Felizmente, há delegados que são mais construtivos em suas propostas, particularmente os da geração mais jovem. A preocupação deles não é olhar para o passado em relação a questões sócio-políticas a igreja esta vindo. Com tendências no sentido da desconexão histórica e apatia circunstancial, a ênfase não é olhar para o passado, mas imaginar o futuro. A proposta não é gastar tempo em relembrar os eventos amargos do passado, mas perdoar, esquecer e seguir em frente.
Nossos esforços, argumentam os construtivistas, precisam ser gastos de maneira mais benéfica para pensar no futuro e em como podemos chegar lá com graça. Pessoalmente, eu apoio essa direção. Não
precisamos mais desperdiçar nosso tempo discutindo os erros de nossos predecessores cristãos. Eles apenas evocam pensamentos amargos e abrem feridas curadas. Precisamos seguir em frente e dedicar mais tempo em como podemos responder à situação contemporânea.
Finalmente, existe a tensão entre o restauracionismo e o progressivismo. Nossas definições Cristológicas precisam ser bíblica e teologicamente fiéis à tradição cristã, o que significa que os jargões
antigos e categorias (como a natureza divina-humana de Cristo) inevitavelmente emergem nas discussões, mas também somos desafiados a fazer nossas apresentações de como Cristo é relevante em nossos próprios contextos. Nossa compreensão do que significa imitar e seguir Jesus Cristo nos dias de hoje também precisa estar em equilíbrio com o que significa tomar a cruz nos tempos do Novo Testamento e como isso precisa ser traduzido e vivido no mundo contemporâneo. Missões, em obediência ao envio de Cristo, precisa estar em equilíbrio entre a imitação fiel de como Jesus Cristo a fez e de forma criativa como fazemos hoje. A tensão está entre quais aspectos da Cristologia, discipulado e missões do Novo
Testamento podem ser restaurados para uso hoje, e que inovações progressistas podem ser empregadas hoje que podem manter o rótulo de “cristão”. Certamente não podemos argumentar que a solução é retornar ao cristianismo do Novo Testamento (como alguns grupos ao longo da história propuseram), mas
também não podemos abandonar as definições apostólicas porque pensamos nelas como completamente irrelevantes em nossa geração atual. Precisamos da via media (equilíbrio). Precisamos pensar juntos para definir os critérios e limites que acomodam o melhor de cada lado, porque, quer gostemos ou não,
precisamos ser restauracionistas e progressistas ao mesmo tempo.
***
THE CHANGING NATURE OF EVANGELICALISM: THE CASE OF NAZARENE CLERGY (ANSR Conference Presentation, 2018) John W. Hawthorne1
Introduction
One of the interesting dynamics of 2016 presidential election season is that it launched something of a cottage industry of scholars, pundits, and journalists attempting to make sense of evangelicals. Hardly a week goes by without carefully written pieces crossing my social media feed raising issues about who these folks are, what they believe, and what happened to their moral core.
I have made my own small contributions to this effort. Early in the primary season, I was trying to figure out what correlates of the social environment of evangelicals were actually behind their voting preferences. One of my most popular blog posts (Hawthorne, 2016) was one I titled: “Why are Blonde Women Supporting Trump?” My facetious point was that it wasn’t really because they were blonde or women but that their legitimate political interests were expressed through their votes AND they happened to be blonde women.
In a further attempt to explain these correlates, I made a presentation at Calvin College last year exploring attitudes of Republican voters. Drawing on a method identified by a research with Gallup, I selected only identified Republicans and examined the impact of
variables within that population. In short, I discovered that on traditional Republican issues (e.g., size of government, concern about welfare dependency) religious Republicans were no different than irreligious Republicans. On moral issues (e.g., same-sex marriage, abortion) religiosity had a significant impact on Republican attitudes. My big conclusion was in my title: “Surprise! Evangelicals are Republicans.”
Since then, I’ve pretty much abandoned the effort to make sense of rank-and-file
Evangelicals. I recently argued that it’s just too confusing with all the public statements by what my friend John Fea calls “Court Evangelicals”, crises involving church leaders, protest revivals in Lynchburg, and blog posts too numerous to count. And this is just from those on the inside of the evangelical camp.
A History of Evangelical Sociology
I’ve found myself returning to how sociologists have examined evangelicals over the course of my career. About the time I started hanging out at ANSR meetings, James Davison Hunter wrote American Evangelicalism (Hunter, 1983). This was one of the first comprehensive treatments I had read from a sociological viewpoint. While Hunter made the mistake of confounding fundamentalists and evangelicals, he still did an excellent job of identifying the ways in which modernity presented challenges for evangelicals. They wanted legitimacy in their arguments so as to throw off the worst accusations on anti-intellectualism that haunted fundamentalism of the early part of the 20th century.
In the late 1990s, shortly after I moved to Oregon as an academic administrator, Christian Smith (Smith, 1998) argued that evangelicals were best identified as “embattled and thriving”.
His argument was that opposition to the cultural dynamics of the larger society gave meaning and purpose to the evangelical voice. This argument fit nicely with Christian concerns about the changes in the broader society.
A little over a decade later, Robert Putnam and David Campbell (Putnam & Campbell, 2010) suggested that a change was afoot. In American Grace, they argued that conservative evangelical religion had thrived during the first decade of the 21st century due to a reaction against changes brought about by earthquake that was “the sixties”. But they also observed that there was an aftershock to that earthquake as young people rebelled against what they saw as an overly politicized church.
That theme was reflected as well in Hunter’s To Change The World (Hunter, 2010). He
identified the natural limitations of the cultural warrior stance, the accommodationist stance, and the separatist stance. These were ineffective because they were fundamentally ignorant about power dynamics. What he argued for in their place was a strategy he called Faithful Presence
(which he unfortunately didn’t develop well).
Christian Smith reported out on the National Survey of Youth and Religion surveys in 2011’s Lost in Transition (Smith, Christoffersen, Davidson, & Herzog, 2011). Building on the Moral Therapeutic Deism his team had uncovered in earlier NSYR waves, he explored the changes in lifestyle and moral formation of millennial adults. Too many of these, he argued, were severely limited in the religious commitments and broader social engagements. This is very similar to the patterns we find with rank-and-file evangelicals today.
There are exceptions, however. Tom Krattenmaker wrote a challenging book titled The Evangelicals You Don’t Know (Krattenmaker, 2013). In the book, Krattenmaker tells the stories of young evangelicals who combine theological orthodoxy with social engagement. As an
outsider to the evangelical camp, he tells a remarkably commendable story of serious faith.
In 2014, historian Molly Worthen wrote Apostles of Reason (Worthen, 2014), which
picks up on themes from Hunter’s earlier book. She traces the development of modern
evangelicalism as being primarily focused on the institutional structures that allow for clear lines of authority. Coincidentally, she says very nice things about holiness folks in general and H. Orton Wiley in particular.
The next year, Public Religion Research Institute CEO Robert Jones released The End of White Christian America (Jones, 2015). Jones summarizes the demographics of religion in America and documents the rise of nones, the impact of immigration on Catholics, and the aging of both Mainline and Evangelical denominations. He argues that in the near future White Christians will be in a numerical minority and that shortly thereafter will see their political clout at the voting booth diminish.
My focus over the last four years has been on trying to make sense of how these changes will play out in the near future. During the writing of my first book (Hawthorne, 2014) on students entering Christian Colleges, I began to notice the ways in which millennial evangelicals were using very different strategies in living out their faith. They were asking questions the church hadn’t asked before. I explored the changes I saw occurring in a presentation at the Wesley Conference at NNU that same year. Something was different, and I was trying to get a handle on what that was.This year David John Seel released The New Copernicans (Seel, 2018), an examination of religious thought drawing upon Thomas Kuhn’s scientific revolution work. Seel argues that we are exploring a new frame, one that is more open than closed that sees engagement rather than separation as its key dynamic. He makes clear that while the new frame isn’t dependent upon millennials, it’s growth coincides with their arrival on the scene.
This then, is the basis for the book project that I hope will characterize the next six to nine months of my life. I plan to explore the ways in which the people operating out of this new frame orient themselves simultaneously to both orthodoxy and engagement. In short, what does
evangelicalism look like if we move from Smith’s embattled metaphor to Hunter’s faithful presence?
Defining the Frames
As part of the book project, I conducted surveys on clergy in the Church of the Nazarene.
The selection of this population isn’t accidental. Not only do I have a career-long history with the denomination and access to the Research office, but this is a holiness denomination that has seen separation from “the world” as a key component of its identity. If I could find a shifting frame within this denomination’s leadership, it gives me confidence that it is occurring within evangelicalism in general.
The first of the two surveys was conducted in late 2017 and early 2018, gathering
responses from 472 clergy under 40. While they are not all technically millennials (the oldest were born in the waning years of GenX), they are largely reflective of that generation. I presented the first wave of data at the Young Nazarene Con in Oklahoma City in early March. I ran a second wave of the survey in April focused on 347 Nazarene clergy in their 50s. Again, they are technically not all Baby Boomers as the youngest are on the leading edge of Gen X, but it provides a useful general comparison. Both surveys asked the same set of questions, with the exception of the age and years in ministry questions which were tailored to the population.
Drawing on Smith, Hunter, and Seel, I saw the distinction between separation and
engagement to be key to understanding the frame shifts, which I have nicknamed Bounded Evangelicalism and Permeable Evangelicalism, respectively. The former focus on the ways in which the church separates from the society where the latter focus on how the boundaries between church and society can be bridged.
I used four questions in particular to define my two frames. The first of these provide four options on how the church should respond to changes in sexual identity within the society.Three other questions were framed in strongly-agree to strongly-disagree Likert formats.
Respondents were asked if the church must maintain separation from the world, if Christians are discriminated against in the broader society, and if the church should show pride in America.
Scores ranged from 1-4 on the sexuality question and 1-5 on the other three.
These four questions were combined into a scale ranging from 4-19. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale is .69, which is not ideal but removing any elements made it substantially weaker. I then split the scale between 12 and 13 and operationalized those 12 and under as Bounded and those 13 and over as Permeable.
Dividing the scale in this fashion yielded 72% in the Bounded frame and 28% in the
Permeable frame. As Seel suggested, these are not purely defined by generational characteristics although there is an interesting interaction between the frame and generation. There are more Permeable Frames in the Millennials (38%) than there are in the Boomers (14%).
As part of the analysis, I examined the percentage of respondents I would classify as extreme version of the two frames. In other words, I examined scale scores of 8 and below and those of 15 and above. One in five people in the Bounded frame were extreme and one in twelve of the Permeable Frame were extreme. Interestingly, fully a third of Boomer Bounded respondents were in the extreme category. It is also interesting that among Millennials the extreme Permeable group is slightly larger than the extreme Bounded group.
Using the two generations and the two frames (without focusing on the extremes) gave me four conditions: Millennial Bounded, Millennial Permeable, Boomer Bounded, and Boomer Permeable. This allowed me to contrast a number of background factors to examine where the frames were significantly more or less likely to show up.
As we might expect, location matters. Respondents from small towns or rural areas were most likely to be in the Bounded frame while those from suburbs and cities were most likely in Permeable. There is something similar to Robert Merton’s localism/cosmopolitanism at play here. Senior pastors were more likely to have a Bounded frame while associates were most likely as Permeable. The only time length of time (in generations) in the Church of the Nazarene shows up significant is with Boomers; multiple generations are more likely to be in the Permeable frame. I’ll need to do some follow-up interviews to make sense of that one.
The biggest impact dividing Bounded from Permeable was graduate education.
Respondents in the Permeable frame were 25% more likely to have one or more graduate
degrees that those in the Bounded frame. This effect was greater among the Millennials than for Boomers (where is was barely non-significant).
There were no significant differences by region of the country served, region of the
country where one grew up, or by gender.
The Impact of the Frames
There are several ways in which the differences between the Frames play out. In line with the focus on separation, two sliding scale questions invited respondents to reflect on the changes in society over the last 50 year and how the Church of the Nazarene has responded to those.
Significant differences were evident between the frames with slight differences by generation.On the social change question, the gap between the frames for each generation comes in at 12 points placing them either side of the midpoint. When looking at how the Church of the Nazarene responds to social issues, there was no difference between Millennial and Boomer
Bounded respondents who came in slightly positive. Boomer Permeable folks were somewhat more negative and Millennial Permeable respondents another six points below that.
The other two sliding scale questions addressed a balance between evangelism and social ministry; the Permeable frame wound up above the middle and the Bounded frame below ranging 12-14 points below the Permeable respondents. Another question dealt with universalism (which seems to current in some young evangelical circles). While all respondents were on the side of the scale that deals with Christian exclusivity, there is still a sizeable gap (as much as 27 points for the Boomers).
Another point of interest is examining how people see diversity of thought within a
denomination. Respondents were asked what should happen to people who question a
denomination’s teaching. While there were four options presented, responses centered on just two: listening to the critique in an attempt to improve or explaining to the individual why they need to support the denomination. The overwhelming majority of the Permeable frame took the first option, while a slight majority of the Boomer Bounded frame people took the second.
Another important distinction between the frames involves biblical hermeneutics. Rather than asking what the respondents believe about the Bible as most polls do, I asked how respondents go about interpreting scripture. The options ranged from “The Bible means what is says” to “Some issues or questions aren’t anticipated by the Biblical authors and so interpretation is required.” While the majority of respondents in all categories selected a sound Biblical
criticism stance, nearly a quarter of Millennial Permeable respondents chose this last option. In this particular regard, the Boomer Permeable and the Millennial Bounded are almost the same,
again suggesting a frame and generation interaction.Of particular interest to the denomination is the question of what these differing frames mean for the future. One pair of question directly explored issues of identity and future.
Respondents were asked how important it was for people to know that they were affiliated with the church. They were also asked how important it was for them to remain Nazarene.
The results show that all four groupsreligiosity (generation and frame) claim that it is important to be known as Nazarene, with just over a majority of Millennial Permeable holding that view. This may be more of a function of community-based congregations with less of a denominational label. When asked if it was important to remain Nazarene, the overwhelming majority of all four groups identified with the denomination going forward.
Respondents were asked to gauge their perception of support the Church of the Nazarene provides to them. Support was evaluated at the congregational level, the district level, and the general church level. All four groups show substantial support from their local congregation. At the district level, the perception of support falls markedly for both Permeable groups. The support for Boomer Bounded respondents is strongest, which makes sense both in terms of their longevity and structural commitments. When it comes to support from the general church leadership, this fall off yet again. This is not surprising, as individual clergy may feel somewhat far removed from the Global Ministries Center. The two Permeable groups perceive less support but further interviews would be necessary to determine if that were based on the assumption of difference of perspective than actual isolation.
Even though the vast majority of respondents wished to remain Nazarene over the long haul, they were given the option to identify factors that might cause them to leave. Since Boomers are likely not going anywhere soon, this particular analysis only focused on the Millennials. Very few of them felt that they would leave because they lacked voice. Much more important, especially for the Millennial Permeable frame, were the earlier issue of responding to social issues (which were undefined), a concern about power structures in the denomination, and the ongoing partisanship issue mentioned at the outset of this paper. While the respondents aren’t looking to go anywhere, it’s worth noting that they can be pushed.
Implications and Actions
I set out on this project to determine if I could demonstrate the existence of my two
frames of evangelicalism even in a conservative denomination like the Church of the Nazarene.
While the data certainly bears the limitations that go along with an online survey, there is still sufficient evidence that the two frames exist and furthermore, reflect some very different ways of seeing ministry and cultural engagement. At the very least, what we think of as “evangelical” is not as monolithic as pollsters and researchers tend to assume. As Seel suggested, there is evidence that the Permeable frame has always been around but may be more coincident with the millennial population.
The presence of some interaction effects between generation and frame may provide some insight into how social change happens within denominational groups. Robert Jones of PRRI argues that millennials leaving evangelicalism has stunted what has historically been the moderating impact of youth on denominational groups.
Another benefit of the Permeable frame is that it begins to hint at how Hunter’s Faithful Presence can be operationalized in practice. When I was at the Young Clergy Con in March, I saw many instances of new forms of congregational engagement with the culture. While ministry efforts like the Bay Area’s Possibility Project look very different in structure and mission than more traditional efforts, they may provide solid models for how the church addresses
contemporary culture. Recognizing the diverse frames raises significant challenge for denominational groups.
How does a group provide space for both frames to exist simultaneously without either declaring winners and losers or forcing one party out of fellowship? This is the key question facing the United Methodist Church over the next year and I’m trying to be optimistic about what will happen but it’s hard. My commitment to fellowship and how the Spirit has led his people to Truth since the Galatian conference gives me hope. On the other hand, when we simply fight on
social media, make threats, and rely on political machinations, that hope begins to waver.
To put it another way, what does it mean for a denomination to allow space for diversity
of thought and process and still claim that people are all part of the same religious family? As I’ve been an on-again off-again part of ANSR for over three decades, it seems that every few years we had a conference titled “what is our core identity”? It’s telling that a group that is over a century old would ask that question so often. But when I think of that question in light of my current work, I think it’s more important than ever. What is our core identity if we allow disagreement on a number of issues? Do we have the sociological, moral, and theological strength to truly wrestle with the answer?
I close with some practical suggestions for the denomination in light of the frames I
believe are emerging in American evangelicalism. First, the Church of the Nazarene could be more visible in wrestling over key injustice issues. Recent weeks have shown that Willow Creek and the Southern Baptist Convention have been remarkably slow to deal with harassment issues, preferring to put on a happy face rather than engage in real repentance. The same is true for issues of criminal justice reform, for poverty concerns, and for support of moral leadership in our elected officials. We can’t care about these things only when there is a crisis but we need leadership and periodicals to address them regularly.
We need to assist our educational institutions in helping our students address the social and moral complexity of the world they will enter after graduation. Christian universities have been far more concerned about protecting ourselves from government interference or bad press.
But protecting the institution as a first principle does not serve our students. Too many of them are seriously wrestling with issues of injustice and inclusion and we are telling them that they aren’t as important as our reputation and donors.
Clergy gatherings need to pay attention to who is on the platform and who is given a
microphone. Yes, it’s important for women and people of color to have real access. But there is also an opportunity to hear from a Millennial Permeable voice speaking at pastor’s meetings, Palcons, or even General Assembly. If these changes I’ve described are real, then giving voice to the new frame will be important in helping leaders know how to deal with what is coming down he pike.
I was very impressed with the people I met in Oklahoma City at Young Clergy Con.
They are talented. They are committed to Jesus. They want others to know Him. They don’t want to play church. They want to be the Body of Christ. If we can make room for them and listen to their voice, even if we don’t agree, they will be pursuing all of those things from within the Church of the Nazarene: which will be good for the denomination as well as for Christ’s kingdom.
Thank you so much for the recognition I’ve receive from ANSR over the years and for
listening to me rattle some cages. Maybe I’ll do this again in another thirty-five years!
1 Professor of Sociology at Spring Arbor University in Michigan. Contact
john.hawthorne@arbor.edu.
References:
- Hawthorne, J. (2014). A First Step Into A Much Larger World: The Christian Univeristy and Beyond. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
- Hawthorne, J. (2016). Why Are Blonde Women Supporting Trump? Retrieved from https://johnwhawthorne.com/2016/02/25/why-are-blonde-women-supporting-trump/Hunter, J. D. (1983). American evangelicalism: conservative religion and the quandary of modernity. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.
- Hunter, J. D. (2010). To change the world: the irony, tragedy, and possibility of Christianity in the late modern world. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Jones, R. P. (2015). The End of White Christian America. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- Krattenmaker, T. (2013). The Evangelicals You Don't Know: Introducing the Next Generation of Christians. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
- Putnam, R. D., & Campbell, D. E. (2010). American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. New York: Simon and Schuster.
- Seel, D. J. (2018). The New Copernicans. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
- Smith, C. (1998). American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Smith, C., Christoffersen, K. M., Davidson, H., & Herzog, P. S. (2011). Lost in transition: the dark side of emerging adulthood. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Worthen, M. (2014). Apostles of Reason: The Crisis of Authority in American Evangelicalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
“DO YOU HEAR WHAT THESE CHILDREN ARE SAYING?”: HOSPITALITY AS A THEOLOGICAL PARADIGM FOR MINISTRY WITH CHILDREN
Benjamin Espinoza, Ph.D. Student & Research Assistant Michigan State UniversityIntroduction
The practice of hospitality has been shown to be a significant component of Jesus’ earthly ministry and the theological vision of the early church. Several scholars have articulated a vision for recovering the practice of hospitality in the contemporary church (Newman, 2007; Oden, 2001; Pineda, 2010; Pohl, 1999). Elizabeth Conde-Frazier writes that “the place of hospitality offers attentive listening and mutual sharing of lives and life stories” (Conde-Frazier 2004, p. 171). Hospitality is recognition of human value and equality, as well as the rejection of “social arrangements of class, ethnicity, or race” (Conde-Frazier, 2004, p. 172).
Based on this renaissance of theological literature on hospitality, some have argued that the biblical and theological vision of hospitality should be the overarching framework for certain ministries in ecclesial and cross-cultural contexts (Anderson, 2011; Brinton, 2012; Espinoza, 2014; Nouwen, 1975; Stratman, 2013). However, while some have championed a vision for a children’s ministry that accepts all (Csinos and Beckwith, 2013; Green, 2014), resources that thoroughly explore how the theological vision of hospitality informs and shapes the church’s ministry to and with children are lacking.
The purpose of this paper is to explore how hospitality serves as a theological resource and paradigm that undergirds a robust, holistic approach to ecclesial children’s ministry. The paper will first explore hospitality in biblical and theological perspective, with attention given to the
triune nature of God, the ministry of Jesus, New Testament references to hospitality, and early church practices. Essentially, hospitality is rooted in the Trinitarian nature of God, expressing itself throughout the pages of Scripture. This theological vision of hospitality will be shown to be a radical impulse wherein the lines of guest and host are blurred, and all are welcome to the table of mission and ecclesial service.
With these foundations in place, the paper will engage relevant literature to craft a holistic paradigm for ecclesial children’s ministry. In particular, the paper will attend to three aspects of the church’s ministry (preaching and teaching the gospel, cultivating worship, creating community) and demonstrate how a theology of hospitality radically shapes and transforms the way we conceptualize of “children’s ministry” in the local church. This model of ecclesial
hospitality will cut through the traditional approaches to children’s ministry by creating an intergenerational church culture that respects and values the impact children can make for the kingdom when fully integrated and welcomed into all aspects of church ministry. In other words, the paper will seek to reframe children’s ministry not as “ministry to children,” but as “ministry
alongside children.”
In order to survey the biblical and theological landscape of hospitality, we must first begin with the hospitable nature of the Triune God. One of the most distinctive doctrines in Christian theology is that of the paradoxical oneness, togetherness, and equality of the Godhead. God exists as one entity, eternally exists as the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, and all members of the Trinity are wholly and equally God.
But how do God’s oneness, togetherness, and equality relate to each other? This is where the concept of perichoresis comes into focus. Perichoresis has its origins in the work of the Cappadocian Fathers, such as Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus, whose student Maximus the Confessor was also a proponent of the concept (Harrison, 1991, p. 53). The root of the word, “peri,” literally means “in and around,” and serves as the basis for words such as “perimeter.” The other component of the word, “chore” literally means “movement” (Gombis, 2008). The word thus means, literally, “movement, in and around,” but the basic thrust of the term is “interpenetration.” Kim (2012) defines perichoresis as the Trinity’s ability to maintain “the individuality of the three persons while at the same time asserting that each person partook in the life of the other two” (p. 256). Thus, the persons of the Trinity maintain their distinct identity and function while expressed themselves to one another in an intimate manner.
