Mockingbird Glossary: Pneumatology aka The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit

A basic theological question in Christianity is: how is God present to us today? In New Testament times, the answer was pretty easy: God is present to us in Jesus of Nazareth. If you lived back then and you wanted to be near to God, a good bet was to go find this Jesus character and follow him around.

Things, of course, are somewhat different now. Jesus is no longer present on earth the way he was in the Gospels. Indeed, God can often seem completely absent from the world. It is much harder to say with certainty ‘God is here’ or ‘God is there’ than it was when Jesus was wandering around Galilee and eating meals and being born in mangers.

Perhaps anticipating that this would be a problem, the Holy Spirit was sent to be with us in his place (John 16:7). So nowadays when we talk about how we know God, how we experience him, how he is involved in the world from day to day, we are talking first and foremost about the Spirit. The theological term for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is ‘pneumatology’.
[CONTINUE READING]

Grace: More Than Tolerance

Fresh off a visit to San Francisco last week and being that it is the 40th anniversary of Woodstock, I have been thinking about grace a lot. I know you're probably thinking, "What do Woodstock and San Fran have to do with grace?" Well, before I left for my very first visit to California last week, I read an article in the NY Times entitled Woodstock: A Moment of Muddy Grace. The author of the article reminisces about his time at Bethel, NY (that's right! For those of you who didn't know it did not happen in Woodstock, NY) all those years ago, and he was struck by the fact that the event really did exemplify grace among people. There was no violence and all different sorts of people gathered (estimated any where from 300,000 to 400,000) for a couple days to listen to some fantastic music. The gracious spirit stood out to the author because of the events surrounding Woodstock: Vietnam, the riots of the 1968 Democratic Convention, the violence of the Altamont Festival just a few months later, and so on. It was a tumultuous time in our country's history, and yet at the largest music festival ever (up to that point), nothing violent happened. People gave space to one another.

Then, while I was away in San Francisco, I couldn't help but have The Mamas & the Papas song "San Francisco" (as performed by Scott McKenzie) pop into my head repeatedly. Remember that one? If you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair. If you're going to San Francisco, you're gonna meet some gentle people there. Sorry for putting that in your head:)

As I thought about Woodstock and "the gentle people" (read hippies) of San Francisco, I wondered what was so unique about grace as the Christian faith understands it. We here at Mockingbird often talk about grace and the impact it has on a person's life, and, while it is undoubtedly true that the "grace" felt at Woodstock was memorable and formative to many of those in attendance, it is different from what we mean when we use the word. We certainly like to use such examples from everyday life, but we also know that they are simply shadows of what we are really talking about.

In the Christian faith Grace is certainly more than tolerance or acceptance or space. These are powerful forces to be sure, but if that is all we mean when we use the word "grace" we are sorely underestimating our fundamental problem as people. We aren't simply misunderstood or a little eccentric. We are sinners. We need to be more than tolerated; we need to be forgiven. SO, this is what we mean by Grace: It is the action of mercy from God for us through the Cross of His Son Jesus as opposed to Judgment. In other words, Grace is something that we are shown by pardon. It is not given to us as a power, and it is much more than something we can give to each other. We are objects of His Grace while we deserve to be objects of His wrath. Thank God!

The Gospel

Do you remember the Pearl Jam song "Wishlist" from the album Yield? Well, it's one of my personal favs, and in it Eddie Vedder sings a very profound line, I wish I was a messenger and all the news was good. I don't know about you, but in the past I used to find myself in complete agreement with Eddie. I wished I had good news to share. Most of the time, I felt like what I had to say about Christianity was not very good news at all. I thought the Gospel was actually about exhorting people to improve and live better lives for Jesus, but I was very wrong.

The Gospel – is the second of the two types of Words from God. It is the answer to the accusation of the (previously defined) Law. In our context, it is always in reference to the “good news” of salvation as revealed in the Gospels in the Christian Bible. Namely, that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died on the cross becoming our sin and took our punishment before God and rose again on the third day having conquered death on our behalf. As Dr. Steven Paulson puts it, “Christ died for our transgressions and raised for our justification.” (Romans 3:21-26, 5:6-11, 7:4-6, 8:1-4, Galatians 2:15-21, 3:10-14, 5:1, Ephesians 2:1-10, Colossians 2:11-15, etc.) The Gospel is all about what Christ has done as opposed to what we do. It is the news of His completed work for us. "It is finished." (John 19:30)

As a result of this Good News we can rest and know that we are free. Nothing depends on us.