Gombis (2008) beautifully describes this notion of perichoresis:
The Persons of the Trinity from all eternity are caught up in a relationship of
interpenetration and envelopment. That is, each of the Persons of the Trinity is always going out to the other, always plunging deeply into the other, to know and to understand, o comprehend and to discover, and then to delight and rejoice in, to exult in the other’s glories, beauties, perfections, and excellencies. And each member of the Trinity is always welcoming the other into Himself, to be fully known, to be discovered and comprehended, to be delighted in. The Trinity, then, is an eternal community of mutual delight.
This vivid description of perichoresis emphasizes the mutuality and participation of the Godhead. The Persons of the Trinity desires to make themselves known, to know one another, to be transparent with one another, and to glory in one another’s character and being. Based on her understanding of Trinitarian perichoresis, Elizabeth Newman writes "God's triune hospitality calls us to a different place, a place where we practice living lives determined by God's giving across the grand sweep of time rather than our own limited grasp of the ways things are” (2007, p. 15). Thus, the Triunity of God is inherently hospitable.
Hospitality in the Old Testament
How does the trinitarian life of God play out in Scripture? The first major instance of in the Old Testament occurs in Genesis 18, when Abraham welcomes three mysterious strangers into his home. The text reads that Abraham rushed to greet these strangers, treating them with the utmost respect, and offering them a lavish feast, refreshment, and rest. The text uses the Hebrew word hinneh to describe that Abraham took this encounter as a complete surprise (Vogels, p.164). Genesis 18:1 indicates that God was somehow present in these strangers, and the instance was thus a divine encounter. The writer of Hebrews alludes to this episode, exhorting the audience to not “neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby some have entertained angels unawares” (13:2). The purpose of this visit was for God to communicate to Abraham that his wife Sarah would bear a son, and that judgment was on the horizon for Sodom and Gomorrah. Pohl writes, “This first formative story of the biblical tradition on hospitality is
unambiguously positive about welcoming strangers. It connects hospitality with the presence of God, with promise, and with blessing” (1999, p. 24).
While the children of Abraham were living in bondage under the oppressive hands of the
Egyptians, it is God who freed them, and provided their daily sustenance, including protection from their oppressors. The purpose of the Mosaic law was to mark the Israelites as the people of God. The law mandated a code of hospitality that welcomed strangers and sojourners, just as the
Israelites were once wanderers and sojourners (Exod. 22:21; Lev. 19:1-2, 9–10, 33–34). Pohl suggests, “They were to view themselves as aliens in their own land, for God owned the land and they were to be its stewards and caretakers, living in it by God’s permission and grace. They were the chosen people--chosen, yet still aliens” (1999, p. 27). Though Israel consistently
rebelled against God’s Lordship, God continuously invited Israel back into a relationship through the work of prophets. This is especially clear in the case of Jonah, whom God called to preach repentance to the Ninevites, only to reject God’s command and flee. While Jonah reluctantly
agrees to God’s wishes, he nonetheless expresses discontent that God would welcome such pagans into the fold. This highlights that in the Old Testament, we observe how God consistently invites and seeks out fellowship with not only the fold of Israel, but also with Gentiles.
Hospitality in the New Testament
The New Testament continues to explore the practice of hospitality in the life, teachings, and salvific work of Jesus Christ. In the incarnation of Christ, we see an intentional move on the part of God to extend hospitality to not only the people of Israel, but also to the Gentiles. Most of all, however, Jesus extends the hospitality of God the Father by reaching out and welcoming the marginalized in society. According to Anderson, Jesus “spoke of acts of hospitality toward people who are strangers, hungry, in prison, poor, diseased, or disabled. Jesus said that as we practice hospitality, it should be done as if Jesus himself were the recipient” (Anderson 2008, 15-16).
Jesus specifically explores hospitality with His disciples and others in two key passages:
1. Matthew 25 (the parable of the sheep and the goats) and Luke 14 (the parable of the great banquet). In each of these parables, Christ shares the defining characteristics of hospitality, that when we are truly hospitable toward others, it is as though we are exhibiting hospitality to hrist Himself. “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Matthew 25:40). Moving forward in the gospels, we see that Christ’s death and resurrection serve as the ultimate form of hospitality, welcoming those who were previously the enemies of God. Christ’s death and resurrection provide the means through which we are invited to “come boldly” before God in prayer (Hebrews 4:16) and make our requests known to Him.
This reciprocal relationship is at the core of the gospel; it is the message of hospitality, rooted in the character of God in Christ.
As we survey through the rest of the New Testament, we see the thread of hospitality continue to weave its way into the early church. When Jesus commissioned the seventy disciples, he expected them to depend on the hospitality of others. It is the gracious hosts who welcome the disciples that would receive great blessing from God. The disciples were to treat their hosts with
respect, and not move from house to house seeking more luxurious accommodations.
2. In Acts 9-10, we see three revolving stories that demonstrate how hospitality functioned in early church evangelism, and Peter accepts the hospitality of Simon the tanner in Joppa (9:43 and 10:6), Peter extends hospitality to Cornelius’s messengers despite the fact that Peter is already a guest in the house of Simon (10:17- 23), and Peter accepts hospitality from Cornelius, a Roman centurion living in Caesarea (10:24-48). This last episode is pivotal, as Peter realized through a vision from God that he should no longer consider Gentiles as unclean, but that the gospel was for all people. The rest of the New Testament, particularly the letters of Paul, grapples with how Jewish and Gentile Christians can live together in hospitable community with one another.
Pineda (2008) notes that the New Testament uses the term philoxenia, which generally means “the love of the stranger.” Pineda notes the term “can also mean love of the whole atmosphere of hospitality and the whole activity of guesting and hosting” (2008, p. 33). Jesus inhabits this love of strangers when He arrived at the wedding in Cana as a guest but quickly became a host (John 2).
Hospitality as a Paradigm for Ecclesial Ministry with Children
Hospitality is a movement of the Triune God to bring humanity into relationship with himself and a way of life grounded in the person and work of Christ. Henri Nouwen (1975) wrote that hospitality “creates new and free space where we can reach out to strangers and invite them to become our friends” (p. 79). Hospitality acknowledges that all are created in the image of God and thus deserve dignity, respect, and indiscriminate welcome. It is in the act of hospitality that we discover new ideas about who we are, who God is, and encourages to empathize with the plight of others. Pineda (2010) reflects on how hospitality inherently recognizes the imago dei:
To welcome the stranger is to acknowledge him as a human made in God’s image; it is to treat her as one of equal worth with ourselves—indeed, as one who may teach us
omething out of the richness of experiences different from our own. The stranger’s gifts may come to a family circle or to a society. Yet the undocumented foreigner…is too often not greeted with hospitality or even acknowledged as a human being in God’s image.
Hospitality is thus a practice of ethics, not simply the practice of kindness. It means opening up our lives with others, sharing in the roles of guest and host, and exhibiting true generosity toward one another.
This particular theology carries several implications across of spectrum of ecclesial practices.
Some have written that a theology of hospitality applies to the use of greeters and coffee hosts on Sunday mornings, ministries that reach out to the marginalized in society, and evangelism and
mission. Some have also argued that the theology of hospitality possesses relevant applications to education both in ecclesial and school settings.
As it stands, the theology and practice of hospitality has been applied to questions related to practical theology, but has yet to be applied to questions related to ministry with children in the local church in a substantive way. Many scholars have proposed that the church must provide a
welcome, safe space for children, as their spirituality is sensitive to such an environment. Such a space provides children with a sense of belonging, and encourages their ongoing spiritual development. However, this thinking tends to be rooted in the social sciences and developmental
psychology, with some biblical support, yet lacks a firm theological foundation (Allen & Ross, 2012). The theology of hospitality affirms the findings of social science and encourages those of us in church ministry to radically welcome and support children not only as persons of value to the church community, but valuable participants as well. In other words, the theology of
hospitality supports an intergenerational church culture wherein relationships between people across the spectrum of age are welcomed and brought into relationship with one another.
How can we create an ecclesial culture that welcomes children and engages them in all aspects of ecclesial life and ministry? The theology of hospitality should not simply be relegated to providing a welcoming Sunday school or VBS atmosphere, but must penetrate all aspects of the church’s ministry to fully embody the hospitable impulse. In order to describe how the theology of hospitality can transform an ecclesial culture, I have utilized the “ecology of ministry” my team crafted during my time in pastoral ministry. The three core practices of ministry the church embraces are preaching the gospel, cultivating worship, creating community.. When the theology of hospitality truly undergirds these four core practices, the way church embraces, engages, involves, and encourages children is transformed.
Preaching and Teaching the Gospel
Scholars have spilt much ink articulating how to best teach children biblical truths and create a pace for substantive spiritual formation and Christian education. However, these conversations are generally relegated to the Sunday school classroom or special children’s events. While spaces for teaching assume a hospitable culture, when the theology of hospitality enters the picture, the ministry of teaching takes a larger, more holistic role in the life of the church. While we can and should ask, in the vein of Bushnell and Westerhoff, “how are we creating spaces to teach the gospel to our children in the context of the community of faith?” I would like to focus my attention on one ministry which engages children very little--preaching.
In many churches in the United States, children are rarely present for the sermon (Allen & Ross, 2012). In my own church, we let our children stay with their parents until after the first worship set, and then “dismiss” them to go enjoy their time in Sunday school. While such an approach pleases parents and developmental psychologists, what does it say to our children when we disallow them from sharing in the same spiritual experience of listening to a sermon with their parents? Mind you, some churches will ensure that children’s curriculum aligns with the sermon.
However, we foster a sense of “developmental segregation,” wherein we separate two factions of the body in order to teach them the same ideas and preach the same gospel. Such an approach, while developmentally aware, potentially undercuts a theology of hospitality, and misses out on the potential spiritual riches that may come when families can hear the same gospel proclaimed in the same room.
However, if we invite children into our worship services, will they be able to substantively engage the ideas contained in a sermon on an emotional, spiritual, or intellectual level? I propose that in intergenerational worship settings, pastors embrace an approach to preaching that can
stimulate the hearts and minds of children while simultaneously engaging adults as well.
Espinoza (2015) calls this approach “child-conscious preaching.” “At its core, child-conscious preaching uses child-friendly language, stimulates the spiritual imaginations of children, uses narrative as a means of communicating deep theological truths to children, and recognizes and
celebrates the place and contribution of children to the Christian community” (Espinoza 2015, p.27). I will briefly highlight each component of child-conscious preaching.
Child-friendly language. Child-conscious preaching uses child-friendly language,
recognizing the unique developmental needs of children and their capacity to fundamentally understand specific concepts and ideas related to faith.
Stimulating spiritual imaginations. “Child-conscious preaching stimulates the spiritually imaginative lives of children through explorations of the wonder, awe, and majesty of a living God who has reached down to the earth and touched our lives. While it could easily be said that imagination is a needed component in effective preaching for everyone, it especially rings true for children” (Espinoza 2015, p. 29).
Using narratives. Gary Newton writes that “As a good storyteller shares an adventure,
listeners of all ages picture themselves in the characters rehearsing emotions, thoughts, and dreams. Stories are intensely interactive. They spawn activity within the hearts of all ages” (2012, p. 124). Child-conscious preaching makes use of narratives and invites children to enter simple yet powerful storylines with their hearts and minds.
Brings children into Christian community. Child-conscious preaching brings children into the conversatios. It uses examples from their world and culture and validates them in the Christian community. Children are challenged to be active players in the community, and adults are challenged to let them.
Cultivating Worship
The theology of hospitality demands that children be involved in worship with adults. Daniel Hyde contends that this was the tradition of the early church that was eventually lost within the last hundred years (2014). Allen and Ross define intergenerational worship as “the regular
(usually weekly) gathering when the body of Christ as a community meets together to praise and honor God, to hear from God’s Word, and to encourage one another” (Allen and Ross, Intergenerational Christian Formation, 189). Many would not find issue with Allen and Ross’ definition. However, in practice, the topic of welcoming children into worship with adults has its passionate detractors. Hauerwas and Willimon (1989) summarize the concerns of these detractors, albeit in a relatively cynical manner. in many of our modem, sophisticated congregations, children are often viewed as
distractions. We tolerate children only to the extent they promise to become “adults” like us. Adult members sometimes complain that they cannot pay attention to the sermon, they cannot listen to the beautiful music, when fidgety children are beside them in the pews. “Send them away,” many adults say. Create “Children’s Church” so these
distracting children can be removed in order that we adults can pay attention. (p. 96)
While their assessment of the situation reeks of some cynicism, it is not far from the truth. Dale Hudson (2015), writing for a popular children’s ministry website, reflects on the reasons why it would be unwise to allow children into the worship service:
Children in the adult service distract their parents and those around them. Parents end up spending more time trying to keep their children from disrupting the service than they do focusing on what is being taught. It’s heartbreaking to watch a guest who doesn’t know Jesus get distracted from hearing the Gospel because he is watching the preschooler in front of him act out because the little guy is bored out of his mind. It saddens me to see a new believer miss vital teaching because she is preoccupied with smiling at the cute baby in front of her.
At the core of Hudson’s concerns seems to be the clear proclamation of the gospel in addition the potential distraction of children in worship. Such a concern is valid. However, if the theology of
hospitality were to undergird our approach to cultivating worship, our services would look significantly different. The purpose behind a worship service to bring honor and glory to God through the outpouring of our hearts, minds, and voices. Such an event need not be considered a concert event with formality and decorum, but rather as a messy banquet hall with crying, screaming, dancing, and perhaps the occasional clean-up. Robert Pendergraft (2015) writes that “The services should be planned in a manner that the gospel is communicated to the children present. It is not just the visiting adult that needs to hear and see the gospel, but also those in the church’s greatest mission field, its own children” (p. 169).
Welcoming children into worship services is a way of welcoming them into a different the culture, language, and lifestyle of the church. To welcome children into the Christian community by way of the worship service powerfully demonstrates their importance to the community of faith. Including children in worship inculcates within them the moves of the faith that they will hopefully adopt later in life. Piper (1980) writes that But even where most of the sermon goes over their heads, the children profit. They leam more theology and piety from the hymns than we realize, they come to be comfortable and at home with the form of the service, they experience from time-to-time the large and awesome moments of quietness or the blast of an organ prelude or fervor of an old man’s prayer. Week-after-week they see hundreds of adults bowed in worship, and unless we teach them otherwise, they will grow up thinking, “This is where I belong on Sunday morning, and this is the way one behaves in Sunday worship.” It will never enter their heads that not being there is a possibility if we expect it of them and insist on their right
behavior.
While it may be tempting to say that children would absorb more in a worship setting especially designed for them, the theology of hospitality demands seriously consider welcoming children into worship with adults. To do otherwise would be to disregard their status as our fellow worshippers of the Lord.
Creating Community
In their landmark work, Children Matter, May et. al briefly remark that “within churches
children are invisible and not considered except in programed designated for them, and they may be disconnected from all but their peers and a few adults who work with them” (2005, p. 133).
They point to the Christian tradition of hospitality to strengthen their argument that children are vital members of the faith community deserving of attention and nurture. In their chapter on community, the authors put forth a series of rhetorical questions aimed at the church’s lack of
hospitality toward children:
How would our churches change of the whole congregation, not just the Sunday school
teachers, took seriously Jesus’ admonition to welcome children—if as a congregation we truly offered hospitality to children? What places and activities of importance to adults need to be opened to children? Other than in children’s programs, how often do we turn our full attention to children? Who listens to them? Where are friendships built between children and adults? As a congregation, do we really see children as persons of value and dignity equal to teenagers and adults? Do we expect to receive gifts from them in the family of God, to see Jesus in them and hear his voice through them? The church will be a nurturing community for children when they experience it as a place of gracious hospitality. (May et. al, 2005, p. 134)
Unfortunately, while Children Matter was written over a decade ago, the question of how to best welcome children into the Christian community has yet to be thoroughly answered. Scholars and pastors have spilled loads of ink grappling with the questions that May and others propose. Some churches have become havens for intergenerational ministry, building friendships across the
spectrum of age, while others continue to remain trapped in older, developmentally-driven paradigms.
A prime way to involve children in Christian community is by exploring the contours of
Christian theology with them. While children may not be able to read Luther or Wesley, they nonetheless carry a capacity to understand the spiritual. Robert Coles wrote that “Children try to understand not only what is happening to them, but why; and in doing that, they call upon the religious life they have experienced, the spiritual values they have received, as well as other
sources of explanation” (1990, p. 10). Dave Csinos and Ivy Beckwith argue that “children should be some of the church’s main theologians-in-residence, since their understandings of their God experiences are less likely to be fettered and boxed in by the adult conceptions that we teach them as they grow up” (2013, p. 71). Indeed, John Wesley affirmed that "the experiences of many of [children] match and in several instances surpass the experiences of their elders" (Wesley, 1872/1979, p. 75). The process of theological reflection begins early in childhood, as children grapple to make meaning of God and the spiritual life. The Christian community must envelop children into this process of theological reflection from an early age.
But the Christian community must also engage children in the process of Christian practice. In many cases, we view Christian practices such as the disciplines that adults do for spiritual growth. However, since children are our pilgrims in the Christian journey, it makes sense to bring them along in our Christian practices, such as fasting, sabbath, prayer, giving, outreach, and practicing the church calendar. Trevecca Okholm writes that “When a family celebrates the rituals and rhythms of the church year at home, the history and connection to the historical church becomes a means of being hospitable within the family home as it joins in celebrating with the whole church community” (2012, p. 169). Bringing children along into our practices is an act of hospitality will inculcate within our children a desire to continue those practices even into adolescence and adulthood. To neglect to envelop children into the Christian way of life is to teach them that their spirituality is not welcome in the community--a sure way of further
alienating the already marginalized. For as the age-old adage goes, “if we don’t disciple our children, who will?” This renders the practice of actively inviting children from the local community into church life, particularly through family-based church events, as this invitation
creates a bridge toward those who may never have felt welcomed by the community of God.
The theology of hospitality is one of radical welcome toward children, of full engagement and participation in the life of faith. This is a vision that cannot be done through simple programming or events. It is a cultural change which demands consistent preaching from the pulpit, casting in streams of communication, effective implementation, and holistic outreach. A community of faith cannot rely on one-off events to foster true community. Rather, true community comes from the organic relationships that coalesce around the bond of Christ through consistent acts of
hospitality, especially with those outside of the church’s walls. Trinitarian hospitality offers us the perfect picture of how we can welcome others into our church communities, especially children.
Conclusion
Hospitality has become a crucial practice which the church must recover. As we push against cultural shifts that value exclusion and marginalization, hospitality has become more important than ever. As Jesus says to his disciples, “Do you hear what these children are saying?” (Matt. 21:16), we must continue to listen to those whom are often thought of last in our church communities. The practice of hospitality can serve as a powerful way of reminding the church of its responsibility to serve the youngest in society.
References
- Allen, H. and Ross, C. (2012) Intergenerational Christian formation. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press.
- Anderson, D. W. (2011). Hospitable classrooms: Biblical hospitality and inclusive education.
- Journal of Education and Christian Belief, 15(1), 13-27.
- Bernhard, F., & Clapp, S. (2004). Widening the Welcome of Your Church: Biblical Hospitality & the Vital Congregation. Fort Wayne, IN: LIfeQuest.
- Breen, M. (2014). Building a discipling culture. 3DM publishing.
- Brinton, H. G. (2012). The Welcoming Congregation: Roots and Fruits of Christian Hospitality.
- Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
- Coles, R. (1990). The spiritual life of children. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
- Conde-Frazier, E., Parrett, G., & Kang, S. (2004). A many colored kingdom: Multicultural dynamics for spiritual formation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
- Csinos, C., & Beckwith, I. (2013). Children’s ministry in the way of Jesus. Downers Grove, IL: IVP.
- Espinoza, B.D. (2015). ‘Let them come, forbid them not’: Exploring child-conscious preaching.
- Journal of the Evangelical Homiletics Society 15(2), 22-37.
- Gombis, T. (2008). The trinitarian life of God, part 1. Retrieved from https://timgombis.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/trinity-chapel-day-1.pdf
- Green, J. (2014). Hospitality for kids: A Lukan perspective on children and God’s agenda. In L.
- Tolbert (ed.), Exploring and engaging spirituality for today’s children: A holistic approach (pp. 25-39). Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
- Hauerwas, S., & Willimon, W. H. (2014). Resident Aliens: Life in the Christian Colony (Anniversary ed. edition). Nashville: Abingdon Press.
- Harrison, V. (1991). Perichoresis in the Greek fathers. St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, 35, 54.
- Hudson, D. (2015) 6 reasons why children should NOT be in the adult worship service.
- Relevant Children's Ministry, Retrieved from http://www.relevantchildrensministry.com/2015/09/6-reasons-why-children-shouldnot-be-in.html.
- Hyde, D.R. (2014). The nursery of the Holy Spirit: Welcoming children in worship. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers.
- May, S., Posterski, B., Stonehouse, C., & Cannell, L. (2005). Children Matter: Celebrating Their Place in the Church, Family, and Community. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
- Newman, E. (2007). Untamed hospitality: Welcoming God and other strangers. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press.
- Newton, G. (2012). Heart-deep teaching: Engaging students for transformed lives. Nashville, B&H Academic.
- Nouwen, H. (1975). Reaching out: Three movements of the spiritual life. New York: Doubleday.
- Oden, A. (2001). And you welcomed me: A sourcebook on hospitality in early Christianity. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
- Okholm, T. (2012). Kingdom family: Re-envisioning God’s plan for marriage and family. Eugene, OR: Cascade.
- Pendergraft, R. B. (2015). A credobaptist defense for including children in corporate worship through a biblically appropriate application of developmental psychology (Ph.D.). Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fort Worth, TX, USA.
- Pineda, A. (2010). Hospitality. In D.C. Bass (Editor), Practicing our faith: A way of life for a searching people (pp. 29-42). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
- Piper, J. (1980). The children, the church, and the chosen. Retrieved June 9, 2017, from http://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-children-the-church-and-the-chosen
- Pohl, C. D. (1999). Making room: Recovering hospitality as a Christian tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
- Stratman, J. (2013). Toward a pedagogy of hospitality: Empathy, literature, and community engagement. Journal of Education and Christian Belief 17(1), 25-59.
- Wesley, J. (1979). The works of John Wesley. In T. Jackson (Ed.), The works of John Wesley (3rd ed. Vols. 1-13). London, England: Wesleyan Methodist Book Room; reprint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, (Original work published in 1872).
CREATIVE DESTRUCTION AND ADAPTIVE REEMERGENCE: A COMPARISON AND SYNTHESIS OF HEIFETZ’S ADAPTIVE LEADERSHIP THEORY AND SHARMER’S EMERGING LEADERSHIP THEORY (THEORY U) Joshua Broward, Director of Missional Development Northern California District Church of the Nazarene
Introduction
We are in “the age of disruption,” according to Otto Scharmer (2016, p. 1). Scharmer outlines three major disruptions that have already rocked the 21st Century: geopolitical safety (September 11, 2011 terrorist attack), economic stability (2008 financial crisis), and political stability (election of Trump and other far right destabilizers). Therefore, he predicts, “We know that the years ahead will bring chaos, conflict, collapse, and confusion” (2016, p. 5).
Philosopher and leadership consultant, Peter Koestenbaum (LaBarre, 2000) explains the
existential crisis of the 21st Century: “We’re living in a peculiar time: It’s marked by … acute alienation… What I call the ‘new-economy pathology’ is driven by impossible demands — better quality, lower prices, faster innovation — that generate an unprecedented form of stress” (p. 2).
Unfortunately, as Koestenbaum argues, society isn’t coping with this existential stress well: “There is a terrible defect at the core of how we think about people and organizations today. There is little or no tolerance for the kinds of character-building conversations that pave the way for meaningful change” (LaBarre, 2000, p. 3). Ronald Heifetz and Otto Scharmer guide us through the jungle of distractions to the real issues confronting us as individuals, as organizations, as nations, and as a global society.
Theoretical Overview
Heifetz’s adaptive leadership theory, exemplified in Leadership Without Easy Answers (1994), and Scharmer’s Theory U, expressed and applied in Leading from the Emerging Future (2014) offer two distinct paths of creative deconstruction and adaptive reemergence. In their own way, each offers leaders tools to see through the mist of urgent tasks and status quo paradigms to
discern the key adaptive challenges and how to mobilize teams to address the real issues in authentically helpful ways.
Heifetz’s Adaptive Leadership Theory
Joe Flower (1995) accurately summarizes, “Heifetz pulls leadership apart along two fault lines: the difference between leadership and authority, and the difference between technical answers and adaptive work” (p. 1). Heifetz’s work focuses on leadership during times of intense change. Given the radical, discontinuous change of the 21st Century, all organizations and all leaders may need to do what Heifetz calls “adaptive work.”
The differentiation of technical and adaptive problems is foundational to Heifetz’s framework. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) explain: “Technical problems… can be solved applying… the organization’s current problem-solving processes. Adaptive problems resist these … require individuals throughout the organization to alter their ways; as the people themselves are the problem, the solution lies with them” (p. 1). To identify an adaptive challenge, the
distinguishing question is: “Does making progress on this problem require changes in people’s values, attitudes, or habits of behavior?” (Heifetz, 1994, p. 87). In times of change and conflict, most leaders and most followers look to technical solutions to restore a sense of equilibrium even when deeper adaptive change is needed for genuine progress (Heifetz, 1994). Identifying the key adaptive change needed is fundamental to successful leadership.
For Heifetz, the distinction of leadership and authority is critical. Leadership is
essentially mobilizing people to do adaptive work — to overcome tough problems related to
conflicts between their aspirational values and their current reality. Authority may be
formal/positional or informal, but either way it is essentially social power that others give to an individual in exchange for providing “direction, protection, and order” (Heifetz, 1994, p. 125).
However, not all leaders have positional authority, and not all with positions of authority actually act as leaders (Heifetz, 1994). In fact, as Heifetz explains, “people in positions of authority are often constrained in their exercise of leadership, because they are not expected to disturb people.… Many people in authority simply avoid the risks and hazards that come from challenging people to tackle tough problems” (Flower, 1995). Therefore, all organizations need creative deviants, people without positional authority, who will disrupt the stable system to identify blind spots, instigate difficult but necessary conversations, and prod the organization to engage adaptive challenges (Heifetz, 1994).
In explaining and applying adaptive leadership, Heifetz (1994) lays out several concepts which are fundamental to the practice of adaptive leadership. First, adaptive leadership is less about a leader getting people to follow his/her vision, and more about identifying the key challenges and empowering the people to face reality and develop adaptive solutions together (Flower, 1995). Second, orchestrating healthy conflict is critical to adaptive change. Conflict opens the doors to deeper insight, creativity, and innovation (Heifetz, 1994). Third, leaders must “cook the conflict” in a “holding zone,” keeping the “heat” high enough to maintain urgency without letting it “boil over” (Heifetz & Linsky, 2002). Fourth, leaders engaged in this difficult work will need to spend significant time on inner work, differentiating self from role, rooting in spiritual sources of power, and healing the wounds sustained in the midst of battle (Heifetz, 1994).
Northouse (2016) provides a helpful summary: “Adaptive leadership focuses on the adaptations required of people in response to changing environments” (p. 257). Therefore, as Northouse continues, adaptive leaders challenge people in their organizations “to face difficult challenges, providing them with the space or opportunity they need to learn new ways of dealing with the inevitable changes in assumptions, perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that they are likely to encounter in addressing real problems” (p. 258).
Scharmer’s Theory U.
In their exploration of how organizations undergo deep change, Peter Senge, Joseph
Jaworski, Bety Sue Flower, and Otto Scharmer introduced the concept of “presencing” in their book Presence: An Exploration of Profound Change in People, Organizations, and Society (2005). Scharmer (2007) summarizes presencing as “a heightened state of attention that allows individuals and groups to shift the inner place from which they function. When that shift happens, people begin to operate from a future space of possibility that they feel wants to emerge.”
Next, in Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges (2007), Scharmer then situated the concept of presencing within a “U-shaped” framework for facilitating deep change in organizations and in society. Theory U has five basic steps:
1. “Co-initiating: build common intent.” Gather core group who will work together on an issue of shared importance in a “process of deep listening — listening to what life calls you and others to do” (Scharmer, 2007, p. 6.)
2. “Co-sensing: observe, observe, observe. Go to the places of most potential and listen with your mind and heart wide open” (p. 6).
3. “Presencing: Connect to the source of inspiration and common will. Go to the place of silence and allow the inner knowing to emerge” (p. 7).
4. “Co-creating: Prototype the new in living examples to explore the future by doing” (p. 7). Develop and test initial ideas in real time, for immediate feedback and refinements.
5. “Co-evolving: Embody the new in ecosystems that facilitate seeing and acting from the whole” (p. 8).
Together, these five steps provide a guide for “multi-stakeholder innovation” (p. 12).
Together with Kaitrin Kaufer, Scharmer continued to expand on and apply Theory U in
Leading from the Emerging Future: From Ego-System to Eco-System Economies (2013). Here,
Scharmer identifies eight key disconnects or “bubbles” causing major social disruptions (2013, pp. 46-47):
1. Financial bubble: A disconnect between financial speculation and real values threatens the economy.
2. Infinite-growth bubble: Expectations of ever increasing consumption threaten the environment.
3. Income bubble: The polarization of income inequality undermines human rights.
4. Leadership bubble: The separation of leaders and people results in broad disempowerment for both groups.
5. Consumerism Bubble: Material consumption (illustrated through GDP) does not result in
improvements in actual well-being.
6. Governance Bubble: The voiceless masses are underserved by and have no influence on the systems of government.
7. Ownership Bubble: State and private property ownership lead to misuse of the ecological and social commons.
8. Technology Bubble: Tech innovation primarily pampers the wealthy rather than helping to solve real societal needs.
For Scharmer (2013), each of these bubbles represents the fundamental disconnect of mind and matter. Together, they are disrupting and threatening to undo the foundations of human society.
Having established a sense of urgency, Scharmer (2013) calls on leaders to enter a
journey of self and social discovery through the Theory U process. The downward journey is essentially a process of listening to our context and deconstructing old, outdated mental models.
At the bottom of the U, leaders connect with their true Self, discern their true vocation (their Work), and sense the future that “wants to emerge” (p. 163). The upward swing of the U involves working with others to co-create new ways of engaging the world and then embedding these changes in the fabric of our ecosystems. In other words, the downward journey is deconstructing the ego-systems of selfishness, and the upward journey is reconstructing eco-systems of shared thriving. For Scharmer, the path forward for individuals, for organizations, and for society at large is to enter this journey of deeply listening to each other and ourselves, next sensing the future solutions, and then helping the future become real among us.
Theoretical Foundations
Heifetz and Scharmer are both cartographers on the seas of change. They are mapping the
same seas using different language and different navigational methods, but they share several thought sources. Furthermore, they have developed their theories simultaneously with other explorers in the same territories. Before delineating their unique theoretical foundations, it may be helpful to describe what they share in common.
Shared foundations.
First, both adaptive leadership and theory U are influenced by systems thinking.
Northouse (2016) summarizes adaptive leadership’s connection with a systems perspective as follows: “This approach assumes that many problems people face are embedded in complicated interactive systems. Problems are viewed as complex with many facets, dynamic in that they can evolved and change, and connected to others in a web of relationships” (p. 259)
Peter Senge was an influential systemic thinker for both Scharmer and Heifetz. As
Heifetz (1994) explains that adaptive leadership is essentially helping organizations learn, he specifically references Senge’s The Fifth Discipline (1990). Scharmer (2013) summarizes The Fifth Discipline as the synthesis of “(1) system dynamics, (2) organizational change, and (3) the creative process” (p. 17). Senge’s observation that many practitioners were not able to utilize the five disciplines well launched Senge, Scharmer, and others on a massive interview project to determine what enables authentic innovation and systemic breakthrough. Presence, Theory U, and Leading from the Emerging Future are all direct outflows of this research prompted by Senge’s work (Scharmer, 2013).
Second, both Scharmer and Heifetz operate within the orbit of Complexity Leadership
Theory. Marion and Uhl-Bien (2007) summarize Complexity Theory: “the interaction of
different ‘things’ (people, ideas, chemicals, species, etc.), combined with various mechanisms that emerge when adaptive entities interact (catalysis, elaboration, alteration, interdependency, etc.), produce novel outcomes. Like natural selection, this process is driven by adaptive tension” (p. 293).
According to Northouse (2016), Adaptive Leadership “has been conceptualized as an
element or subset of Complexity Leadership Theory” (p. 260). As they prepare to unfold a model of Complexity Leadership Theory, Uhl-Bien, Marrion, and McKelvey (2007) reference Heifetz (1994) as they suggest that leadership is not only positional authority but also “an emergent, interactive dynamic— a complex interplay from which a collective impetus for action and change emerges when heterogeneous agents interact in networks in ways that produce new patterns of behavior or new modes of operating” (p. 299). Although Uhl-Bien and others build on Heifetz’s work with Adaptive Leadership, it seems that Heifetz offered an early expression within the same flow of Complexity Leadership Theory. Similarly, due to Scharmer’s (2013) vast reach (eight disconnects that span all of society), emphasis on social disruption, and encouragement of bottom-up leadership, Theory U and emerging leadership would seem to operate in a similar realm.
Third, both Adaptive Leadership and Theory U seem to be influenced by post-heroic leadership theory. Fletcher (2004) explains that Mary Parker Follett is recognized as the first recognized theorist in the post-heroic leadership movement for her acknowledgement nearly a century ago that different team members may provide the needed leadership depending on the demands of the situation. Fletcher (2004) offers three basic characteristics of post-heroic
leadership: (1) “Leadership as practice: shared and distributed,” (2) “Leadership asocial process: interactions,” (3) “Leadership as learning: outcomes” (p. 648-9). This definition resonates well with both Adaptive Leadership and Theory U. It’s not surprising then that Fletcher (2004) specifically references Heifetz in discussion about collaborative leadership and Scharmer in discussion about “assuming responsibility for the whole” (p. 649).
Heifetz demonstrates a post-heroic ethos in at least two specific ways. First, he constantly advocates that a leader must continually give the adaptive work back to the people: “you as a leader need to resist the reflex reaction of providing people with the answers. Instead, force yourself to transfer … much of the work and problem solving to others. If you don’t, real and
sustainable change won’t occur” (Heifetz and Linsky, 2002, p. 6). Second, Heifetz argues that the common idea of the leader as the primary source of vision is “bankrupt and dangerous …because it relies too much on the best guesses of a few people operating in isolation” (Flower, 1995, pp. 4-5). Instead, Heifetz advocates a humbler, more community-oriented approach:
“Articulating a vision for an organization or community has to start with an awful lot of listening, a lot of stimulating of debate and conversation, and then listening - to distill, to capture, the values” (Flower, 1995, p. 5). The adaptive leader helps the people discover, express, and fulfill their vision.
Scharmer (2013) advocates a post-heroic attitude as he calls leaders to move from “me” to “we” and from “ego” to “eco” (or self-centered to collective centered). In unpacking a group learning experience, Scharmer (2013) reflects: “We learned that individual skills and tools are usually overrated… Disconnected individuals became part of a co-creatie network of change-makers… Igniting this flame of inspired connections is the heart and essence of all education and leadership today. (p. 186)
Both Adaptive Leadership and Theory U evidence a great debt to Transformational
Leadership Theory. Northouse (2016) summarizes: “transformational leadership is the process whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower” (p. 162). Bass (1985) further clarified that transformational leadership “raises followers levels of consciousness … getting followers to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the team or organization and … moving followers to address higher level needs” (Northouse, 2016, p. 166).
Scharmer (2013) clearly echoes transformational leadership in his third step of Theory U:
Presencing, which involves moving from me to we, discerning our true Self, and moving forward toward our highest potential. Similarly, Heifetz (1994) carries forward Transformational Theory by directing followers motivation and attention (consciousness) toward the adaptive work of
addressing their highest level needs. Both Scharmer and Heifetz are attempting to cultivate connections that elevate the moral functioning of followers to improve society.
Adaptive Leadership Foundations.
Northouse (2016) notes four distinct conceptual roots for Heifetz’s Adaptive Leadership model: systems theory (as noted above), biological (adaptation as an evolutionary adjustment to a changing context), servant leadership (leadership as a service to the common good by helping
people solve important problems), and psychotherapy (providing a supportive environment and overcoming defense mechanisms). However, another key influence in Heifetz’s thinking is political theory. Many of Heifetz’s illustrations in Leadership Without Easy Answers (1994) come from the political arena, and his footnotes are replete with political theory or political history sources.
In fact, Heifetz (1994) cites Robert Tucker’s Politics as Leadership (1981) no less than 12 times, far more than any other single source. Tucker (1981) seems to have influenced Heifetz with several key concepts: (1) The leader is fundamentally framed by the direction and work of the people, rather than the power of the leader; (2) Leadership is an activity that can happen from multiple locations in the hierarchy; (3) Authentic leadership can happen with or without formal authority; and (4) Leadership is primarily oriented toward identifying and solving tough problems.
Although critical of traditional leadership studies’ emphasis on individual leaders, Heifetz intentionally builds on the tradition of previous scholars. Particularly in his footnotes of Leadership without Easy Answers (1994), Heifetz enters into dialogue with stalwart leadership scholars: Rost, Bass, Stodgill, Blake, Mouton, Argyris, Burns, Weber, Vroom, Jago, Blanchard, Yukl, Kotter, Morely, Jaques, and more. Sometimes, he calls them to account for their shortcomings; other times, he points out how they have influenced his own work. For example, referencing John. P. Kotter’s The Leadership Factor (1988), Heifetz (1994) writes: “Kotter goes farther than many business scholars in his view that vision is not only the product of the CEO alone, but the CEO’s effort to identify and articulate the long-term interests of the parties
involved” (p. 281).
Theory U Foundations.
Scharmer (2013) builds rather explicitly on Buddhist roots, even discussing personal
interviews with Buddhist zen masters. His emphasis on deepening consciousness, detachment, and reuniting mind and matter are key Buddhist concepts.
According to Liu (2007), “transcendental leadership … taps into the fundamental needs of both leader and follower for spiritual survival and aims to improve the spiritual development of both the leader and followers” (p. 4). Similarly, Hays (2013) sees Scharmer’s work within the tradition of Transcendental Leadership. Nearly echoing Scharmer (2013), Hays (2013) argues that, as transcendental leadership enables organizations to develop heightened consciousness, those organizations are able to peer beyond the horizon, to redefine themselves in relation to their context, and to access novel resources for innovative solutions. Following the movement of Scharmer’s Theory U (2007), Hays (2013) argues that transcendence empowers both inner vision (within the leader) and outer vision (toward the environment).
Scharmer also participated in a joint paper, “Exploring Transcendental Leadership” in which he summarized Theory U in dialog with three other Transcendental Leadership theorists (Barney, Wicks, Scharmer, and Pavlovich, 2015). In this shared article, Pavlovich identifies three foundational elements of Transcendental Leadership as (1) self-examination of ourselves and our relationship with the world, (2) subsuming our ego in the larger cause of social and ecological good, and (3) understanding our purpose as mutual transformation of self and society. Clearly, Scharmer’s (2013) emerging leadership theory operates within this transcendental leadership framework.
Key Similarities
First, both Scharmer and Heifetz are developing theories for dealing with discontinuous change and finding solutions to intransigent problems. As such, many of their techniques are similar.
Both engage in what Marcy (2015) calls “breaking mental models as a form of creative destruction” (p. 370). According to Marcy (2015) a fundamental task of radical social innovators is “sensebreaking” or disrupting the maladaptive mental models of those around them (causing the old models not to make sense anymore) so that people’s minds can develop a receptivity to new ideas. Scharmer (2013) calls this the process of unknowing, and Heifetz (1994) refers to these social reformers as creative deviants.
Given the tension inherent in this process, both naturally emphasize the importance of
safe space for adaptive work. Scharmer (2007) advises, “The leader must create or ‘hold a space’ that invites others in” (p. 11). For Heifetz (1994), the “holding environment” is a critical safe space that “contains and regulates the stresses that [adaptive] work generates” (p. 105).
Next, both Heifetz and Scharmer are deeply committed to listening. Scharmer’s (2007)
second step in the change process is “Co-sensing: Observe, Observe, Observe” (p. 6). He particularly advocates listening to people on the margins for whom the current system isn’t working. At all costs, the innovative leader must listen: “When innovating, we must go places ourselves, talk with people, and stay in touch with issues as they evolve. Without a direct link to the context of a situation, we cannot learn to see and act effectively” (Scharmer, 2007, p. 7).
Similarly, Heifetz (1994) advocates listening to partners who can correct and enrich our perceptions. Heifetz and Linsky (2002) even encourage leaders to cultivate listening relationships to better understand their enemies: “Have coffee once a week with the person most dedicated to seeing you fail” (p. 3).
Both Heifetz and Scharmer are committed to shared problem solving. Scharmer (2007) refers to this as “multi-stakeholder innovation” (p. 12), and his entire framework is littered with cooperation: co-initiating, co-sensing, co-creating, and co-evolving. Heifetz (1994) continually beats the drum that the leader cannot solve adaptive problems alone; the leader can only mobilize the people to do the work of discovering solutions to adaptive challenges.
Furthermore, both Heifetz and Scharmer encourage deep inner work for leaders. For
Scharmer (2007, 2013) this inner journey is fundamental to Theory-U. For Scharmer (2013), the emerging future “requires us to tap into a deeper level of our humanity… It is a future that we can sense, feel, and actualize by shifting the inner place from which we operate” (p. 1). On the other hand, for Heifetz (1994), the leader’s inner work has two primary functions: (1) to use one’s own emotional reactions as data to interpret the surrounding world, and (2) to stabilize oneself amid the raging seas of conflict and personal attack that will come during the process of adaptive change.
Last, both Heifetz and Scharmer acknowledge the spiritual roots of leadership. Scharmer
(2013) draws rather explicitly from a Buddhist framework, and he encourages mindfulness, transcendence, and spiritual discernment of the emerging future. Heifetz doesn’t advocate a particular religious tradition, but he does advise leaders to maintain their spirituality by retreating
regularly to “sanctuaries” for renewal and healing (Heifetz, 1994; Heifetz & Linsky, 2002).
Key Differences
One significant difference between the two theories is the role of the individual leader in the adaptive change process. Scharmer (2013) sees the individual subsumed in the whole, constantly co-sensing and co-creating. Although Heifetz (1994) wants the adaptive leader to give the work back to the people, the leader is also the initiator and sustainer of the action and attention.
Also, as indicated above, fueled by his Buddhist sources, Scharmer (2013) operates
within a New Age framework and even personifies the future as “wanting” to emerge. Therefore, the leadership process is more open-ended, with the leader unloading unnecessary baggage, observing the environment, and sensing what solutions and directions emerge (Scharmer, 2013).
Heifetz (1994), on the other hand, expresses no particular religious commitments. Although Heifetz is open to emotion and spirituality, he maintains a more rationalist perspective. Within Heifetz’s (1994) model, the leader is more proactive, identifying the key adaptive challenges and
guiding the people to face that reality, to discover solutions, and to implement them.
Next, Heifetz (1994) primarily works on the meso and macro levels of organizations or
nations. However, Scharmer (2013) connects micro, meso, and macro changes further outward to the mundo level — dealing with various crises for the global society.
Heifetz (1994) also places more emphasis on the necessity of conflict. Heifetz argues,
“We need to begin to see conflict as a good thing. Of course, it's dangerous… But most
organizations err on the side of suppressing conflict and maintaining such a low level of disequilibrium that no real learning takes place” (Flower, 1995, p. 6).
Along these lines, Heifetz extensively discusses how to cope with resistance to adaptive leadership. Heifetz (1994) explains, “Leaders and authority figures get attacked, dismissed, silenced, and sometimes assassinated because they come to represent loss, real or perceived” (p.236). Heifetz and Linsky (2002) summarize simply: “to lead is to live dangerously” and then delineate how to fight against “leadership’s dark side: the inevitable attempts to take you out of the game” (p. 1).
A Phenomenological Perspective
Ladkin (2010) would probably be modestly optimistic in regard to Adaptive Leadership
and Theory U. Because she views “leadership as a socially constructed phenomenon” (p. 2), she would probably appreciate Scharmer’s co-sensing and Heifetz’s insistence that the real work happens among the people. The complexity theory of leadership that undergirds both theories fits well a phenomenological perspective which takes into account: “quality rather than quantity,” “felt experience,” “the impact of absent or invisible aspects,” “emergent and obscure territories,” and multidimensional experiences centering on the person being led rather than the leader (Ladkin, 2010, pp. 6-7). Also, Ladkin (2010) refers to the slippery nature of leadership, defying definition, in part because leadership is decentralized and multidirectional. This perspective resonates with both Theory U and Adaptive leadership.
In fact, Ladkin resonates with Heifetz and Scharmer on multiple points. Ladkin’s (2010) tentative definition of leadership could fit surprisingly well with either theory: “collective mobilization towards an explicit or implicitly determined purpose” (p. 28). Similarly, Ladkin seems to echo Heifetz and Scharmer’s holding zone ideas: “leadership … can look forceful and outspoken and other times it is appreciated for its steady ability to hold a psychological space in which dialogue between people who hold vastly different views can safely occur” (p. 32). Also, Ladkin (2010) resonates with Heifetz’s (1994) distinction between leadership and authority:
“One of the outcomes of [Gibb’s] research was to distinguish between ‘headship,’ held by the person in a group with the highest level of hierarchical power and authority; and leadership, recognized as a process of influence which readily moves between groups of individuals focused on completing a task” (p. 35). When Ladkin (2010) reflects on the Hurricane Katrina crisis — “this situation called for the capacity to deeply perceive what was going on in the hear and now” (p. 50) — she could be expressing Scharmer’s (2013) deep co-sensing or Heifetz’s (1994) testing of reality.
Ladkin (2010) sounds like Heifetz and Scharmer when she advises leaders to pay
attention to their intuition: “When data just ‘does not add up,’ when a situation evokes a feeling of disquiet, curiosity or unease … pause. One of the invisible, intangible, negative presences at the heart of the particular ‘leadership moment’ … might be trying to reveal itself” (p. 53).
Scharmer (2013) would call this “attending to the crack” (p. 23).
Lastly, Heifetz and Scharmer seem to actively employ the concept of “reversibility.”
Ladkin (2010) explains, “In confronting another’s perceptions, I become more aware of my own predispositions and limits” (p. 62). Heifetz (1994) encourages leaders to actively monitor how they are being perceived to discern their level of authority or political capital at a given moment.
For Scharmer (2013) one of the key steps in discerning our true Self is co-sensing reality with those around us. In summary, both Heifetz and Scharmer employ a phenomenological perspective of leadership and resonate with many of Ladkin’s points on the process of leadership.