This truth informs everything that we do here at Mockingbird. It is the song that was sung to us that changed our lives, and it is the song that we cannot help but sing again and again. We are messengers and all the news is indeed good!

"God Does His Part, and I Do Mine." The Falsehood of Semi-Pelagianism

Hey there glossary fans! This week I wanted to look at a term that sums up probably the most prevailing perspective on the human relationship with God in the world today. It is called semi-pelagianism.

Semi-pelagianism is a mixed view of God’s sovereignty and human free will working together toward human justification. You may have heard it, or even said it, like this: “I'm meeting God half-way”, “We are co-laborers with God”, “God knocks at the door, and I have to answer”, “You need to get serious about your faith”, “Just surrender, and He’ll do the rest”, etc.

It is basically the mental compromise that we all make with the heresy of Pelagianism, which is the theological doctrine propounded by Pelagius, a British monk, and condemned as heresy by the Roman Catholic Church in A.D. 416. It denied original sin and affirmed the ability of humans to be righteous by the exercise of free will. Essentially, believing that you choose God as opposed to Him choosing you. “It’s up to you.”

It is a very easy belief to hold because it appeals to our sinful desire to be able to stand on our own two feet. We want to be able to have something to offer God. After all, it is a very uncomfortable thing to be told that we are completely helpless. So, since we want to give God His due, we allow for Him to be the one that helps us out, but we defend the idea that we have free will and a part to play in the justification tango.

The truth of the matter is that we are not free, however. This blog continually searches culture and life to show how we are in fact bound beings, that freedom without the cross is nothing more than an illusion or the result of mental gymnastics. Instead of being a tango between two capable parties, justification is more like Tom Petty's creepy, but great music video for "Mary Jane's Last Dance" in which he dances with the dead body of his love, Mary Jane. We are that dead body, and God lifts us up and brings us to life.

Check it out, and watch for the baptism scene at the end. Enjoy!

Mary Jane's Last Dance @ Yahoo! Video

"Who Am I?" - A Look at Anthropology

This week I wanted to join Derek Zoolander and ask the question, "Who am I?" By getting a little existential on you I hope to highlight one of, if not the, foundational building blocks for understanding the Christian Gospel which this blog continuously upholds. It is our anthropology.

Classically defined Anthropology means "the study of human beings." It is the attempt to learn about and understand us. Often times on this blog we expand its use to reference one’s view of humanity, i.e. a high anthropology = people are good. However, we at Mockingbird hold that the Bible presents a disturbingly low anthropology in which humanity is completely sinful.

"Well, that's very interesting, Sean. Thank you for that, but what's the point?" The importance of one's anthropology cannot be overstated. Our view of ourselves and others will inversely affect our view of Jesus Christ and His work for us. If we have too high a view of people, i.e. we think we are pretty good, and we just need a little bit of correction to get back on the straight and narrow path to improvement, then our view of Jesus and what He has done for us automatically sinks lower. If we did not need to be completely saved from death because of our complete sinfulness, then Jesus' death was overkill, literally. All he had to do was instruct us and correct us, and help us up whenever we fall so that we could continue onward and upward. The cross becomes unnecessary when our anthropology gets too high.

The fact of the matter is we all start with a very high anthropology because we are sinful. We are born with pride that tells us, like Stuart Smalley, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me." This view continues on until we are confronted with the very real fact that we don't cut it in some way. Life has an uncanny ability to hold up that mirror that reveals that we are a bunch of posers.

For every part of our life in which we may actually be excelling, there is a part in which we know we are failing. It reminds me of the movie The Devil Wears Prada when Anne Hathaway's character is lamenting to a friend that her relationship with her boyfriend is on the rocks and her

personal life is in shambles. Her friend replies with something like, "Congratulations, you must be doing your job. Anytime things start to go well at work, your personal life implodes." The point is that we are failing, and the knowledge of that failure begins to crush us.