Research Summary
Both Adaptive Leadership and Theory U are primarily theory-based models without much empirical research. Northouse (2016) notes that, even though Heifetz laid out the
conceptual framework for Adaptive Leadership more than two decades ago, not much work has
been done to test his ideas. Similarly, Theory U suffers from a paucity of empirical research.
Dihn, et al (2014) conducted a helpful literature review of ten top tier leadership journals from 2000-2012. They found only five articles specifically on Adaptive Leadership, composing less than 1% of all articles, and ranking 35th in overall theories discussed. Furthermore, all of the
articles on adaptive leadership focused on theory development, with no articles offering quantitative research. On the other hand, Complexity Leadership Theory faired slightly better with 23 articles, making up 3% of all articles, ranking #23 (Dihn, et al, 2014, p. 40). It is unclear how the authors might classify Scharmer’s work, possibly as “Transcendental Leadership” (receiving no coverage) or as “Leading for Innovation, Creativity, and Change” (receiving significant coverage, ranking 9th overall) (Dihn, et al, 2014, p. 40).
It seems that the unwieldy nature of these models of complexity theory leadership have
made measurement-based studies impractical (Schneider & Somers, 2006). Leadership scholars are still in the process of developing these models further to facilitate more direct research.
However, several scholars are attempting to offer some structure to Complexity Leadership Theory. For example, Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007) propose a model of Complexity Leadership Theory that “includes three entangled leadership roles (i.e., adaptive leadership, administrative leadership, and enabling leadership) that reflect a dynamic relationship between the bureaucratic, administrative functions of the organization and the emergent, informal dynamics of complex adaptive systems” (p. 298). Building on the work of Heifetz (1994) and others, Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007) theorize:
Adaptive leadership is an emergent, interactive dynamic that is the primary source by which adaptive outcomes are produced in a firm. Administrative leadership is the actions of individuals and groups in formal managerial roles who plan and coordinate organizational activities (the bureaucratic function). Enabling leadership serves to enable (catalyze) adaptive dynamics and help manage the entanglement between administrative and adaptive leadership… These roles are entangled within and across people and
actions. (p. 306)
They suggest three possible methodological strategies for studying Complexity Leadership Theory: qualitative evaluations, agent based modeling, and system dynamic modeling (Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey, 2007).
Also exploring Complexity Leadership Theory, Schneider and Somers (2006) propose that “leadership might influence emergent self-organization through the mediating variables of organizational identity and social movements” (p. 362). They suggest these mediating mechanisms might be measured through “dynamic systems simulation” and analysis of “artificial neural networks” (p. 360).
Similarly, scholars are continuing to develop working models of Transcendent
Leadership. For example, Brown (2015) adopts and modifies Scharmer’s (2007) Theory U into a multi-stakeholder model for systemic change he calls: “Bridge Building for Social
Transformation” (p. 34-35). Reworking the steps from Theory U, Bridge Building has five steps:
“(1) Compelling, locally generated goals, (2) Cross-boundary leadership systems, (3) Generative theories of change, (4) Systems that enable and protect innovation, (5) Investment in institutionalizing change” (p. 38). However, a few students have begun to apply quantitative research to Transcendental Leadership. Liu (2007) theorizes that transcendental leadership is an evolutionary step beyond both transformational and transactional leadership. As a PhD student, Liu (2007) offers some initial data to suggest that transcendental leadership increases followers intrinsic motivation more effectively than either transactional or transformational leadership. In addition, inspired by charmer’s Theory U and emerging future, Kragulj (2014) conducted a masters thesis study on how “interacting with the envisioned future” might enable people to identify their true needs (p.38). The initial data (both qualitative and quantitative) yielded promising results for how imagining the future in this way may connect participants with their deeply felt needs (Kragulj, 2014). These studies are encouraging steps. However, they are incomplete (focusing only on motivation and need) and unreliable (insufficiently rigorous). More research is needed to validate Theory U’s assumptions and efficacy.
Application
Adaptive Leadership and Theory U are practitioner-based theories, so they live and breathe in the “real world.” Leaders who read Heifetz’s work will see themselves on nearly every page and will find practical tips for dealing with both day-to-day situations and career-defining opportunities. For example, when this author (Broward, 2017) explained Adaptive Leadership theory in a clergy mentoring workshop in northern California, pastors immediately recognized that their churches and their district are facing adaptive challenges. In their increasingly postChristian context, the old modes of “doing church” are increasingly and glaringly outdated and ineffective. The follow-up discussion demonstrated that the pastors believe Adaptive Leadership will be helpful in guiding their churches through this change process.
Scharmer’s emerging future leadership is more intangible, but it still offers the courageous reader a realistic process of deconstruction, introspection, and relaunch. Furthermore, Scharmer’s insistence on cooperating with others in the co-sensing and co-creating process will serve leaders well. It may be possible to merge these two theories into a transcendental complexity leadership theory. With coalition-based reality testing and deep introspection, organizations may be able to imagine new futures together and then prototype adaptive solutions to implement societal change. In a world in which “we collectively create results that nobody wants” (Scharmer, 2013, p. 2), this creative destruction and transcendental adaptation may be our best hope. In summary, in an increasingly complex era, complexity leadership theories are essential and practical survival tools.
References
- Akrivou, K., & Bradbury-Huang, H. (2011). Executive catalysts: Predicting sustainable organizational performance amid complex demands. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 995-1009.
- Broward, J. (2017, February 8). Mentoring Millennial pastors in a post-Christian age. Northern California District of the Church of the Nazarene Clergy Mentoring Workshop. Napa, CA.
- Brown, L. D. (2015). Bridge-building for social transformation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 13(1), 34-39.
- Cullen-Lester, K. L., & Yammarino, F. J. (2016). Collective and network approaches to leadership: Special issue introduction. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 173-180.
- DeRue, D. S., & Myers, C. G. (2014). Leadership development: A review and agenda for future research. Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations, 832-855.
- Dinh, J. E., Lord, R. G., Gardner, W. L., Meuser, J. D., Liden, R. C., & Hu, J. (2014). Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 36-62.
- Fletcher, J. K. (2004). The paradox of postheroic leadership: An essay on gender, power, and transformational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(5), 647-661.
- Flower, J. (1995). A conversation with Ronald Heifetz: Leaership without easy answers. The Healthcare Forum Journal, 38(4)
- Hays, J. (2013). Transformation and transcendence for wisdom: The emergence and sustainment of wise leaders and organizations. In Kupers, W. & D. J. Pauleen (Ed.), A handbook of practical wisdom: Leadership, organization and integral business practice (pp. 111-132). Abingdon-on-Thames, England: Routledge.
- Hazy, J. K., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2013). Changing the rules: The implications of complexity science for leadership research and practice. Oxford Handbook of Leadership and Organizations,
- Heifetz, R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
- Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (1997). The work of leadership. Harvard Business Review, 7(1), 124-134.
- Heifetz, R. A., Linsky, M. (2002). A survival guide for leaders. Harvard Business Review, June
- Kaiser, A., Kragulj, F., Grisold, T., & Walser, R. (2015). Identifying hidden needs by enhancing organizational learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ICICKM-2015 (12th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management & Organisational Learning), pp. 117-124.
- Kragulj, F. (2014). Creating knowledge of need: A methodological framework for its abductive inference. (Master of Science, University of Vienna).
- Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van der Voet, J. (2014). The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public Administration, 92(1), 1-20.
- La Barre, P. (2000, February 29, 2000). Do you have the will to lead? Fast Company, 32, 1-9.
- Ladkin, D. (2010). Rethinking leadership: A new look at old leadership questions. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
- Lichtenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orton, J. D., & Schreiber, C. (2006).
- Complexity leadership theory: An interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. E:C.O., 8(4), 2-12.
- Lin, B., Mainemelis, C., & Kark, R. (2016). Leaders' responses to creative deviance: Differential effects on subsequent creative deviance and creative performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 537-556.
- Liu, C. H. (2007). Transactional, transformational, transcendental leadership: Motivation effectiveness and measurement of transcendental leadership. Paper presented at the Workshop Six: Ethical Leadership in the Context of Globalization, Leading the Future of the Public Sector: The Third Transatlantic Dialogue University of Delaware. Newark, Delaware, USA.
- Marcy, R. T. (2015). Breaking mental models as a form of creative destruction: The role of leader cognition in radical social innovations. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(3), 370-385.
- Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2007). Introduction to the special issue on leadership and complexity. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 293-296.
- Northouse, P. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice, (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Rego, A., Owens, B., Leal, S., Melo, A. I., Cunha, M. P. e., Gonçalves, L., et al. (2017). How leader humility helps teams to be humbler, psychologically stronger, and more effective: A moderated mediation model. The Leadership Quarterly, (in press).
- Saxena, S., Scharmer, O., & Schuyler, K. G. (2014). Connecting inner transformation as a leader to corporate and societal change. In Schuyler, B. & Lid-Falkman, J., Leading with Spirit,
- Presence and Authenticity. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 13-38.
- Scharmer, O. (2016). 2017—Trump—Are we ready to rise? Huffington Post. Retrieved March 24, 2017 from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2017trumpare-we-ready torise_us_5861ea62e4b014e7c72eddf2.
- Scharmer, O., & Kaufer, K. (2013). Leading from the emerging future: From ego-system to ecosystem economies. Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
- Scheele, P. (2015). Transformative learning in higher education: Praxis in the field of leadership and change. Journal of Transformative Learning, 3(1), 5-12.
- Schneider, M., & Somers, M. (2006). Organizations as complex adaptive systems: Implications of complexity theory for leadership research. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(4), 351-365.
- Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: NY, Crown Pub.
- Senge, P. M., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., & Flowers, B. S. (2005). Presence: An exploration of profound change in people, organizations, and society. New York, NY: Crown Business.
- Taylor, W. C. (1999, May 31). The leader of the future: Harvard's Ronald Heifetz offers a short course on the future of leadership. Fast Company.
- Tucker, R. C. (1981). Politics as leadership. Revised edition. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
- Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318.
- Vincent, N., Ward, L., & Denson, L. (2015). Promoting post-conventional consciousness in leaders: Australian community leadership programs. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(2), 238-253.
- Will, T. E. (2016). Flock leadership: Understanding and influencing emergent collective behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(2), 261-279.
- Zhang, H., Ou, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., & Wang, H. (2017) CEO humility, narcissism and firm innovation: A paradox perspective on CEO traits. The Leadership Quarterly, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.01.003
Perhaps some of us can agree that the United States of America (USA) was built upon racist beliefs, actions, and legislation. For example, the presidential White House was created through the use of slave labor. Not only that, but our national heritage enacted legislation that codified racist beliefs into law. For example, the 20th century Federal Housing Act (FHA) created the modern-day mortgage and housing market; but only for white people. It effectively segregated cities by refusing to rent houses or allow mortgages to African Americans.1
The years of slavery, Cold War, Jim Crow, and the 2001 Patriot Act, among countless
others, have further codified racism into the USA. Christians throughout the history of the USA are just as guilty of racism as non-Christians. The perpetuation of racism has stained the hands of the people of the United States, including Christians who have participated in founding the Atlantic, race-based slave trade.2 We, the church, can imagine a world where the Kingdom of God has come fully, where racism no longer viciously harms our neighbors, and where no binary such as oppressor and oppressed exists. Yet, this is far from the truth, even within the Church of the Nazarene.
Although Christians are often quick to deny the current existence of racism, it has never been eradicated; for it exists today in hidden, dangerous forms throughout our society. One current form of racism is the tendency to see other people as ‘non-colorized.’ This form of racism occurs when people believe that to eradicate racism, one must deny that the color of one’s skin holds intrinsic significance. While this might not initially sound like traditional racism, it
still creates the same injustice in our society and churches. It has deep power to harm people, without regard to the color of their skin.
When a person’s race and color affect their opportunity for equality and just living,
purposefully eliminating these factors (“I don't see Korean or American, I just see you as an individual”) adds to the racial inequality persons of color already feel and
experience…color-blind racism becomes more perilous because it is so inherently embedded in our daily lives and discourse and comes from persons as close as our
friends.3
It is vital that churches, pastors, and all Christians recognize that the color of one’s skin is deeply intertwined with their personhood. All people, including their skin color, are created in the imago Dei and the church’s ability to recognize that fact will have profound consequences.
The Church of the Nazarene is not unsusceptible to racism because racism knows no borders. Corporately and individually, churches and pastors in the USA are influenced by racism and are often unknowing participants in its structures. Our churches can no longer ignore the effects that racism has on our people and our pastors.
‘What about today?’ we ask. Christians may proudly declare that racism no longer has a
foundation, especially in our churches. Slavery has been outlawed and our country has, for the most part, amended its racial differences. However, “Neither the secular belief in human equality – ‘all men are created equal’ – nor the Christian teaching that all are created in God’s image has
prevented this evil. On the contrary, perverted and inadequate forms of these beliefs have been used to justify it.”4 Racism is an issue that must continue to be addressed. Unless we look closely and critically at racism within our churches, we will continue to perpetuate it.
If we hear a news story about a black man slain by police and assume he must have done something wrong we should notice how our conjecture echoes the casual response of many European Americans to lynching and investigate racial inequity in police violence. If the media demonizes a black mother on welfare, we should notice how
this feeds upon the stereotype of black women as hypersexualized and make it our
business to discover that the typical welfare recipient is white. And because we are still benefiting from the legacy of slavery, we must listen to people of color. Both in individual reading and research and in actual conversations, we need to ask when, where, and how people of color experience discrimination, and we must believe what they tell us. This is hard, exhausting work. But only by relinquishing what we think is our authority to decide how situations will be addressed… by listening to people of color and following their lead, can we move forward toward a better future for … our churches.5
Racism surrounds us and has deeply influenced common humanity in the USA. In many cases, and for certain races, participating in racism is as quotidian as breathing– happening without our conscious awareness. Is there any hope for the justice of the oppressed? A church must pay deep
attention to that which is happening in its building and in the lives of its members.
Churches must think deeper; for it matters what we think. The life and teachings of Jesus form a part of the Church of the Nazarene’s understanding of interracial reconciliation. The Gospel of Mark shares the story of Jesus’ healing of a blind man. Mark says: “He took the blind man by the hand and led him out of the village; and when he had put saliva on his eyes and laid
his hands on him, he asked him, “Can you see anything?” 24 And the man looked up and said, “I can see people, but they look like trees, walking.” 25 Then Jesus laid his hands on his eyes again; and he looked intently and his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.”6
One commentary said:
…it would appear that the man once saw but had progressively gone blind, in that when
partially healed he shows a recognition of what trees look like (v. 24). At the first stage of his healing, the man appears still to have a severe case of nearsightedness, with things at any distance looking quite blurry.7
May we, as a denomination, not become blind to the need for interracial reconciliation. May our sight be made progressively sharper, and not progressively blurry, as we participate in the restoration of the Kingdom of God both now and in the future.
Churches must speak clearer; for it matters what we say. Our language shares our deepest held theology. Most importantly, our subconscious use of language shares the implicit beliefs of a congregation. Language is a phonetic form of a set of beliefs that may never be explicitly stated yet is still complexly woven into the core existence of a church. “To make a theological statement such as ‘Your Koreanness matters to God,’ highlights the particularity of a person
while avoiding an implicit message that God really might not see them as in the statement “You matter to God.”8 The fact that someone is Korean or that someone is American matters deeply to God. Our ethnicity forms the way we participate in the imago Dei and must be valuable in the
sight of pastors.
Social justice must begin, and actively continue to be practiced, within our churches and within the very pews of our buildings. But, do we really know the people in our churches? Do pastors understand the significance that one’s birthplace has on his or her current understanding of the Gospel? The work of a pastor is not just to preach, teach, and lead, but to know and
understand his or her members of the church.
Ethnography is a social science that deeply studies other cultures, specifically of cultures unfamiliar to the ethnographer. “Rather than studying people, ethnography means learning from people.”9 The ethnographer is one who chooses to come into deep relationship with another culture through the primary means of formal interviews, informal participant observation, and concentrated study. It parallels the Christian understanding of the incarnation in that ethnographers seek to become identified with someone who is different from themselves. James Spradley, one of the leading voices of ethnography, says that:
Ethnographers adopt a particular stance toward people with whom they work. By word
and by action, in subtle ways and direct statements, they say to others, ‘I want to understand the world from your point of view. I want to know what you know in the way you know it. I want to understand the meaning of your experience, to walk in your shoes, to feel things as you feel them, to explain things as you explain them. Will you become my teacher and help me understand?’ This frame of reference is a radical departure from treating people as either subjects, respondents, or actors.10
Ethnography is all too often relegated to the task of skilled academicians or social science researchers. However, ethnographic research can and must also be the work of pastors. There is no better way to understand the life of a local church than through ethnography. Mary Clark Moschella is an ethnographer who wrote a significantly valuable guide in leading pastors to
practice ethnography as a means of reconciliation. A pastoral ethnography takes the traditional elements of ethnographic research and applies them towards a congregational setting. This type of research will allow a pastor to begin to understand the effects of racism within the church.
A pastoral ethnography is the initial step to social justice within a church because it
removes the distance caused by racism. It brings the pastor into deep, incarnational relationship with church participants. “Human relationships are at the heart of pastoral ethnography.”11 When we know those around us we are much more equipped to instill patterns of justice in our churches. Pastors can continue to develop these important relationships while looking deeper at beliefs and attitudes.
Ethnographic congregational research will yield high results for both pastor and lay
person. For example, this research process will: “shine a light on what matters to people in a community,”12 “create safe spaces in which honest opinions can be shared,”13 “help people heal and free them to move with strength and vigor”14 by telling their story. Or it can be “a vehicle for honest sharing about the group’s past and thoughtful discernment of God’s presence in the group’s story, which helps to get the group ‘unstuck.’”15 These results will allow the church to become a fuller representation of the Kingdom of God on earth. It will strengthen the people of the church in ways that are even beyond simple identification.
Many people, though often filled with good intentions, are immobilized in the face of
seemingly insurmountable injustice. Many churches within this denomination have done well to begin the conversation on interracial reconciliation. These conversations are beautiful steps toward healing and justice. However, in many churches it is past time to take the next step through tangible acts of justice-making. This step begins with pastors in the local church. A written pastoral ethnography will be the foundation of a church’s ability to implement justice and the love of God.
The church has resources at its disposal, if only we would utilize them. We can trust the
social sciences. We can study and listen to those around us. Most importantly, the Church of the Nazarene can practice ethnography.
Paying attention to the sights, sounds, smells, and tastes related to group life will give the pastor a fuller and richer understanding of the complexity and variety of cultural stories within a congregation or a community. The pastor as learner can better ‘read’ some of the shared knowledges and habits [of the church]. In these ways, the practice of ethnographic research can become a form of holistic pastoral listening that attends to the range of meanings, experiences, desires, and theologies that congregations express not only through their words but also through their lives.16
The implications of this type of research are incredibly valuable as they reveal hidden truths and illuminate racism. When a pastor and a church seeks to learn from, and not just of, its people, justice will be enacted.
Today, the Church of the Nazarene stands at a unique crossroads between action and passivity. The way in which the Church responds to initial reconciliation is directly related to its ability to enact lifelong justice or injustice. This past summer, the Church of the Nazarene recently convened at General Assembly. A resolution was passed that spoke passionately against the injustice experienced by so many throughout the world. A part of the resolution on “Affirmation and Declaration of Human Freedoms” says:
Built upon our Wesleyan-Holiness Christian heritage and call to holiness, we make the following affirmations:
1. We affirm that the pursuit of justice, reconciliation, and freedom is at the heart of God’s holiness being reflected in people. We commit ourselves and our ecclesial resources to working for the abolition of all forms of slavery, trafficking, and oppression, and to participate in intentional networks, conversations, and actions that provide hopeful alternatives.
2. We affirm that churches should faithfully respond to the impulse of God’s holy love by working for God’s reign to be ever more visible. We are called to be faithful witnesses in thought, word, and deed, to the holy God who hears the cries of those who are oppressed…
3. We affirm that acting justly involves the compassionate care for those in our immediate surroundings and also being able to name injustice, and denounce the powers
that cause it…God’s justice calls us beyond equal treatment, tolerance of one another’s
differences, or simply reversing the role of oppressed and oppressor.
This beautiful language of justice and reconciliation is officially codified into the Church of the Nazarene and will be included in the new Manual of the Church of the Nazarene in the beginning of 2018. This declaration forms our renewed commitment of congregational justice.
Racism, indeed, exists societally and congregationally. It portrays itself in individualistic and systemic ways. There is no escaping from racism, even in our churches, until the Kingdom of God has fully come. As Wesleyans, we live in the tension of what is and what ought to be – between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet.’ We eagerly anticipate the full restoration of God’s kingdom on earth as it is heaven. Yet, although we wait, we do not wait complacently. We do not have to proceed into situations, churches, and cultures with a blurry, confused perception as the blind man in the Gospel of Mark. When the Church of the Nazarene becomes overwhelmed with injustice, may we remember the words of the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures. 14 Seek good and not evil, that you may live; and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you, just as you have said.15 Hate evil and love good,
and establish justice in the gate17
May our churches be the gates of which the prophet Amos spoke. We must seek the social
justice of all people, including both the minorities and the majorities in the interaction of interracial reconciliation. If we desire to see justice in action throughout our world, we must realize that often it begins at the local church with individual pastors. “If God’s image is present in each of us and related to our human dignity, then when we insult one another, we insult God.
Rightly understood, enacting or condoning racism is not only a sin; it is heresy.”18 A pastoral ethnography is a tangible means of bringing about a just congregation because it calls the pastor to see, hear, understand, and relate to the people within the church in the deepest and most serious ways possible.
1 Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic. June 2014. Accessed October 10, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/.
2 K. Teel, Racism and the Image of God (Place of publication not identified: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 4.
3 Mark Hearn, “Color-Blind Racism, Color-Blind Theology, and Church Practices,” Religious Education 104, no. 3 (2009): 276-277, doi:10.1080/00344080902881298.
4 K. Teel, Racism and the Image of God (Place of publication not identified: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 2.
5 Ibid., 36.
6 Mark 8:22-26. In Holy Bible: NRSV, New Revised Standard Version. New York: Harper Bibles, 2007.
7 Larry W. Hurtado, Mark (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 134.
8 Mark Hearn, “Color-Blind Racism, Color-Blind Theology, and Church Practices,” Religious Education 104, no. 3 (2009): 284, doi:10.1080/00344080902881298.9 James P. Spradley, The Ethnographic Interview (Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2016), 3.
10 Ibid., 34.
11 Mary Clark. Moschella, Ethnography as a Pastoral Practice: an Introduction (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2008), 86.
12 Ibid., 34.
13 Ibid., 35.
14 Ibid., 36.
15 Ibid., 36.
16 Mary Clark. Moschella, Ethnography as a Pastoral Practice: an Introduction (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2008), 10.
17 Amos 5:14-15. In Holy Bible: NRSV, New Revised Standard Version. New York: Harper
Bibles, 2007.
18 K. Teel, Racism and the Image of God (Place of publication not identified: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2016), 37.
Bibliography
- Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic. June 2014. Accessed October 10, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/.
- Hearn, Mark. “Color-Blind Racism, Color-Blind Theology, and Church Practices.” Religious Education 104, no. 3 (2009): 272-88. doi:10.1080/00344080902881298.
- Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008. l
- Moschella, Mary Clark. Ethnography as a Pastoral Practice: An Introduction. Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim Press, 2008.
- Spradley, James P. The Ethnographic Interview. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2016.
- Teel, K. Racism and the Image of God. Place of publication not identified: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
- United Kingdom British Isles South District, Affirmation and Declaration of Human Freedom
- Resolution CA-700. General Assembly, Church of the Nazarene. June 2017.
7. Vinicius Couto, TEOLOGIA DOS REFORMADORES: UMA INTRODUÇÃO HISTÓRICA AOS PRINCIPAIS PENSAMENTOS DE LUTERO, ZWINGLIO E CALVINO
TEOLOGIA DOS REFORMADORES: UMA INTRODUÇÃO HISTÓRICA AOS PRINCIPAIS
PENSAMENTOS DE LUTERO, ZWINGLIO E CALVINO
Vinicius Couto1
Resumo
Os pensamentos desenvolvidos pelos reformadores merecem a atenção de todo estudioso da História da Teologia. As contribuições de Lutero, Zwinglio e Calvino são vívidas para a Igreja do século XXI. A ânsia desses homens em voltar à apostolicidade da Igreja Primitiva, bem como restaurar o cristocentrismo no verdadeiro culto são inegáveis realidades que perfaziam a natureza da Reforma.
Não é nosso objetivo esgotar os ensinos desses reformadores, mas introduzir as principais doutrinas que, depois de formuladas, mudaram a realidade da Igreja de Cristo. Ademais, buscaremos no presente
artigo, compreender não apenas o pensamento teológico desses ícones do protestantismo, mas compreender o que os motivou historicamente a batalhar pela fé que uma vez nos foi dada.
Palavras-chave: Reformadores; Lutero; Zwinglio; Calvino
Abstract
The thoughts developed by the Reformers deserve attention of all researcher of the History of Theology. The contributions from Luther, Zwingli and Calvin are vivid for the 21st century Church.
These men's eagerness to return to the apostolicity of the Early Church, as well as to restore Christocentrism in the true worship, are undeniable realities that make up the nature of the Reformation. It is not our goal to exhaust the teachings of these reformers, but to introduce the main
doctrines that, once formulated, have changed the reality of the Church of Christ. In addition, we will seek in this article, not only to understand the theological thinking of these icons of Protestantism, but what historically motivated them to battle for the faith that once was given to us.
Keywords: Reformers; Luther; Zwinglio; Calvin.
A Origem da Igreja
Numa reunião inusitada do Senhor Jesus nas regiões de Cesaréia de Filipe, Ele, como sempre, trouxe à tona mais um tema inesperado aos seus discípulos: “Quem dizem os homens ser o Filho do homem?”, começou logo o Mestre perguntando. Embora o evangelista Mateus relate uma resposta
quase instantânea por parte dos discípulos, podemos conjecturar que, após tal pergunta eles olharam-se espantados e temerosos de responder erroneamente à questão do Mestre, até que o primeiro deles tomou a iniciativa e respondeu que as pessoas achavam que Ele era a reencarnação de João Batista.
Uma vez que a fila havia sido puxada, o segundo deles complementou dizendo que havia os que achavam ser Ele a reencarnação de Elias. De repente, outros nomes também foram lembrados: as pessoas sugeriam, ainda, a reencarnação de Jeremias ou de outros profetas (cfMt 16.13,14).
A primeira parte dessa reunião estava finalizada. Jesus parte então, para a segunda etapa.
Parafraseando a passagem de Mateus 16.15, seria como se Ele estivesse dizendo: “Tudo bem. As pessoas que não me acompanham, não conhecem minha identidade corretamente e se confundem em resposta errada seria um profundo vexame. Mas, Pedro, revelado pelo Pai, trouxe a resposta correta sobre a natureza e propósito do Verbo que se fez carne (muito embora ele ainda não tivesse
compreendido esses significados): “Tu és o Cristo, o Filho do Deus vivo.” (Mt 16.16b).
Sequencialmente, Jesus aborda a futura instituição da Igreja, revelando-se como a pedra fundamental que os construtores rejeitariam (Sl 118.22; Mt 21.42; 1 Co.11). Esta ekklesia, seria edificada com outras pedras menores (Ef 2.20; 1 Pe 2.5), as quais dariam corpo ao Templo do Espírito Santo (1 Co 3.16,17).2 Sendo originada no dia de Pentecostes3, a Igreja dava seus primeiros passos dirigida pelo Espírito Santo. No primeiro concílio de Nicéia (325 d.C.), os bispos adotaram quatro marcas distintas para definir a Igreja: una, santa, católica (universal) e apostólica. Essa declaração foi revista e aceita no primeiro concílio de Constantinopla (381 d.C.).
A Igreja Pós-nicena
Por volta do ano 500 d.Ca Igreja era invadida por ideais que eram totalmente contrários ao Evangelho, principalmente a concepção e o uso de poder que estavam em rigoroso contraste com a espécie de poder mostrado na vida e nos ensinamentos de Jesus. O cristianismo estava sendo
seriamente afetado pela doença fatal do Império Romano. Desde então, os bispos tendiam a tornar-se magnatas não diferindo grandemente dos senhores seculares, exceto em seus títulos e em algumas de suas funções.
Não era difícil ouvir de bispos que eram glutões, beberrões e lascivos. Muitos acabaram sucumbindo. As últimas décadas do século IX foram anos de profundas trevas tanto para Igreja Católica quanto para a Europa Ocidental. No ano de 1095, a primeira cruzada foi promovida pelo papa Urbano II e ainda muitas outras (até o final do século XIII) seriam empreendidas com o apoio ou senão com a promoção de um pontífice romano.4
Não é surpresa e tampouco segredo que desde que a Igreja se ajuntou ao Estado no final do século IV, a decadência espiritual foi enormemente progressiva. O frade franciscano Guilherme de Ockham (1288-1347), além de filósofo, lógico e teólogo escolástico, denuncia em sua Opus Nonaginta Dierum que, os papas eram corruptos, hereges, impuros, sujos e dados ao pecado5.
Alguns anos depois de Ockham, líderes da Igreja Católica Apostólica Romana reuniam-se para decretar a sentença do pre-reformador John Huss. No concílio de Constança (1.414-1.418), Huss fora condenado à fogueira e queimado vivo no dia 06 de Julho de 1.415. Além desse trágico episódio, John Wycliff, predecessor de Huss, fora declarado herético no dia 04 de Maio de 1.415, sob o decreto de ter seus restos mortais exumados e suas obras literárias queimadas.
A morte de Huss foi humilhante. Cortaram-lhe o cabelo e fizeram uma cruz em sua cabeça. Por último, puseram uma coroa de papel que estava decorada com três demônios e o enviaram para a fogueira. Antes de ser queimado ele teve de passar por uma pira onde queimavam seus livros. Mais uma vez pediram que se retratasse, mas Huss negou com veemência. Chegando ao lugar de execução, não lhe foi permitido falar ao povo, mas a oração que fez enquanto estava sendo amarrado ao poste chegou ao ouvido de todos, dizendo: “Senhor Jesus, por ti sofro com paciência esta morte cruel. RogoTe que tenhas misericórdia dos meus inimigos”.
No último momento ainda tentaram induzi-lo a assinar uma retratação, porém, sem sucesso.
Então Huss levantou sua voz e disse: “Tudo o que escrevi e assinei foi com o fim de livrar as almas do poder do demônio, e livrá-las da tirania do pecado; e sinto alegria em selar com o meu sangue o que
escrevi e assinei”.
Depois de dizer isto, acenderam a fogueira, e envolto pelas chamas proclamou em alto e bom som as seguintes palavras: “Hoje vocês estão matando um ganso, mas daqui a cem anos Deus levantará um cisne, o qual vocês não poderão matá-lo”. Huss morreu cantando hinos a Deus.6 Sua palavra profética se cumpriu em 31 de Outubro de 1.517, quando Martinho Lutero publicou suas 95 teses na porta da igreja no castelo de Wittenberg, protestando contra diversos pontos doutrinários do
catolicismo.
O Surgimento dos Reformadores
É nesse ínterim – de uma crise radical da teologia medieval – que se inicia a Reforma
Protestante. Martinho Lutero (1.483-1.546) é retratado pela historiografia católica como um monge louco e um psicótico demoníaco que tentava derrubar os pilares da Igreja Mãe. Em contrapartida, os protestantes o veem como um Sansão demolindo o templo dos filisteus ou até mesmo um quinto
evangelista.7
A iniciativa de Lutero, inicialmente, ao afixar suas 95 teses na porta do castelo de Wittenberg,
não era de ir contra o papado romano, mas de ajuda-lo a rever os prejuízos que as indulgencias estavam causando. Além disso, o precursor da Reforma passava por momentos de intensos questionamentos.
Ele não concebia a ideia de uma teologia helenizada. Antes, estas ideias deveriam ser alienadas da teologia, afinal, o que Jerusalém tinha a ver com Atenas, a igreja com a academia e a fé com a razão?8
Sem falar nas indulgências, as quais ocuparam maior espaço em suas 95 teses.
Lutero passou a ser assolado por dúvidas concernentesà salvação. A “justiça de Deus” (cf. Rm 1.17) aterrorizava sua alma e o levava a crer num Deus ontologicamente incorreto. Lutero orava, jejuava, fazia vigílias e boas obras, mas conduzido por uma motivação errada. O correto entendimento sobre a justificação levou-o a um novo patamar, que ele mesmo descreve como sendo seu novo nascimento. Desde então, Lutero passou a ser uma dunamis (dinamite) nas mãos de Deus!
Ulrich Zwinglio (1.484-1.531), por sua vez, chocou-se com a forte cultura supersticiosa dos fieis e da pratica simoníaca do clero quando foi enviado para a abadia de Einsiedeln, na Suíça, como capelão. A adoração a Maria e aos santos, além da vida celibatária, também o incomodaram. Após ler a tradução do Novo Testamento feita por Erasmo, Zwinglio enxergou que somente a Bíblia possui a doutrina necessária para a salvação e viu a necessidade de deixar de lado os ensinamento humanos e “aprender a doutrina de Deus diretamente de Sua própria Palavra”.9 Partindo desse pressuposto,
Zwuinglio elaborou 67 artigos de fé.
Quando Lutero afixou as 95 teses na porta da igreja no castelo de Wittenberg, João Calvino (1.509-1.564) tinha oito anos de idade. Vendo dificuldade para que houvesse reforma em Paris, Calvinomudou-se para Basel, na Suíça. Lá, ele escreveu e publicou suas institutas no ano de 1536. Calvino
contou ter passado pelo o que ele mesmo denominou de “súbita conversão”, dizendo que outrora estava “teimosamente preso às superstições do papado” e que não era possível desvencilhar-se desse profundo
lamaçal, mas que Deus havia subjugado seu coração da obstinação de sua idade para a docilidade e conhecimento da verdadeira piedade,mediante Sua providência secreta.10
A Teologia dos Reformadores
Doravante, analisaremos de forma introdutória os pensamentos dos três reformadores já abordados. Para facilitar a organização e sistematização das doutrinas que serão comentadas, seguir-se-á uma exposição lógica de cada assunto. Para Hagenbach, um método de organização doutrinária eficiente é o sintético, o qual “começa do conceito mais elevado, Deus, continua com o homem, Cristo, a redenção e, por último, o fim de todas as coisas”.11 No presente artigo, tal método será adaptado.
Escrituras
Para Lutero, a Bíblia, mesmo escrita por homens, era divinamente inspirada em cada frase e palavra. Ele a chamava de “livro do Espírito Santo” e “o veículo do Espírito Santo”.12 Ela tinha o lugar de primazia. Era a norma determinadora e não norma determinada para todas as decisões de fé e da vida. Uma afirmação sem fundamento escriturístico era tida como mera opinião, não passível de crença. Embora Lutero afirmasse o princípio Sola Scriptura, isso não queria dizer que ele desprezava ou inutilizava os credos e a tradição dos pais da igreja. Ele apenas rejeitou uma doutrina de dupla fonte de autoridade, apenas as Escrituras possuíam tal lugar em sua teologia. Os escritos dos pais da igreja
poderiam ser consultados, mas deveriam ser julgados pela Palavra de Deus. Se a interpretação deles estivesse baseada nas Escrituras, e se as Escrituras provassem que essa é a forma pela qual deveriam ser interpretadas, então a interpretação estaria certa. Se não fosse esse o caso, não deveria ter crédito.
Zwinglio cria na total inspiração das Escrituras e chegou até mesmo a recorrer aos escritos de Agostinho para defender o principio sola sciptura. A Bíblia, portanto, é a verdadeira e única fonte de autoridade. Sobre isso, ele disse que “haverá um dia em que nem Jerônimo e nem qualquer outro vai
significar muito entre os cristãos, exceto as Escrituras somente”.13
As Escrituras foram grandemente exaltadas por Calvino. Para ele, a Palavra de Deus é como um par de lentes que “coletando-nos na mente conhecimento de Deus de outra sorte confuso, dissipada a escuridão, mostra-nos em diáfana clareza o Deus verdadeiro”.14 É a escola do Espírito Santo, a Palavra
inspirada de Deus, sem nada de origem humana misturada, embora revelada em linguagem humana.
Pecado
Para Luteroa imagem fiel de Deus sem pecado no homem antes da queda, designava-os (Adão e Eva) como seres puros e saudáveis, com os sentidos extremamente aguçados (podiam, por exemplo, enxergar através de uma parede ou ouvir a mais de 3 km de distância). Para Lutero, portanto, o pecado era uma rebelião fervente, não meramente uma fraqueza passiva ou ausência do bem. O pecado é algo perverso, que vicia o ser e domina com uma energia incontrolável. Após a queda, o homem ficou dominado pelo pecado, sua vontade está curvada sobre si mesma, escravizada e manchada com o mal em todas as suas ações.15 O pecado devastou a humanidade, a qual possui um livre-arbítrio nominal para a salvação, isto é, a vontade humana possui poder apenas para as coisas inferiores ou terrestres. O poder de decisão salvífica está corrompido pelo pecado e cativo por satanás. Em outras palavras,
Lutero sustentava que, o que comete pecado é escravo deste (Jo 8.34). Lutero analisava o homem sob três aspectos: 1) é criatura de Deus, constituído de carne e alma viva, feito desde o início como imagem fiel de Deus sem pecado, destinado a gerar descendentes, bem como dominar sobre todas as coisas e nunca morrer; 2) essa criatura, porém, após a queda de Adão, está sujeita ao poder do diabo, ou seja, do pecado e da morte – ambos os males que não podem ser superados por suas próprias forças e que são
eternos e 3) ela pode ser libertada somente através do Filho de Deus Cristo Jesus (desde que creia nele) e presenteada com a vida eterna.
Para Zwinglio, a humanidade havia se afastado completamente de Deus, preferindo as criaturas em detrimento do Criador.16Ele criticava austeramente a idolatria aos santos.17 Ele aceitava a doutrina da predestinação e sendo assim, concordava que o pecado era uma imperfeição que devastou a natureza humana, inclinando-a para a pecaminosidade e impedindo-a de escolher a Deus.
Para Calvino, o homem fora criado com um sentido da divindade intrínseco, mas sofreu duras perdas com a queda. A imagem de Deus no homem o torna inescusável diante de nossas idolatrias e rebeliões. Nossa natureza foi completamente afetada e vivemos em um estado de depravação total.
Embora desfigurados da imagem e semelhança originais da criação, esse estado não completamente apagado da descendência de Adão. Todavia, suas virtudes e dons excelentes não valem de nada para obter a justificação. Assim como os dois reformadores acima, Calvino dizia que o livre-arbítrio do homem foi seriamente afetado e que em nossacondição decaída, “a razão natural nunca poderia (nos) guiar (...) a Cristo”.18 O homem é mau, incapaz de figurar ao lado de piolhos, pulgas e pragas. É como um “vermezinho de cinco pés [de altura]”.19 Ele definiu o pecado original como sendo a “hereditária depravação e corrupção de nossa natureza, difundida por todas as partes da alma, que, em primeiro
lugar, [nos] faz condenáveis à ira de Deus [e] (...) produz em nós obras que a Escritura chama de ‘obras da carne’”.20 Nem mesmo as crianças estão isentas de culpa, pois carregam dentro de si a “semente do
pecado”. Calvino enxergava no pecado de Adão a perda da retidão original (privação) e a propensão poderosa de transbordar todo tipo de mal e delito (depravação).21
Salvação
Uma vez que o homem pende para o pecado e não possui habilidade para escolher a Deus e Sua salvação, somente uma ação sobrenatural pode desencadear a restauração do livre-arbítrio, gerando a fé salvífica. Lutero ilustra a ação da graça de Deus da seguinte forma: “a vontade [do homem] é como um
animal entre dois cavaleiros. Se Deus o monta, ele quer ir e vai aonde Deus quer (...) Se satanás o monta, ele quer ir e vai aonde satanás quer”.22Lutero cria, anteriormente, influenciado pela teologia
agostininiana que, o homem era curado progressivamente do pecado mediante uma graça gradual.
Todavia, após seu entendimento sobre a justificação pela fé, ele percebeu que nos apropriamos da graça de Deus e então, somos declarados justos. Em outras palavras, ele abandonou a visão de uma figura medicinal da graça para o entendimento forense de uma justificação imputada no crente. Embora
nossos pecados não sejam realmente removidos, deixam de ser denunciados contra nós. Os princípios protestantes sola fide e sola gratia representam a visão luterana de que, somente a fé – e não as obras – pode nos justificar diante de Deus e somente a graça liberta o homem do pecado gerando a fé salvadora. Lutero cria, ainda, na dupla predestinação e na expiação limitada de Cristo.23
Assim como Lutero, Zwinglio entendia a predestinação como uma defesa contra a justificação pelas obras. Sendo assim, ele concordava que o homem por si só, não conseguia escolher Deus, pois não é o ser humano quem elege Deus e sim é eleito ou reprovado por Ele.24 Zwinglio defendia
veementemente os princípios sola fide, sola gratia e solus Christus.
A salvação se dá por intermédio do ato soberano da bondade de Deus, que através de
Cristodecidiu cobrir “a enorme distância entre nós em sua glória celestial”.25 O estado do homem depois da queda é de inabilidade natural e não consegue escolher o Criador. Aliás, “inda que o homem
houvesse permanecido livre de toda mancha, sua condição, entretanto, era abjeta demais para que se achegasse a Deus sem Mediador”.26 Sendo assim, a fé não pode ser gerada pelo próprio homem, mas é gerada e selada em nosso coração mediante o Espírito Santo. A obra da salvação é puramente divina e de caráter monergista, isto é, o homem não corrobora para sua decisão em escolher a Deus. Antes, é o próprio Deus quem o escolhe (elege ou predestina), e realiza todo ato salvífico, regenerando-o, implantando a fé salvadora, justificando e santificando o homem. O verdadeiro salvo não pode cair da
graça, pois a apostasia só acontece com aqueles que não receberam a semente incorruptível do Espírito Santo, isto é, os eleitos para a perdição.
Deus
Embora a doutrina de Deus devesse ser a primeira a ser abordada, ela foi deixada nessa sequencia para se ajustar ao pensamento dos reformadores. Eles, de forma feral, enxergavam a salvação como sendo parte da providência de Deus. Embora Lutero não tenha desenvolvido em sua teologia um
pensamento tão delineado para a soberania de Deus quanto Calvino o fez, era certo que sua crença na predestinação o levava a essa posição. Para ele, questionar a dupla predestinação como sendo uma arbitrariedade divina era nada menos que liberar nossos pensamentos carnais, isentos de Deus, pois “se Deus assim o quer, e porque Ele o quer, isso não é perverso”.27 Dizia ele para os que não aceitavam a soberania divina: “deixem Deus ser Deus”. Para Lutero, portanto, tanto a justificação quanto a predestinação faziam parte de seu conceito sola fide.28 Entretanto, um assunto que suscita questionamento à posição luterana sobre a predestinação, é sua argumentação resignada de que, a mais alta posição entre os eleitos pertence àqueles que “se conformam com o inferno se Deus o deseja”.29
Esse comentário demandava maiores averiguações, pois retira a nossa certeza da salvação, bem como vai de encontro a 1 Tm 2.4.
Zwuinglio cria na criação do universo a partir do nada (exnihilo). Ele afirmava a soberania divina na criação e na salvação, não aceitando em nenhuma hipótese a ideia de acaso. Para ele, o poder de Deus é sempre intencional e teleológico, mesmo que nas coisas mais minuciosas da vida, tal como a
contagem dos cabelos de nossa cabeça.30 Mesmo as coisas ruins que acontecem estavam sob o governo da providência de Deus. Assim, ele cria que “todo esse problema de predestinação, livre-arbítrio e mérito encontra-se na questão da providência”.31 A providência é a mãe da predestinação e Deus
transforma todas as coisas más dos eleitos em coisas boas. O mesmo, porém, não ocorre com os rejeitados.32Zwinglio, entretanto, tinha uma ideia um tanto assustadora. Ao mesmo tempo em que pregava a salvação em Cristo, ensinou um sistema contraditório. Alguns que nunca haviam ouvido o evangelho (pagãos piedosos) seriam eleitos por Deus, dentre eles haveria “Hércules (...), e Teseu.
Sócrates, Aristides, Antígono, Numa, Camilo, os Catões e Cipiões”.33 Mesmo que não seja pelas obras ou por uma revelação natural, mas por um decreto soberano divino, essa doutrina não está em harmonia com as Esrituras.
Calvino também cria na criação exnihilo. Na criação Deus adaptou Seu poder às aptidões
humanas, fazendo todas as coisas em seis dias. Em Sua providência, Ele criou os anjos “para consolo de nossa fraqueza, para que de modo algum careçamos de algo que valha, seja para elevar-nos o ânimo a boa esperança, seja para firma-lo em segurança”.34 Nada existe ao acaso, nem mesmo os ímpios, os
quais foram criados para o dia da perdição. Não apenas os grandes eventos estavam no controle soberano de Deus, mas até mesmo as coisas mais minuciosas, não caindo nem “uma gota de chuva a não ser pela explícita determinação de Deus”.35 Até mesmo satanás e seus demônios poderiam ser usados por Deus para alcançar Seus desígnios, assim como foi usado em favor de Paulo, pois o enhor “sabe, bem e convincentemente usar dos instrumentos maus para efetuar o bem”.36 Embora ele sustentasse uma doutrina determinista, Calvino também ensinava que, devemos nos cuidar, usar os recursos medicinais e/ou outros meios para vivermos prudentemente, pois a providência de Deus não opera de modo a neutralizar ou tornar desnecessário o esforço humano. A providência divina possui aspectos misteriosos em certos casos. Explicar o sofrimento, a dor e as tragédias da vida aos olhares da justiça e sabedoria humana é como comparar, na visão de Calvino, maçã com laranjas.
Cristo
O princípio solus Christus explicita a teologia de Lutero. Uma vez que a eleição fazia parte do sistema providenciado por Deus em Cristo, somente o Cristo é o nosso salvador. Lutero rejeitava a ideia de que o Papa fosse o representante ou o vigário de Cristo na terra. Cristo é o salvador dos pecadores e o Evangelho a boa nova de que Deus redimiu a humanidade decaída através da cruz de Cristo. As Escrituras sempre apontavam para Jesus: “Aquele que ler a Bíblia deve simplesmente prestar
atenção para não errar, pois as Escrituras podem permitir que sejam estendidas e conduzidas, mas que ninguém as conduza de acordo com as suas próprias inclinações; antes, que essa pessoa as leve para a
fonte, isto é, a cruz de Cristo”.37 Não obstante, Lutero aceitava a cristologia do credo apostólico.
Zwinglio afirmou o principio solus Christus dizendo em seu terceiro artigo que, “Cristo é o único caminho para a salvação, para todos os que já existiram, existem e existirão”. Cristo era o verbo encarnado que nos redimiu da morte e nos reconciliou com Deus por Sua inocência, o único caminho
para a salvação.38 Sua cristologia admitia os conceitos dos quatro primeiros concílios gerais (Nicéia, 325; Constantinopla, 381; Éfeso, 431 e Calcedônia, 451), bem como dos credos apostólico, niceno e atanasiano. Sua visão de solus Christus repudiava qualquer honra a Maria. Em certa ocasião, Zwinglio
inventou uma fala para ela chamando as pessoas que a adoram de “gente ignorante”, pois ela não possui honra alguma, senão Deus. Ela é tão somente uma testemunha de Cristo, mostrando que a salvação está somente nEle.39 Zwinglio seja talvez o mais extenuador do princípio soli Deo gloria.
Calvino declarou que Cristo é “a eterna Palavra de Deus, gerada do Pai antes de todas as eras”.40 Jesus é verdadeiramente Deus porque venceu a morte, o pecado e as potestades do mundo do ar.41Sobre a dupla natureza de Cristo, o Calvino disse que “deve ser de nós enxotado o erro de
Nestório, que, em querendo antes separar que distinguir as [duas] naturezas, engendrava assim um duplo Cristo”.42Calvino exaltou Cristo como mediador. A maior providência de Deus para o homem se deu na obra de Cristo na cruz, pois “quando o Filho de Deus vestiu nossa carne, também concordou
voluntariamente em vestir as emoções humanas (...) Nisso, provou ser nosso irmão, para que pudéssemos saber que temos um Mediador que de boa vontade perdoa e está pronto para socorrer as enfermidades que experimentou em si mesmo”.43 Verdadeiramente temos um Sumo Sacerdote que se compadece de nós!
Espírito Santo
Martin Bucer (1.491-1.551), outro reformador francês, levou o princípio sola scriptura tão a sério que queria negar o termo Trindade em função do mesmo não estar presente na Bíblia. Embora Lutero não gostasse do termo niceno e calcedônio usado para a defesa da natureza divina de Cristo
(homoousious), ele exortou Bucer que a expressão Trindade deveria ser adotada.44 Além disso, Lutero também aceitava a formulação do credo apostólico.
O Espírito Santo é o agente revelador das Sagradas Escrituras, é Ele quem ilumina a mente do leitor. Na visão de Zwinglio, a interpretação da Bíblia não requer opinião humana. Uma vez que ele aceitava os quatro primeiros concílios gerais, bem como os credos apostólico, niceno e atanasiano, sua
opinião sobre o Espírito Santo não divergia da ortodoxia clássica.Para Calvino, o Espírito Santo é quem nos ensina, revela e confirma a Palavra de Deus através de Sua iluminação. Foi Ele quem inspirou os profetas e os Apóstolos.45 Nem Lutero e nem Zwinglio deram muita atenção à doutrina da Trindade, mas aceitaram as formulações ortodoxas, conforme já abordamos. Calvino, por sua vez, aprimorou bastante esse tema. Ele afirmou: “quando professamos crer em um só e único Deus, pelo termo Deus entende-se uma única essência e simples, em que
compreendemos três pessoas ou hipóstases”.46 Calvino fazia questão de discernir as pessoas da Trindade, a fim de evitar uma posição unicista: “nem o Filho é o Pai, ou o Espírito o Filho; ao contrário, que são distintos por determinada propriedade”.47 Uma das provas irrefutáveis sobre a
Trindade se dá, na fórmula batismal. Na visão de Calvino, nem os arianos e nem os sabelianos poderiam contra-argumentar tal base escriturística.48
Igreja (Sacramentos)
Lutero enxergava a natureza espiritual da Igreja, bem como seu caráter não institucional. Para ele, a Igreja é o povo de Deus, um corpo de cristãos, santos e ovelhas.49 Ele aceitava a formulação do
credo apostólico: comunhão dos santos. Aceitava, como Agostinho, Wycliffe e Huss a ideia de que a Igreja invisível é a reunião de todo o grupo dos predestinados. Não é uma assembleia física, mas uma assembleia de corações em uma única fé. Apesar da profunda apostasia em que a Igreja Católica se
encontrava, Lutero cria que a verdadeira Igreja nunca havia deixado de existir, mesmo que em alguns momentos tivesse um número bem escasso (dois, três, ou as crianças). Outro ponto importante da teologia luterana se dá a respeito da administração dos sacramentos. Ele não acreditava que o simples fato de participar da eucaristia concedia graça, conforme apontava a teologia romana. Lutero sustentava que, era necessário crer e se apropriar pessoalmente de tal graça. Não obstante, ele defendia que a fé, mesmo à parte dos sacramentos era suficiente para a salvação. Ele enxergava a necessidade do batismo, mas este era um sinal externo de uma graça interna. Lutero aceitava o pedobatismo, entretanto, repudiava a ideia de que a criança não batizada iria para o limbo. Sua maior contribuição à eclesiologia foi a doutrina do sacerdócio universal dos crentes, segundo a qual somos sacerdotes como ele é Sacerdote, filhos como ele é Filho e reis como ele é Rei. Finalizando a visão de Lutero sobre a doutrina da Igreja, ele rejeitou a ideia católica de que a Presença de Cristo estava presente “nos” elementos da eucaristia e postulou que estava “com, dentro dos e abaixo dos” elementos. Ao invés de
Transubstanciação, Lutero empregou a Consubstanciação. Sua posição foi motivo de desgastante embate com Zwinglio, conforme veremos abaixo.
Zwuinglio disse em seu oitavo artigo que, “todos os que permanecem no cabeça são membros e filhos de Deus, e tal é a igreja ou a comunhão dos santos, a noiva de Cristo, Ekklesiacatholica”. Ele aceitava apenas dois sacramentos: o batismo e a eucaristia. Quanto ao primeiro, Zwinglio rejeitou a ideia de que este livrava o homem do pecado original. A princípio, ele também rejeitou o pedobatismo, embora anos mais tarde tenha revisado suas bases bíblicas e adotado o batismo de crianças. Apesar de
aceita-lo, Zwinglio não cria que uma criança não batizada iria para o limbo, antes, todas as crianças que morressem na primeira infância (sendo filhos de pais cristãos) estavam salvas, pois a aliança da graça
estendia-se tanto a eles quanto a seu pais.50 Conforme comentamos, Lutero havia mantido a posição relista em torno da eucaristia assumindo, porém, ao invés da transubstanciação a consubstanciação. Zwinglio, por sua vez, negava a Presença física de Cristo nos elementos e ensinava a presença espiritual para os da fé. Ele cria que o ritual da eucaristia era um memorial que comemora a eficácia para o crente na morte de Cristo, o que lhe rendeu grandes desavenças com Lutero. Ele comparava a ideia de memorial com a festa anual dos “Dez Mil Cavaleiros”. Assim como as pessoas celebravam algum feito que ocorreu naquela mesma data, a eucaristia nos relembrava o ato sacrificial e expiatório de Cristo na cruz.51
Para Calvino, a igreja é a mãe de todos os cristãos, a escola de Deus, o reformatório divino, a coluna e baluarte da verdade. Ele enxergava grande importância na participação do cristão em uma comunidade visível, pois nesta vida, o local de santificação é a congregação, onde os eleitos participam
dos benefícios de Cristo.52 A igreja visível é um corpo misturado, no qual joio e trigo crescem no mesmo campo. Já a igreja invisível é constituída pelos anjos eleitos, homens piedosos do Antigo Testamento e várias almas predestinadas que se encontram fora do “pomar murado do Senhor“.
Calvino enxergava o batismo como uma confirmação externa da fé dos eleitos. Sua visão sobre a eucaristia buscou uma posição intermediária às de Lutero e Zwinglio. O sacramento não está vinculado meramente à obra passada do Redentor, mas também à presente obra espiritual de Cristo, que agora vive na glória. Calvino cria que Cristo, “embora não corporal nem localmente presente na Ceia, está, contudo, presente, e é desfrutado em Sua pessoa completa, corpo e sangue”53
Missão da Igreja
Os reformadores não postularam uma doutrina missiológica como vemos em nossos dias.
Entretanto, a restauração da pregação bíblica e expositiva perfazia o meio missionário de suas épocas.
Lutero enfatizava a pregação e cria que esta é a maneira do Novo Testamento e do Evangelho para a realização da missão. Ele também cria que a pregação deveria ser realizada pela palavra da boca e da viva voz, até porque, próprio Cristo não escreveu nada, nem ordenou que nada fosse escrito, mas sim que se pregasse a palavra falada. Sendo assim, a Palavra de Deus deve permanecer livre, para ser ouvida por todos.
Assim como Lutero, Zwinglio insistia na pregação do Evangelho e instou que isso fosse feito no idioma de cada povo. Deixar de fazer isso é pecado, pois a Palavra de Deus é Palavra de vida54. Sendo assim, o Espírito Santo é quem agia no convencimento do pecado no homem restaurando-lhe o livrearbítrio.
Calvino não permitia que a doutrina da predestinação fosse usada como pretexto para deixar de pregar o Evangelho a todos, afinal, não sabemos quem são os eleitos, senão apenas Deus. Sendo assim, o Evangelho deveria ser proclamado indiscriminadamente sob a confiança da atuação do Espírito Santo no convencimento do pecador e condução a Cristo.55
Considerações Finais
Lutero revelou-se um cisne notável. Sua ousadia e mente iluminada pelo Espírito Santo desencadearam um movimento sem precedentes. É impossível ler a história de como a Reforma se desenrolou sem crer num Deus que tudo governa e que está atuante em cada ato de providência soberana. Zwinglio foi também outra pessoa importantíssima nessa história. Sua coragem e perspicácia somaram grandes contribuições para as doutrinas protestantes. Calvino foi uma figura proeminente.
Seu brilhantismo certamente não provinha de si mesmo, mas da capacitação do Espírito Santo.
Em suma, as doutrinas protestantes podem ser resumidas nos 5 solas. Independentemente do
sistema teológico adotado (calvinista / arminiano), é de comum acordo que, somente pela graça é que o homem pode ser salvo, pois sozinho não possui condições de escolher a Deus, afinal, sua natureza está
corrompida pela pior das enfermidades, o pecado. Esta graça produz a verdadeira fé que nos justifica, pois nossas obras são insuficientes para satisfazer a Deus e nos conduzir à salvação. Não há um justo
sequer. Somente Cristo serve como nosso mediador, isto é, aquele que em sua dupla natureza se identifica conosco em nossas fraquezas, embora sem pecado, e que aplaca a ira de Deus sendo a perfeita propiciação pelos nossos pecados. Somente a Escritura nos aponta para o Cristo e por isso deve
ser pregada a tempo e fora de tempo. Ela é o nosso manual de fé e prática. Somente Deus é digno de toda glória.
1 Bacharel em Teologia pela Faculdade Nazarena do Brasil (FNB), especialista em Ciências da Religião pela Universidade Cândido Mendes, especialista em História da Igreja pela FaeteSF e Mestre em Teologia pela Faculdade Batista do Paraná. Professor de Teologia na FNB e no Seminário Teológico
Nazareno do Brasil (STNB), além de pesquisador de teologia armínio-wesleyana. Email: prviniciuscouto@yahoo.com.br.suas sugestões a meu respeito. Todavia, vocês que estão próximos de mim há um tempo considerável, quem vocês dizem que Eu Sou?”. Poderíamos conjecturar mais uma vez que, nesse momento os discípulos ficaram atônitos, uma
2 DUSING, Michael L. A Igreja do Novo Testamento. In: HORTON, Stanley M. (Org). Teologia Sistemática: uma perspectiva pentecostal. Rio de Janeiro: CPAD, 1996, pp. 546-548.
3 Ibid, pp. 538-539.
4 LATOURETTE, Kenneth Scott. Uma História do Cristianismo. São Paulo: Hagnos, 2006, vol. 1, pp. 361-419.
5 OCKHAM, Willian de. Opera Politica (1963), II, p. 854.
6 GONZÁLEZ , Justo L. Uma História Ilustrada do Cristianismo: A Era dos Sonhos Frustrados. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 1981, pp. 95-102.
7 GEORGE, Timothy. Teologia dos reformadores. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 1993, p. 55.
8 ATKINSON, James (Org.). Luther: Early Theological Works. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962, pp. 269,270.
9ZWINGLIO apud GEORGE, Timothy.Op. Cit. p. 113.
10CALVINO, João. Comentário de Salmos. São José dos Campos: Fiel, 2009, volume 1, p. 32.
11 HAGENBACH apud WILEY, Orton. Introdução à Teologia Sistemática. Campinas: Casa Nazarena de Publicações, 2009, p. 35.
12 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 83.
13 FURCHA, E. J.; PIPKIN, H. W (Orgs.). Huldrych Zwingli: Writings. Alisson Park: Pickwick, 1984, volume 1, p. 116.
14 CALVINO, João. Institutas. I, VI, 1.
15 RUPP, Gordon E.; WATSON, Philip S. (Orgs.). Luther and Erasmus: Free will and salvation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969, pp. 220, 252.
16 FURCHA, E. J.; PIPKIN, H. W (Orgs.).Op. Cit., volume 1, pp. 207-208.
17 Ibid, 1, p. 172.
18 HAROUTUNIAN, Joseph (Org.). Calvin: Commentaries. London: SCM Press, 1958, p. 132.
19 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., I, V, 4.
20 Ibid, II, I, 8.
21 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 214.
22 RUPP, Gordon E.; WATSON, Philip S. (Orgs.). Op. cit..p. 140.
23 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 78.
24 JACKSON, Samuel M. (Org.). The latin works of Huldreich Zwingli. New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1912, volume 3, p. 70.
25 HAROUTUNIAN, Joseph (Org.). Op. cit., p. 131.
26 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., II, XII, 1.
27 LUTERO apud GEORGE, Timothy. Op. cit. p, 78.
28 RUPP, Gordon E.; WATSON, Philip S. (Orgs.). Op. cit., p. 331-332.
29 LUTERO apud GEORGE, Timothy. Op. cit,. p, 79.
30 FURCHA, E. J.; PIPKIN, H. W (Orgs.). Op. Cit., volume 1 ,p. 145.
31 JACKSON, Samuel M. (Org.). Op. cit., volume 3, p. 70.
32 Ibid, Volume 2, p. 271.
33 ZWINGLIO apud GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit.. p, 125.
34 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., I, XIV, 2, 11.
35 Ibid, I, XVI, 5.
36 Ibid, I, XVII, 5.
29 LUTERO apud GEORGE, Timothy. Op. cit,. p, 79.
30 FURCHA, E. J.; PIPKIN, H. W (Orgs.). Op. Cit., volume 1 ,p. 145.
31 JACKSON, Samuel M. (Org.). Op. cit., volume 3, p. 70.
32 Ibid, Volume 2, p. 271.
33 ZWINGLIO apud GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit.. p, 125.
34 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., I, XIV, 2, 11.
35 Ibid, I, XVI, 5.
36 Ibid, I, XVII, 5.
37 LUTERO apud GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 84.
38 JACKSON, Samuel M. (Org.). Op. cit., volume 2, p. 201.
39 FURCHA, E. J.; PIPKIN, H. W (Orgs.).Op. Cit., volume 1 ,p. 156-157.
40 HAROUTUNIAN, Joseph (Org.). Op. Cit., pp. 158-159.
41 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., II, XII, 2.
42 Ibid, II, XIV, 4.
43 CALVINO apud GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 210-211.
44 Ibid, p. 83.
38 JACKSON, Samuel M. (Org.). Op. cit., volume 2, p. 201.
39 FURCHA, E. J.; PIPKIN, H. W (Orgs.).Op. Cit., volume 1 ,p. 156-157.
40 HAROUTUNIAN, Joseph (Org.). Op. Cit., pp. 158-159.
41 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., II, XII, 2.
42 Ibid, II, XIV, 4.
43 CALVINO apud GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 210-211.
44 Ibid, p. 83.
45 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., I, VII, 4.
46 Ibid, I, XIII, 20.
47 Ibid, I, XIII, 5.
48 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit. p, 200.
49 TAPPERT, T. G. (Org.). The Book of Concord. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949, p. 315.
50 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 138-140.
46 Ibid, I, XIII, 20.
47 Ibid, I, XIII, 5.
48 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit. p, 200.
49 TAPPERT, T. G. (Org.). The Book of Concord. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949, p. 315.
50 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit..p, 138-140.
51 Ibid, p. 157.
52 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., IV, I, 3.
53 BERKHOF, Louis. Teologia Sistemática. São Paulo: Cultura Cristã, 2012, p. 603.
54 JACKSON, Samuel M. (Ed.). Op. cit., volume 3, p. 1.
55 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit., p. 233.
***52 CALVINO, João. Op. Cit., IV, I, 3.
53 BERKHOF, Louis. Teologia Sistemática. São Paulo: Cultura Cristã, 2012, p. 603.
54 JACKSON, Samuel M. (Ed.). Op. cit., volume 3, p. 1.
55 GEORGE, Timothy. Op. Cit., p. 233.
Bibliografia
- ATKINSON, James (Org.). Luther: Early Theological Works. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962.
- BERKHOF, Louis. Teologia Sistemática. São Paulo: Cultura Cristã, 2012.
- CALVINO, João. Comentário de Salmos. São José dos Campos: Fiel, 2009.
- CALVINO, João. Institutas.
- DUSING, Michael L. A Igreja do Novo Testamento. In: HORTON, Stanley M. (Org). Teologia Sistemática: uma perspectiva pentecostal. Rio de Janeiro: CPAD, 1996.
- FURCHA, E. J.; PIPKIN, H. W (Orgs.). Huldrych Zwingli: Writings. Alisson Park: Pickwick, 1984.
- GEORGE, Timothy. Teologia dos reformadores. São Paulo: Vida Nova, 1993.
- GONZÁLEZ, Justo L.. Uma História Ilustrada do Cristianismo: A Era dos Sonhos Frustrados. São
- Paulo: Vida Nova, 1981.
- HAROUTUNIAN, Joseph (Org.). Calvin: Commentaries. London: SCM Press, 1958.
- JACKSON, Samuel M. (Org.). The latin works of Huldreich Zwingli. New York: Knickerbocker Press, 1912.
- LATOURETTE, Kenneth Scott. Uma História do Cristianismo. São Paulo: Hagnos, 2006.
- RUPP, Gordon E.; WATSON, Philip S. (Orgs.). Luther and Erasmus: Free will and salvation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969.
- TAPPERT, T. G. (Org.). The Book of Concord. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1949.
- WILEY, Orton. Introdução à Teologia Sistemática. Campinas: Casa Nazarena de Publicações, 2009.
See Also the following publications in the previous edition 17:2
9a. Gabriel Benjiman (Africa), RESPONSE TO DEIRDRE BROWER LATZ AND RUBEN FERNANDEZ (revised)RESPONSE TO DEIRDRE BROWER LATZ AND RUBEN FERNANDEZ Gabriel Benjiman, Africa Region
Deirdre Brower Latz and Rubén Fernández raise many crucial issues which are shared in common as each one engages the subject. Not wanting to overlook the fact that the writer of each paper represents vastly different contexts and socio-religious landscapes, it will be the aim of this
response to identify positive commonalities under captions which I find helpful for conversation.
Deirdre Brower Latz (2018, p.1) asks: “What might we agree together about following more faithfully? What does it mean to hear the call ‘take up the cross and follow’?”
Contending for a renewed vision of the cross
Rubén Fernández and Deirdre Latz both argue for a renewed vision of the cross. The cross means different things to different people. To some it is simply a trinket, an expression devoid of any spiritual significance. To others it is a mandate to oppress in the name of God. To others yet,
it is hope. “…the cross then, and what this means, isn’t as simple as it seems.” (Deirdre Latz, 2018, p.2)
At the very least, the contentions rest in a corporate and personal ownership of the cross.
On the other end of the spectrum, the call is for a life shaping identity drawn from the cross.
Taking up the cross proposes a permanency of posture. Fernández expresses it as rescuing the call of Jesus: “The call of Jesus is a call to a commitment with him for life and that includes all aspects of the individual's life…a call to conversion, It is good to rescue the seriousness of Jesus'
call in these times...” (2018, p.10). Fernández asks again: “How much do we teach people what it would be like to take up the cross today” (p. 15).
Deirdre Latz emphasises that the greater the obedience in following, the truer is the
embeddedness of the cruciform faith upon the disciples’ identity. The significance of the cross is by no means a light consequence for a Christ follower. The deeper point of contention is that there must be significant themes which are pivotal and vital for our personal and corporate identity as Christ’s followers in the world. And still there must be a clear grasp of what it means to “take up the cross and follow” Christ in the generations and nations in to which we are given our existence.
Constituted by the culture and context?
This is where the conversation intensifies. Context and culture tend to catapult the
conversation in helpful directions. Latz (2018) presents the simple statement about the convictions of those who violate and oppress others with the sincere intent of being faithful to the cross. Reflection upon this constraint to be sincere, honest disciples of Jesus calls me to centre my thoughts around the African continent. Apart from the intense Arabic oppression and
opportunistic slave trades in Africa, the Christian, Western world approached Africa from the earliest times with equal vigour and violence. Colonialism! According to Fernández (2018), who references the colonisation of the Americas, suggests that colonisers came in the guise of
Christianising the continent and her inhabitants. It was no different for Africa- as witnessed in Fernández’ opening quote by Archbishop Bishop Tutu.
Questions arise centring on the convictions and faithfulness to Christ’s mission of
oppressive regimes in Africa. Were these Christians convinced that oppression and violence were the ways of expressing faithfulness to Christ? An example of this is the South African, Verwoerdian regime and its precision crafted beast- Apartheid. Were the Christians in this movement, under the conviction that their actions (even though violating the indigenous "native” inhabitants) were a faithful display of taking up one’s cross? Was this what it meant to those faithful Anglo- Boer disciples of Christ in South Africa to be on the battle field “denying themselves”? Was this Christianity influencing a culture of Afrikaner nationalism or was it a culture of nationalism bearing upon their hermeneutic of discipleship? Is there a possibility of a reprisal in South Africa of black nationalism and will it be justified in all of its outworking by the exogenous impact of the blended early Anglo-Boer portrayal of what it meant to be faithful as a follower of Christ? (Graybill, 1990). What part of the context and culture constrained these
South African disciples to be this way? Is it the culture and context which determine the hermeneutic which gives rise to the catechesis which confirms such disciples as being faithful?
How much of this was supported by the Church in general? How may we avoid the dangers of
such influences on the way we are cruciformed?
Courageously counter-cultural
Reflections on the idea of the church remaining the voice in community, sometimes a voice of the voiceless, is a prophetic role unifying those who seek to be more faithful to being Christ to the broken and bruised. Africa remains a sterling example of the ways the Church may be and the ways we ought not to be. Again, using apartheid as an example, some considered that choosing to remain silent against atrocities was a way of being “more faithful” to their current mission of the Church. Not wanting to upset national or ecclesial status quos. On the other hand, some sought to be more faithful to the image of the table flipping, whip crafting Christ. This tension of being faithful to the mission of the Church versus faithfulness to the mission of Christ,
presents a challenge to the understanding of what it means to “deny self” and “take up the cross.”
Is it not that in seeking to be more faithful to the ways of a ‘drastic-measures’ Christ, is the best guarantee of earning a cross? By doing just that- flipping tables, Jesus earned Himself a cross.
Maintaining a status quo does not furnish one with a cross. Is it not true then, that anyone who is denied a cross cannot truly be identified as being “more faithful”? Fernández (2018, p.16) observes: “My observation in Mesoamerica is that the leadership of the evangelical church in
general terms is of conformist type. What we do well is to preserve the status quo. We do not develop true discipleship on the road to the cross. We do not carry out real transformational leadership, like that of Jesus; we only put bandages on the wounds (and not that that's wrong, but is it enough?).”
Implicit in both Latz and Fernández’ writings are the tensions held between the Church as a moralizing agent (used to shape belief to guarantee a desired complicit behaviour in becoming by appearance ‘more faithful to Christ’ and by doing so to belong to one another in common culture and practice) and the Church as an agency of divine power, controlled by love,
challenging the status quo, causing those who are motivated by love for the people of God along with God-self. (Love here is a controlling element in power not a replacement for power). (Maginizer, 2007).
Fernández (2018) argues for a costlier discipleship which shapes the life of a follower of Christ. A call to discipleship in which “preachers must offer salvation” with more requirements (p.10). While this is in the making for courageous following, caution must be applied. The Church as a whole, especially those of a holiness bias, must be careful not to speak as though
there is more to salvation than the work of Jesus. This may be construed as a Jesus plus something that is required for life as a “more faithful follower of Christ.” Jesus + denominational regulations = salvation. OR, Jesus + the catechesis and confirmation = salvation. This is a dangerous implication.
Called to be the Church
The implications of contending for the collective and singular identity of a ‘more faithful’ disciple, the courage to be counter-cultural or to be constrained by culture will ultimately shape the church which we borrow from tomorrow’s people. The church does not belong to the generation who currently live in its shade and enjoy her fruit. The Church always belongs to the future and her prophetic voice seems more acceptable in hindsight. In Africa, the
Church loses the individual prophetic voices in the likes of Steven Bantu Biko and Robert Sobukwe, when the priority is about serving a Christ of our minds in the here and now rather than embracing a Christ who resembles a more biblical, eschatological image. There is a tendency for Nazarenes in Africa to embrace a relocation eschatology (“I am on my way to Canaan’s land”) as opposed to a restoration eschatology (God making all things new through His Church on earth). Perhaps, a reason for many Africans embracing a relocation eschatology was
embedded in the hope of escaping pain and suffering. The idea therefore of becoming more faithful disciples of Jesus may not fully accept the idea of the Church being environmental activists or seeing the responsibility of the disciple of Jesus ecological warrior. Being more faithful to the mission of the Bible’s Christ ensures that the Church we hand over is cutting edge and geared for the end goal.
Every disciple who desires to deny themselves and take up the cross seeks not only to leave an individualistic imprint. It must also be a collective, unified identity. Rubén Fernández (2018, p.14) argues for this when he states: “Young people are waiting for a militant, dissenting, reactive church. We are losing the new generations that reject a church interested in keeping
things as they are…Rather, we should ask ourselves, how can we help young people to see their careers as means to transform society?
The way to achieving this form of being more faithful as disciples of Christ, is to reject a one size fits all approach. We have to allow the corporate look of disciples to suit their context without falling foul of our cohesiveness. An example of this will have to be the absence of conversation concerning corporate worship. Liturgical styles differ vastly. As Africans dancing
and a deep expectation of transcending in worship through extemporaneous prayer is not unusual. This may not necessarily be the case with others who read their corporate prayers. Our identity as a global, corporate whole must continue to exist as a unity of unique offerings of voice, and solution to contextual troubles. Deirdre Latz (2018, p.10) says: “This kind of corporate discipleship should probably not look the same everywhere.”
Some Concluding Thoughts
How do we release our people from the bondage of hypocrisy and self-contradictions in the quest for being more faithful disciples? During the apartheid era, many of the more ethnically privileged South African Nazarenes took offence when their fellow marginalized Nazarenes suggested that being more faithful to Jesus would mean standing up against oppression and marginalization of the indigenous people. The then, advantaged and privileged few in our denomination often quoted scripture on honoring governments and obeying the laws of the country. Now under a new regime with equitably shared privileges, some of the previously advantaged members take to social-media slandering of the “kings” and “rulers” of their country.
There is a rising tension and frustration because the shoe is on the other foot. How does one seek to be a more faithful disciple of Christ without creating future opportunities for self-contradiction
and hypocrisy? How do we individually and corporately address social issues with a call for righteousness and Holy living without falling for the trap of perceived neutrality? Would it not be possible for followers of Christ to see God in Christ being a liberator challenging the
oppressive systems and to see God as a God of law and order maintaining systems of governance and their kingdoms while being united in love and fellowship? Is there any room for a faithful follower of Christ to simply tolerate others when the call
to faithful followers is a call to authentic, holy love? The answer may be found in presenting a lifestyle of love as true liturgy- an expression of faithful following.
Three Basic Characteristics
This authentic discipleship lifestyle must address the following basic characteristics of Jesus our Lord corporately and individually as identified by St Paul in Philippians. Firstly, disciples who truly emulate Jesus, possess a deep sense of forgiveness even unto death. This is
by no means an artificial or self-induced amnesia. It is a recognition by those who are sinned against that to be authentically Christ-like is to be a forgiver even in death (“…being conformed to Him even in His dying... Philippians 3:10)
Secondly, recognising sin for the sake of repentance is part of the call. It is also
imperative to find ways of restitution. Those who have lost for the cause of Christ may consider this a loss, as embraced by St Paul in his text on “taking hold of Christ”- Philippians 3:8-10, yet it would be blatant theft to take land and property, homes and families without recognising God’s
intention of restoring the same to those who lost these things. Being like Christ must seek to be repentant and restorative by ways of restitution.
Thirdly, I recognise in Paul’s statement (3:12) that to truly take a hold of that for which we are taken a hold of by Christ, we must seek His righteousness. This calls for a common corporate identity recognizable in any context. We are a people pursuing holiness. But what exactly does this look like when we campaign under different political camps? Is it not that our
righteousness must be exemplified more highly than our rights? And that our rights really must see the restoration of all people to the singular image of Christ?References
- Graybill, L. S. (1991). Christianity and black resistance to apartheid in south africa: A comparison of albert lutuli, robert sobukwe, steve biko, and desmond tutu (Order No. 9217315).
- Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (303949147). Retrieved from
- https://trevecca.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/docview/303949147?accountid=29083
- Magaziner, D. R. (2007). From students to prophets: Writing a political faith in south africa,
- 1968–1977 (Order No. 3278874). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
- (304775974). Retrieved from https://trevecca.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search-proquestcom.trevecca.idm.oclc.org/docview/304775974?accountid=29083
19a. General Superintendent Carla Sunberg, GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE INTRODUCTORY PLENARY: CHRISTOLOGYGLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE INTRODUCTORY PLENARY: CHRISTOLOGY
General Superintendent Carla Sunberg
Welcome to the 2018 Global Theology Conference for the Church of the Nazarene. We are here, gathered from every world region for the purpose of theological discussion, in service to the church.
Last summer we had our General Assembly, and many would say that it was a pivotal time in the life of the Church of the Nazarene. It seemed that God’s Holy Spirit was moving as the church family worked through difficult issues and wrestled with creating beautiful unity in the midst of diverse voices and perspectives from around the globe. It felt as if God was doing a new thing, and that we had all been invited to become participants in a holiness church that is willing to
grapple with what it means to create space for all of God’s children to find their place at the table.
Today, the strength of the church outside the United States and Canada is palpable as God is raising up leaders who will stretch our thinking and lead us into new territory. While we have had Global Theology Conferences before, I come here, to Florida, in anticipation that what began last summer in Indianapolis will overflow into our theological conversations.
Why do we need to gather and spend time in theological reflection? Because, in my opinion, the world is in desperate need of Christians who know what it is that they believe. Whether social, religious, or economic pressures, we all have issues which are unique to our local context. A strong theological foundation provides direction, leading the church through the challenges
which she faces. The more I travel the world, the more I realize we cannot ignore the need to intentionally create space for theological reflection.
The theme for this conference is "Christology.” While a variety of themes were considered, the Board of General Superintendents felt that it was vitally important for the church of the Nazarene
to spend time focusing on the One from whom we derive our name. We are the Church of Jesus, the Nazarene!
Traditionally Christology has been the study of the person, nature, and role of Christ. The Board of General Superintendents brought the theme to the GTC committee, which is made up of representatives from all six regions. The committee, in turn, helped to design the framework, bearing in mind the traditional forms of study in relation to Christology, while at the same time taking into account some of the current realities of the church. This conference has been divided into three major sections, using scriptural references to lead us into our conversation:
1. “Who do You Say I Am?” - Knowing and Becoming More Like Jesus Christ
2. “Take Up Your Cross and Follow Me” - Becoming More Faithful to Jesus Christ
3. “As the Father Sent Me So I Send You” - Joining the Mission of Jesus Christ My life has changed radically since we began planning this conference. I had served as the coconvener, along with Dr. Dan Copp, and we worked with the committee to plan this event.
Today, we are glad to welcome Dr. Jeren Rowell into the role which I had previously held.
This new season of ministry has taken me to the beautiful continent of Africa where I have spent more of my time since October, than anywhere else in the world. Whether Africa, or any other region, we have to recognize that this conversation on Christology is timely. There have been
numerous occasions in the past few months when I have had to stop and ask myself whether the Christ I have been serving and representing is the Christ of the Bible, or one of a particular cultural construct. We, as a global church must ask ourselves some difficult questions about our Christology, and how we have defined our understanding of Christ through the years. The beginning chapter of our story in the church of the Nazarene has been written, but we have
entered a new era, where new chapters, filled with many stories must be written.
Nigerian author and novelist Chimamanda Adichie warns us that there is danger in a single story.
She says, “Show people as one thing over and over again, and that’s what they become.” She warns that we risk critical and cultural misunderstanding when we fail to understand that every life, every situation, has their own overlapping story What is the Danger of a Single Story?
Adichie say, “The single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete.”
When we hear the same story over and over again, it becomes the only story we ever
believe. And this stands especially true for the story of Africa.
Too often do we hear this version—Africa, the poorest “country” in the world where only rural landscapes exist and where people live in terror amongst wild animals.
Too often do we treat Africa as one narrative, one we have fostered over generations and generations, becoming so institutionalized that even those who graduated from universities will sometimes slip and refer to Africa as a country or their language as “African.”
This is the danger of a single story, and it brings to mind a quote by American writer Alvin Toffler: “The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.”
We must learn to unlearn these perpetuated stereotypes in order to allow ourselves to see that there is more than this one narrative to Africa—to anything, really.
“Stories matter. Many stories matter. Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign, but stories can also be used to empower and to humanize. Stories can break the dignity of a people, but stories can also repair that broken dignity.”1
We must recognize that we, as the Church of the Nazarene have had a Christology that has been shaped and marked by Western European, and American cultural influences and experiences.
There have been aspects of American faith which have influenced the ways in which we have imagined Christ. And this may be the danger of the single story.
The concept of the Manifest Destiny had an impact on American expansionism, and even
missions in an era of colonialism. There were those who adopted an image of Christ which did not include people of color. Our own “Home” and “Overseas Missions” departments were divided between people of white European descent and the rest of the world. Europe was a part of home missions, while the native Americans were administered under “World Missions.” We may not have consciously realized that our structures reflected a particular Christology and
perspective on the Imago Dei.
For example – how do we see Jesus? In our different cultural contexts and experiences, we may each visualize Jesus differently.
These are different faces of Jesus: I grew up in Europe where Jesus was always white. I remember moving to Russia and seeing this
icon in the Kremlin for the first time. This is known as the Icon of the Savior, Image Not-Made-By-Hands. Didache: Faithful Teaching 17:2 (Winter 2018) ISSN: 15360156 (web version) – http://didache.nazarene.org
It was in that moment that I realized that this was probably a much closer representation of the real Christ than what I had created in my imagination.
Without knowing it’s happening, the danger of a single story is that we may begin to form our Christology in our own image. When we look at the different faces of Jesus, we discover the reflection of many cultures. Does one picture make us more comfortable than another? Didache: Faithful Teaching 17:2 (Winter 2018) ISSN: 15360156 (web version) – http://didache.nazarene.org
This is why now, in this time, the Church of the Nazarene has to ask herself difficult questions about whether there has been a more dominant story.
The Jesus Film has been successful at bringing the gospel to millions of people. This is the Jesus of the Jesus Film. The film has been a powerful tool, yet, one
of our own theologians, Dr. Bill Kwon has asked whether the viewers are able to deconstruct the Western themes shown in
this film?
Franz Fanon, a writer in post-colonial studies, tells that an inferiority complex develops when there is an “unconscious and unnatural training of black people, from early childhood, to associate ‘blackness’ with ‘wrongness.’”3 This was illustrated to me when my South African colleagues told me that during Apartheid, young black and colored children wanted to grow up to
be white. The danger of a single story begins to unfold when we use a series of colors to tell the gospel, where black is bad and represents sin, and white is a cleansed heart, and represents all that is good. When we present Christ in a particular way, framed by one culture, we come
dangerously close to the possibility of creating an inferiority complex in those who are not from the Christ culture.
The value of this conference is that we will spend time speaking with one another, listening to our sisters and brothers, and opening our minds and hearts to discover that we are not trying to prove a “right” answer. We are engaged in a practice that will help us shape the future of who we
are as Nazarenes, as we embrace the global nature of who we have become, the reflection of Jesus in many different cultures. Philip Jenkins, distinguished professor of History at Baylor University warns us that it is wrong to simply take the ways in which we have done things in the past and add something “global” to it. Instead, he says, we must embrace a new perspective which is entirely global.4
There is good news for us. We come from Methodist roots and while historically, the Reformed and Evangelical movements seemed to embrace the concept of the Manifest Destiny, the Methodists began to question the ideas that were being brought forth. This healthy introspection has been a feature of the Wesleyan/Holiness movement.
A Christo-centric doctrine of holiness should bring us to a place of reflection and selfexamination. This is also found in the language of the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Philippians. In Phil 3:7-11 we read:
Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the
resurrection from the dead.
We are here, at this conference, to examine our Christology; to ask ourselves hard questions regarding our past and the future into which God may be leading us. But ultimately, we want to know Christ, and this is more than head knowledge. This is where we affirm our thoroughly Trinitarian and Christo-centric understanding of holiness. When we become “partakers of the divine nature,”5 we truly “know” Christ. An early commentary on Song of Solomon invites us
into an understanding of the beauty found in participation with God, who is beauty and far beyond our comprehension. When our desire is to know Christ, then we will be led to a new level, where human perception cannot reach. One where we are “led to a desire for that beauty of which the heavens tell the glory and the firmament of all creation proclaims the knowledge. In this way, the soul, rising and leaving behind all notice of unimportant things, arrives at a
knowledge of the grandeur beyond the heavens.”6 This is intimate communion with Christ.
Our prayer is that this time together will not simply be an intellectual pursuit, but intimate communion with Christ, as we desire to know him more.
As the Board of General Superintendents began to ponder this conference, the question of Christology emerged in relation to praxis. We are challenged to reconsider how our Christology informs our praxis, specifically in areas such as discipleship, evangelism, church planting, passion for the lost, compassionate ministries, etc.
Christology has informed the Church of the Nazarene from the very beginning. Our second Article of Faith affirms our understanding:
We believe in Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Triune Godhead; that He was eternally one with the Father; that He became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and was born of the Virgin Mary, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, are thus united in one Person very God and very man, the God-man.
We believe that Jesus Christ died for our sins, and that He truly arose from the dead and took again His body, together with all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature, wherewith He ascended into heaven and is there engaged in intercession for us.7
Do we think that we have wandered far from our second article of faith? Most of us would probably say a wholehearted “no,” and yet, is it possible that we have drifted and unconsciously adopted practices, either informed by a singular Christology, or not informed by Christology whatsoever? These are the questions that we are being asked.
We affirm that we are to make “Christlike disciples in the nations,” but maybe we need to get back to Jesus. In Ephesians 4:20 we read, “That is not the way you learned Christ!”8 For the church in Ephesus there had been some drifting from the original teaching, creating a dangerous trajectory, and there was need of correction. This was Paul, pointing to the very substance of
Apostolic preaching. What humans are to attain to, to reach the mark, is Christ himself. This is not just about a doctrine of Christ, but Christ is the direct object of the accusative in the sentence.
We are to intimately “know” the person of Christ, and it is in knowing him that we put on his character, holy love, and are transformed into God’s holy people. The hope then, of this conference, is that we will embrace a truly full-bodied Christology that informs our praxis in a culturally diverse, beautiful global church.
In our first session, we will take time to discuss who Christ is, and this, within our many and varied contexts. Veli-Matti Karkkainen encourages us to remember to embrace a high Christology that acknowledges that “material primacy belongs to the eternal Son, who has become man by his incarnation in Jesus of Nazareth.” However, this cannot be divorced “from the history of Jesus” or we will be in danger of “violation of the biblical insistence on Jesus as the way to the knowledge of God (John 14:6).”9 The incarnation becomes vital to our
understanding. Kara Lyons-Pardue, in her new book Following Jesus: Prophet, Priest and King, edited together with Tim Gains tells us that we must embrace the reality of Jesus’ incarnation, “that is, that the Son, truly God, was born and grew and became a man, truly human. And this “ties together forever the course of human history and the reality of God.” We must take history
seriously if we are to understand Jesus. At the same time, we must also take seriously our context. “Where we are in space, time, and culture must necessarily shape our understanding of Jesus. This is not an imposition on or a lessening of Jesus’ identity; it is a necessary corollary of
us taking Jesus as real, living, and reigning.”10
Knowing Christ is knowing who Jesus is. As we acknowledge the layers of culture which may have influenced our image of Christ, we just may discover a genuine Jesus who speaks volumes into the varied settings of Christianity today and we can attempt to answer the question of Jesus, “Who do you say I am?”
Once we wrestle with who Christ is, we have a clearer view of the one whom we are to follow.
The mission of the Church of the Nazarene is to “make Christlike disciples in the nations.” Jesus challenged his listeners, calling them to “take up [the] cross and follow [him].” This was said to a group of people who had no idea that Jesus would eventually die on a cross. The call was
rooted in a vision of submission to Roman authority which was played out before them daily.Jesus was asking the people to consider a new kind of submission, and that was to the authority of God’s kingdom. This was discipleship, that might just cost his followers everything.
The Board of General Superintendents believes we need a renewed emphasis on disciple-making and Christian formation which must include the life of the local church. Discipleship happens in community, both in the local church, the district, and in gatherings such as this one, on the
denominational level. When we are together, we sharpen one another and there is a type of synergy in which we “provoke one another to love and good deeds.”11 Disciple-making is a part of our DNA, going back to the days of John Wesley and the accountability for spiritual growth and development that was found in his class meetings. There is no cheap discipleship, and there will be those among us who will pay the ultimate price, sharing in Christ’s sufferings.
Finally, a thoroughly Trinitarian Christology will bring us to a discussion of the Missio Dei. In the last ten years the church of the Nazarene has added approximately 800,000 members. Nearly
32% of the people who call themselves Nazarene have just recently joined this family, bringing its own particular challenges. How do we stay true to our Christology in a period of rapid growth? What is God’s vision for our future?
This past weekend I was privileged to be with the leadership from West Africa. There, our team from Nigeria placed before us a vision and dream of joining the mission of Jesus in their vast country, with 200,000,000 people, the seventh most populated nation in the world. This is half
the population of the entire West Africa field, a continent, in and of itself.
This history of the Church of the Nazarene in Nigeria is unique. Near the close of World War II Mr. Dan Iwok, a Nigerian solder, was sent to Burma to serve. There he met Nazarene soldiers and chaplains who gave him gospel tracts and a Nazarene Manual. On return to Nigeria he read these “eternal gifts” and fell in love with the Church of the Nazarene. He organized in Nigeria as
an independent church in 1945.
In 1946 Dr. Hardy Powers, General Superintendent made his way to Nigeria to meet with this church but it was not until 1988 that they were able to officially affiliate with the International Church of the Nazarene. This independent Nigerian Church of the Nazarene was planted because
a soldier gave a man a Manual. A huge celebration was held on the day of the merger where they sang, “The Lord has given the joy of my heart, after so many years of my sorrows; the Lord has given me the joy of my heart.”
Adjustments had to be made after the merger, as there were those who could not accept our theology. There were losses, but today the number of churches has tripled since that organizational celebration. We currently have work in two of the thirty-six states in the country.
The vision is to join Jesus in the mission by eventually practicing presence in every state. At the same time, the urban centers are experiencing explosive population growth. Lagos, Nigeria’s largest city had a population of 21 million in 2016, and is expected to reach 25 million by 2020. Lagos will become one of the world’s megacities, doubling in size by 2050. At that time Nigeria will have a population larger than the United States. Today these church leaders are asking all of us to join with them in their vision to reach their country, every state, and the urban centers, doing mission in ways we have never done before.
Joining in the mission of Jesus Christ means that we become channels of prevenient grace
intersecting with society and culture. Responding to need through a wholistic encounter with Christlike disciples.
The Father sent Jesus into the world, and now, Jesus sends us, his followers. Having been a more rural church, we must consider how we follow Jesus into the sprawling urban centers of the world. At the same time rural areas remain in great need with diminished access to goods and services. In the United States alcoholism and drug abuse threatens to destroy rural communities.
There is a need for faithful kingdom presence across a myriad of social contexts.
In the meantime, our dividing lines are becoming blurred. Just when we get used to the Global structure of the Church of the Nazarene, things become less cut and dried. Just last week the Upstate New York District announced the merger of a Congolese congregation with the Church of the Nazarene. Our Sudanese leadership in West Texas is helping to plant churches in their
home country. When you attend the Metro New York District Assembly you feel as if you’ve landed at the United Nations, where multiple languages are spoken and cultures celebrated. In Zambia you discover a large Chinese population. In Spain there is a new Ukrainian church plant.
The Seminary in Costa Rica is helping to service Spanish-speaking needs in multiple locations in North and South America. And who knows, the vision of the church in Nigeria just may spill over to Houston, Texas where we find the largest Nigerian population in the United States. All of
this shows our old lines, ways of understanding things, are blurring.
David Busic in his Quadrennial address at the 39th General Assembly challenged the church and asked the question, “Can we be a movement again?” The reality is that movements are messy, including a movement of God’s people as they join Jesus in mission. This week could be challenging as we learn even more how old lines have blurred and we need to create a new understanding of who we are as a global movement of people who join Jesus in the mission of God.
Christology. We have much to ponder and to consider as we look to write chapters and stories filled with glorious diversity as we allow God to knit us together. The words of Isaiah challenge us… Isaiah 43: 18 Do not remember the former things, or consider the things of old.
A holiness people, who want to know Christ, participating in fellowship with a holy God. Who knows what God may want to accomplish this week, in Florida.
1 Review by Chelsea Yee. https://borgenproject.org/review-chimamanda-adichies-danger-of-asingle-story/ (13 March, 2018)
2 https://orthodoxwiki.org/Image_Not-made-by-hands The tradition of this icon is that it was created during the time of Christ. We are told of a man named, Abgar, who was the ruler in the Syrian city of Edessa. This man, Abgar, was afflicted with leprosy. News of Jesus’ miracles reached as far as Syria and Arabia. Agbar had never seen Jesus, but he wrote a letter, asking Jesus to come and heal him. He sent the letter with his court painter, Ananias. The plan was for Ananias to paint an image of this healer, Jesus. When Ananias arrived in Palestine, he was
unable to get near Jesus because of the great crowds. He tried to produce an image of Jesus while standing at a distance but was unsuccessful. We are told that Jesus called to Ananias and promised him that he would send a disciple to heal Abgar from his leprosy and instruct him in salvation. After this, Jesus called for water and a towel. When he wiped his face with the towel,
there remained his Divine Image. The towel and a letter were sent back to Edessa with Ananias. Abgar was grateful for the gifts and his body began to heal. Eventually Thaddeus, one of the 70 Apostles arrived, preaching the gospel and baptized the Abgar and the entire community of Edessa. Abgar wrote on the image, now called “not made by hands” the words, “Christ-God, everyone trusting in you will not be put to shame.” He mounted this image, placing it over the
gates of the city. Since that time reproductions have been made and can be found throughout the world.
3 Franz Fanon, Black Skin, White Mask
4 Philip Jenkins, ATS President’s Gathering
5 2 Peter 1:4
6 Nyssen, DV 11 (PG 46:364) (SC 119) (GNO VIII.I) (FC, 39).
7 Manual 2017-2021, Article of Faith 2. Jesus Christ, 26-27.
8 NRSV
9 Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Christ and Reconciliation: A Constructive Christian Theology for the A holiness people, who want to know Christ, participating in fellowship with a holy God. Who knows what God may want to accomplish this week, in Florida. Pluralistic World, vol. 1 (p. 39). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
10 Kara Lyons-Pardue, Following Jesus: Prophet, Priest and King. From the advanced reader copy, Introduction.
11 Ephesians 10:24, NRSV.
19 I am about to do a new thing;
now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness
and rivers in the desert.
20 The wild animals will honor me,the jackals and the ostriches; for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people,
21 the people whom I formed for myself so that they might declare my praise. A holiness people, who want to know Christ, participating in fellowship with a holy God. Who knows what God may want to accomplish this week, in Florida.
20a. General Superintendent Fili Chambo, GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING PLENARY: ONENESS
So, in the salvific work of Christ, God is magnified; this resulting in many coming to know the glory of God — His presence and saving power. 6 Nyssen, DV 11 (PG 46:364) (SC 119) (GNO VIII.I) (FC, 39).
7 Manual 2017-2021, Article of Faith 2. Jesus Christ, 26-27.
8 NRSV
9 Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Christ and Reconciliation: A Constructive Christian Theology for the A holiness people, who want to know Christ, participating in fellowship with a holy God. Who knows what God may want to accomplish this week, in Florida. Pluralistic World, vol. 1 (p. 39). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition.
10 Kara Lyons-Pardue, Following Jesus: Prophet, Priest and King. From the advanced reader copy, Introduction.
11 Ephesians 10:24, NRSV.
19 I am about to do a new thing;
now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness
and rivers in the desert.
20 The wild animals will honor me,the jackals and the ostriches; for I give water in the wilderness, rivers in the desert, to give drink to my chosen people,
21 the people whom I formed for myself so that they might declare my praise. A holiness people, who want to know Christ, participating in fellowship with a holy God. Who knows what God may want to accomplish this week, in Florida.
20a. General Superintendent Fili Chambo, GLOBAL THEOLOGY CONFERENCE CONCLUDING PLENARY: ONENESS
God is exalted and worshipped for He is sovereign (He has the authority and power to redeem His creation from sin, and its power). In His glory (presence) we are continually enabled to live in and for Him and be His holy representatives in the world; bringing many into the knowledge
of God’s love and grace.
Jesus, the Son of God, came into the world, in human likeness to reconcile us to God. In Christ, humanity is given the grace to be restored into a holy relationship with God. "For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the
cross." Colossians 1:19-20
In Jesus, all the fullness of Godhead dwells (Colossians 1:15) and He is "the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being.”
So, indeed the hour has come for God to glorify the Son — for all has been done to bring humanity into communion with Godhead.
There is a sense in which I am persuaded that the hour that was referred to in John was not only in relation to the death of Christ but to the overall work of God that is fulfilled in Christ. If this is true, then even now the hour has come for the Father to glorify his Son. In Christ’s continued presence with us through the Holy Spirit, God continues to be known by us and to know us. Our theological conversations should be centered in a desire to know and be known by Christ; they should be centered in the desire to live in a relationship with the true One God — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, my hope and prayer for us as we begin our theological reflections on Christology is that:
– our conversations will lead to the hour when Christ is revealed afresh in our lives, so we can know Him more and more, and experience His nearness, love, sovereignty, and redemptive work in us and His creation. And in knowing Him, may we discern with
clarity how He would want the Church of the Nazarene to represent Him in the world
today. May we know how He wants us to participate in His redemptive works even in
areas of life that are unprecedented in anything we have known and done through our
ministry in the past. Of course, this will require our willingness for Him to know us more and more. God wants to hear and know our struggles, where we are uncomfortable and uneasy as we attempt to discern and follow Him in those unprecedented areas of ministry.
Our discomfort and uneasiness are a result of the ideas and images of who God is, and
how He works to bring redemption — ideas and images we have already formed because of that which is precedented.
As He knows us, He can free us from those ideas or images we have formed in our lives
which might be a hindrance for us to be participants in ways He is calling us to today. He can give us a new revelation so we can follow Him with integrity. But we must be willing
to listen to Him as we converse, pray, and worship together.
May this be God’s hour for the Church of the Nazarene!
21a. General Superintendent David Busic, CLOSING SERMON: “WHO IS JESUS?” MARK 8:27-30
Didache: Faithful Teaching 17:2 (Winter 2018) ISSN: 15360156 (web version) – http://didache.nazarene.org
We have gathered as a global church over these last three days to discuss, wrestle, and pray about the theology of our church: specifically, what it means to be a holiness people centered in Christ.
On behalf of the Board of General Superintendents, I want to thank all of you for what you have contributed this week. You are a gift to the Church. Thank you for loving God with all your hearts and all your minds and for loving your church as yourself. We are grateful for your consecrated lives and how we are learning how to be the people of God together.
Mark 8:27-30
27 Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and ON THE WAY he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?”
28 And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29 He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.”
30 And he sternly ordered them not to tell anyone about him.
A few years ago, I was on a flight from Kansas City to Los Angeles. There was a woman sitting next to me, and as often happens we began to talk about our lives. She told me that she was a movie director
from Hollywood. (I couldn’t help but wonder how successful her career had been in the movie industry since she was riding in economy coach with me . . . but I didn’t mention that. Some things are better left
unsaid. J) Then she asked me what I did for a living. I told her I was a pastor, and suddenly the conversation took a dramatic turn. Her face turned bright red and her voice became elevated.
She told me she was definitely NOT a Christian and began to share her disdain for everything evangelical: including the religious right; and people who picket funerals and blow up abortion clinics; and who support the death penalty; and vote for gun legislation; and lots of other things she mentioned, all because I said I was a pastor. When she realized, I wasn’t going to fight back, she began to calm down and quietly said: “Christianity changed my grandfather. When he became a Christian, he was never any fun anymore. He lost his joy and nothing was ever the same in our family.” And for the next hour we talked about the difference between religion and Jesus.
There is a difference, you know, between religion and Jesus. Religion as a set of rules to maintain, and as standards to meet, can become oppressive and beat people down. But religion is not the gospel. The gospel is GOOD NEWS that brings freedom and life through a real relationship.
The Christian gospel is not first a truth to be believed — it is an invitation to meet the one true and living God in Jesus Christ.
§ He is the Way who shows us the way
§ He is the Truth who reveals what is true
§ He is the Life who gives us life
Or as Tom Noble reminds us: “Salvation is being personally united to a Person, the Lord Jesus Christ.”
I’m haunted by what Fleming Rutledge has written: “We have not become a secular society so much as we have become a generically religious one. AND THAT Popular religion tends to be an unholy blend
of whatever presents itself.” As a result, the newest forms of spirituality are typically highly individualistic, self-referential, self-indulgent, and only barely related to the history or tradition of ANY
world religion, much less to Christianity. And so, in such as a time as this, we believe there is no more important calling for the church in our time than reclaiming the self-identification of the God who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Who is this God of which we speak? In her book, The Crucifixion, Fleming Rutledge writes:
God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
This is God’s self-identification. This is the way God chooses to be known (Ex 3:6). The particularity of this God is startling; the God of Israel aligns himself with specific human beings with individual names
who live in identifiable places on the map. People with life stories that are imperfect, messy, and by no means always edifying.
This God, unlike the gods of religion, has chosen of his own sovereign will (free will, I might add) to select a distinct group of people simply because he chooses to do so. The “irreligiousness” of this choosing is that it has nothing to do with any spiritual accomplishments by the chosen ones. Instead, they are selected in spite of themselves! For if there is one thing certain about the children of Israel, it is
that they did not deserve their election.
This undeserved, grace-filled, “chosen-ness” is palpable whenever God is called “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.”
God is the God revealed most fully and definitively in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
It is this astonishing fact that displays the uniqueness of the God proclaimed in the Bible.Resurrection in and of itself was not unheard of; after all, stories of gods who died and rose again were told everywhere
in the ancient world. But the unique feature of Christian proclamation is the shocking claim that God is fully acting, not only in Jesus’ resurrected life, but especially in Jesus’ death on the cross.
To say it another way, the death of Jesus in and of itself would not be anything remarkable. Lots of people in the Roman world were crucified. But what is remarkable is that the Creator of the cosmos is
revealed, unveiled, and made known in the suffering life and atoning death of Jesus of Nazareth.
God is the Triune God
One God in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus of Nazareth was not a randomly disconnected holy man. If he is not the second person of the Trinitarian Godhead and the only begotten Son of the Father, then God’s self was not directly involved on the Cross.
The Nicaean and Chalcedonian definitions remain the standard by which we test all our Christological assumptions: Jesus was of one substance with the Father and was both fully divine and fully human — not half one and half the other — fully both. Which means the beauty of the Christ event finds its
meaning in the fact that the three-personal God is directly acting as ONE throughout the entire sequence from creation to incarnation to crucifixion to ascension and to the final eschaton.
Father-Son-and Holy Spirit in the divine interdependent dance. Which ultimately means that our Christology can never be independent from our Theology and Pneumatology – and that our ecclesiology
and missiology must always flow from Trinitarian beginnings.
Jesus, of course, is very popular today.
We now have Jesus breath-mints, Jesus dog collars, Jesus band aids, and Jesus bobble heads. You can put Jesus on the bumper of your car or buy Jesus bubble bath. (If you don’t believe me go visit a Christian bookstore; if for nothing else than for the potpourri!)
What have we done with Jesus?
We have . . .
o commercialized him
o consumerized him
o culturalized him
o secularized him
o domesticated him
o nationalized him
o and personalized him into what we want him to be.
We have recreated Jesus into the Savior we want him to be.
We have taken his words and made them fit our agendas. We have made him look like us, think like us, and speak like us. In short, we have fashioned Jesus into our image. But not every Jesus is the REAL Jesus.
That is why the ultimate question of the Church for our time is: Who is Jesus? If we get the answer right, it changes everything. But if we get the answer wrong, it also changes everything.It is the central
question of Mark’s Gospel, asked by Jesus himself in the conversation at Caesarea Philippi: “But who do you say that I am?” (Mk 8:29).
You remember that the Gospel of Mark begins with a powerful, politically-loaded statement of purpose:
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” (Mark 1:1)
This opening revelation sets up a dramatic irony that serves as the driving force of the story: we as readers know the identity of Jesus from the first line, but none of the characters in the story knows it –
except, of course, the demons.
Only at the end of the story does a human character rightly express the confession of who Jesus is – and that from the outsider Gentile centurion, witnessing Jesus’ horrific death on the cross. He is the first to speak the truth: “Truly this was God’s Son!” (Mk 15:39).
Here we find the intended goal of Mark’s Gospel: Jesus is finally and most completely revealed as the Son of God when he is known and shown as the Crucified One.
Now if we were to stop in the middle of the Gospel a different ending might have been predicted. Jesus explodes on the scene announcing the kingdom of God and performing miracles with breathtaking speed:
o he casts out demons
o heals the sick
o raises the dead
o calms the sea and wind
o walks on water
o and multiplies bread to feed enormous crowds (not once, but twice in Mark – and
significantly, the second feeding being in “Gentile” territory!)
He is, as it were, the divine superhero who demonstrates the power of God and is Lord over the powers and forces of evil. He is Daniel’s “Son of Man,” coming on the clouds with divine authority and power.
And so we can understand how the disciples could misinterpret the meaning of Jesus’ identity, until finally it’s made clear that the insiders have become outsiders. Their misunderstanding of Jesus’ purpose reaches epic proportions that finally comes to a head in Mark 8. It is the midpoint of Mark’s story. The first half of the Gospel began with announcing Isaiah’s “Way” (Mk 1:2); the second half opens “ON the Way” (Mk 8:27). On the way to the cross, but also on the way to discipleship.
Following the second feeding of the crowds is a very important story of the healing of a blind man in Bethsaida – but the healing is not immediate; it is completed in stages.
The first touch of Jesus to the blind man brings partial vision: he can see people (which is far better than he had ever been able to see before), but they look like trees walking around. It was only after a second touch from Jesus that the man’s sight was fully restored and he could see clearly. This “not seeing clearly” moment is strategically placed immediately before the Caesarea Philippi location, where a pantheon of gods were worshiped, and the Caesarea Philippi question: “But who do you say that I am?”
Mark’s point is well made. Up until this moment the disciples have seen Jesus, but only partially. He is the walking around Savior” appearing as a tree. They can see – but they can’t really see. They need their vision completely healed.
And so, Jesus says: “But YOU – who do YOU say that I am?” “You are the Messiah! The CHRISTOS – the anointed one from God.”
The answer is technically correct – but philosophically wrong.
And here again is where Mark gives us a different perspective than Matthew. Although Peter is praised in Matthew for his insight . . . even to call it divine revelation . . . in Mark he is rebuked; and not gently, by the Jesus with the cocker-spaniel hairdo and soft hands. It is an intense reprimand! Jesus gets into Peter’s face; perhaps the strongest rebuke of a disciple from Jesus in the entire gospel record.
In fact, the verb “rebuked” is the same word used earlier in Mark when Jesus silences the demons after their pronouncement that he is the Son of God. And so, while Peter is not possessed, ironically, he unwittingly serves as Satan’s messenger at the precise moment when he has also received partial sight.
So, the Messianic secret, “Don’t tell anyone” turns out to be much more than waiting to be revealed at the appropriate time. Jesus is not rejecting the title – he is rejecting the MEANING. It is a strong
statement of censure from Jesus, and the reason, it appears, is not to confuse people as to what kind of Messiah he will be. He will not be the nationalistic, militaristic Messiah of their expectations, oriented to
the exercise of unchecked raw power.
But rather, with great love, “[Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.” (Mk 8:31)
He IS Daniel’s “Son of Man,” coming on the clouds . . . but he is ALSO Isaiah’s suffering servant. As John says, he is the Lion and the Lamb.
So “Messiah” is redefined … and given its meaning … in terms of the suffering Son of Man.
How can this be?
Peter is understandably shaken, if not appalled:
“Take it back, Jesus. You start talking like that and we can forget about the revolution.” “The people need a leader who can inspire them – and suffering and rejection and death doesn’t inspire.” “I owe you big time. I was just a fisherman when you chose me. But I’m smart enough to know that we are never going to throw off the Roman oppression if you start down this path.” “Call me ‘Satan’ if you want to – but you’re talking like a crazy man!”
But Jesus will not give in. In fact, Mark says Jesus turns up the heat, and says to the whole crowd:
“Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.” (Mk 8:34)
It is difficult for us to grasp how jarring this statement would have been to those who first heard it. The cross for a first century person was more than a metaphor. It was the very real and very public execution
instrument of the state for slaves and revolutionaries. It would be the equivalent today of saying: Take up your electric chair or take up your gas chamber and follow me. It was a torturous, violent, humiliating way to die intended to discourage people from messing with the powers that be.
That’s why it’s not enough for us to say that our cross to bear is like a heavy burden that we might have to endure in life. NO! A thousand times NO!
o A difficult person might be a pain in the neck, but they are not our cross to bear.
o Facebook might be a thorn in our flesh, but it is not our cross to bear.
o Giving up chocolate or diet coke for Lent is not our cross to bear.
o Not even accreditation boards or IBOE curriculum reviews are our cross to bear!
No, to deny ourselves and take up our cross is to follow Jesus.
It is knowingly and willingly laying down one’s life for the sake of others. It is embracing the redemptive self-giving way of Jesus that willingly suffers with them and for them and against the powers of evil and oppression that create it. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: “When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die.” This is not cheap grace – this is costly grace.
Apparently, it is not enough for us to understand Jesus as the crucified Messiah –now the identity of Jesus must become the identity of his disciples. And until that aspect of discipleship is made clear, our
vision is still cloudy, and our spiritual healing is incomplete.
The Cross
It’s intriguing that after this conversation at Caesarea, the miracles in Mark are far less frequent. In fact, only three more remain in the entire Gospel. The focus now turns to the inexorability of the cross. Jesus the miracle-worker, who is Lord over nature, sickness, and demons now submits his power to become the suffering Son of Man. Mark will not let us escape the fact that those who perceive Jesus primarily as a purveyor of supernatural or political power have failed to understand him.
Peter’s answer is correct, but incomplete. And it is the same mistake the Church continues to make even today. We often answer correctly, but not rightly. We see, but we do not see. Jesus is walking around in his full glory, and yet we see a tree.
The question, “Who do you say that I am?” finds its final answer in the confession, “Truly this man was the Son of God” – a confession that can only be truly expressed at the foot of the cross.
And so now we understand that “the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
And later, at his final meal with the disciples, Jesus distributes bread and wine with the revelatory words: “This is my body,” and “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Mk 14:22-24)
The gospel of Mark is a manifesto of radical discipleship. The Jesus of the gospel calls for a revolution, but not of what we think or want. The norm for our discipleship is defined by the cross. Jesus’ obedience as the Son of Man, interpreted as the suffering servant who lays down his life for others and for the sake of the kingdom of God, must now be our pattern for faithfulness.It is, as Ched Myers says, “a revolution of means as well as ends,” inviting us, yes, even instructing his beloved to reject “the deadly logic of domination.” The contradiction of the cross — a life that is given, not taken — is the only power that
can heal the world.This will require that we see the Messiah as he really is — to refuse to settle for seeing trees walking around — and to willingly, joyfully, take up our cross and follow Jesus.
This, I believe, is the task of Christian theology: to help the whole Church see the real Jesus, in all of his “Son of Man” and “Suffering Servant” glory. Both combined! For this is the Jesus that, redeems and is
redeeming, the whole world.
This is the Jesus that calls us out of a life centered in individualism and self-interest and into life according to redemptive love.
I had conversation with Verne Ward, our Global Mission Director, a few weeks ago. He had come from a training time with a group of Nazarenes who were wanting to go to neighboring countries where the church is not yet. Places where there are very few, if any, Christians – 99.9% from a majority religion.
People who have not yet heard the story of Jesus. One year ago, 17 were sent out – eight families and one single person. And now they had come back to report on their work. To everyone’s surprise they had planted 31 new churches and testified that there were strong fellowships of believers and seekers.
It was hard to believe! How could that be? In some of the most difficult and heavily persecuted parts of the world? A question was asked of one of the men who had planted the churches: “What is the risk for the people we are sending?”
The man quickly responded, “There is no risk.”
People in the room looked at each other with puzzled looks on their faces. Another person asked the same question in another way: “We know that Christians have lost their lives in these places. What is the inherent risk of sending these Nazarene families into this area to share the Gospel?” The leader
responded again: “There is no risk. You know who we are! We have given everything to Jesus! We hold nothing back, we are completely his.
There may be cost, but we leave the cost to the Lord, because only the Lord knows the cost.
But there is nothing left to risk! You cannot risk what you have already given away. He owns it all.
There is no risk.”
I confess, I don’t understand discipleship like that. I am learning from my brothers and sisters what it means to deny myself, and take up my cross, and to follow Jesus. But this much I know: The cross is not an optional form of discipleship. It is the WAY of discipleship. It is not the power steering/moon roof upgrade for a few special Christians. It is the call of us all. And this discipleship is volitional – it is not
coincidental or incidental or accidental. We TAKE UP our cross.
I was flying home from South America just a few days ago. My seatmate asked me about my job. She had an interest in the Church of the Nazarene in Africa. I told her about a young college student named Harmon Schmelzenbach who felt a strong call to go to Africa; and how his college promised to provide support of $200 a year. And how he went in obedience to the call. He met his wife Lula on the voyage over. Of how they finally landed in Swaziland where they labored for many years without a single
convert. And how they buried three children there and despite warnings not to go into the mosquito infested valleys, Harmon continued to go and eventually died in his early 40’s of malaria related diseases. But also of how God used them to lay a foundation of holiness evangelism in Africa, and how today, one hundred years later, there are over 700,000 Nazarenes in Africa.
She was amazed. She said: “There is going to be a really big mansion in heaven for Christians who make those extraordinary kinds of sacrifice.” I had a moment of reflection. I answered: “What if the
Schmelzenbach’s commitment to Christ and the gospel is actually the norm, and it’s the rest of us who are the unusual ones?”
She said: “I’d like to believe that is true.”
Discipleship as the way of Jesus is not an option for the super-spiritual among us. It is the WAY.
There is a difference between GIVING UP and TAKING UP. One is resignation – the other is selfdonation. It is significant, I think, that we are thinking about our Christology just a few days before holy week.
Mark’s version of Good Friday says it this way: “At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, ‘Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?’ (which means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’)” And then . . . “With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.”
When Jesus was on the cross, he was not there as a victim. He chose to be there. He laid his life down.
He took up the cross.And yet, Jesus did not do away with the darkness with a word of command or the wave of his hand in divine power. He could have; but he didn’t. Do you know what he did instead? He entered it! He entered the darkness. He reached to the lowest depths where the most desolate of the world lies helpless. He entered the pain, the suffering, the loneliness, the despair, the FORSAKENESS of our lives.
And while I don’t claim to understand everything there is to know about the mystery of this moment for Jesus, I think I believe this much . . . that because Jesus denied himself and took up his cross . . . at our most hurt, our most frightened, our most forsaken moments, we have a companion who HAS been there and WILL be there with us.
And nothing we THINK or DO in this state can shock him. If all we can do is cry out, he cried out first.
He went to the darkest places we could ever go, and there he defeated the powers of sin and death . . . and God in Christ, entered into all the suffering that we could ever know:
§ In that moment, he lay among the charred bodies of the babies burned alive in Auschwitz.
§ He shared the numbed horror of their parents beyond consolation.
§ He entered the pain of the atrocities of Bosnia and Rwanda.
§ He entered the confusion of a crack addict lying in an alley.
§ He entered the sickness of chemotherapy.
§ He inhabited the loneliness of those wasting away in nursing homes.
§ He wept with those aching with grief wondering if they can go on with the empty place in their heart.
Only Christianity tells us this truth: God suffers FOR us and WITH us. Why? Because Jesus is Lord! He is Lord of the light, and he is Lord of the night! He is Lord of the best of times, and he is Lord of the
darkness. And because he has been there and back, and is NOW THE VICTOR, we are not and will not be forsaken.
Only Christianity Jesus took all our sin, and our brokenness, and plumbed the depths of darkness, because only then could he bring with him all he found there into the dawn of a new morning. He died the death of the most forsaken, so that even the most forsaken might share his resurrection.
***
No comments:
Post a Comment