However, no matter how bad things may get in our everyday, we are still pretty skilled at convincing ourselves that we can do better, that we'll turn it around somehow. For this reason we never quite expect the Bible's diagnosis of us. When confronted with the demand for perfection in the Bible (Matt. 5) we are simply decimated. Romans 3:12 leaves no wiggle room, "All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." In the face of this anthropology we know without a shadow of a doubt that we need nothing short of salvation. The cross is no longer extreme or some form of divine child abuse. Rather, it is the Good News that Jesus has suffered for us, so that we might be free. He has taken our low place in death and has lifted us up to life.

Theologians of Glory vs. Theologians of the Cross: An Intro and Definition

Here at Mockingbird we use the terms "theology/theologian of the cross" and "theology/theologian of glory" quite a bit. As a result, we thought they would be the perfect terms to explore this week.

In order to do so, I want to reference the late, great theologian Gerhard O. Forde. I think his definitions of the two terms found in his excellent work On Being a Theologian of the Cross (an in depth look at Martin Luther's Heidelberg Disputation) are just about perfect. SO, away we go!

Theologians of Glory – “operate on the assumption that what we need is optimistic encouragement, some flattery, some positive thinking, some support to build our self-esteem. Theologically speaking it operates on the assumption that we are not seriously addicted to sin, and that our improvement is both necessary and possible. We need a little boost in our desire to do good works. Of course the theologian of glory may well grant that we need the help of grace. The only dispute, usually will be about the degree of grace needed. If we are “liberal,” we will opt for less grace and tend to define it as some kind of moral persuasion or spiritual encouragement. If we are more “conservative” and speak even of the depth of human sin, we will tend to escalate the degree of needed to the utmost. But the hallmark of a theology of glory is that it will always consider grace as something of a supplement to whatever is left of human will and power. It will always, in the end hold, out for some free will.” (Forde, p. 16) – in short a theologian of glory sees the cross as a means to an end rather than the end itself. He/ she is interested in progression to glory as opposed to death and resurrection.

Theologians of the Cross – “operate on the assumption that there must be – to use the language of treatment for addicts – a ‘bottoming out’ or an ‘intervention.’ That is to say, there is no cure for the addict on his own. In theological terms, we must come to confess that we are addicted to sin, addicted to self, whatever form that may take, pious or impious. SO theologians of the cross know that we can’t be helped by optimistic appeals to glory, strength, wisdom, positive thinking, and so forth because those things are themselves the problem. The truth must be spoken. To repeat Luther again, the thirst for glory or power or wisdom is never satisfied even by the acquisition of it. We always want more – precisely so that we can declare independence from God. The thirst is for the absolute independence of the self, and that is sin. Thus again Luther’s statement of the radical cure in his proof for thesis 22: “The remedy for curing desire does not lie in satisfying it, but in extinguishing it.” The cross does the extinguishing. The cross is the death of sin, and the sinner. The cross does the ‘bottoming out.’ The cross is the ‘intervention.’ The addict/sinner is not coddled by false optimism but is put to death so that new life can begin. The theologian of the cross ‘says what a thing is’ (thesis 21). The theologian of the cross preaches to convict of sin. The addict is not deceived by theological marshmallows but is told the truth so that he might at last learn to confess, to say, ‘I am an addict,’ ‘I am an alcoholic,’ and never to stop saying it. Theologically and more universally all must learn to say, ‘I am a sinner,’ and likewise never to stop saying it until Christ’s return makes it no longer true.” (Forde, p. 17) – in short a theologian of the cross sees the cross as the end where we die to our sin with Christ and are raised a new creation with Christ. The work is truly finished as Christ promised and there is no moving on from His cross.

I would love to hear people's thoughts:)

Mockingbird Glossary: Imputation and Simul Justus Et Peccator

As promised, here is the second installment of the blog definitions.

Remember:) What follows is by no means authoritative or exhaustive; rather, it is our attempt to put some of the often-used terminology—Mockingbirdese, if you will—into context. One of the intentions of our ministry is to wrestle with theological concepts in the context of everyday life so as to deal with the question as to whether the Christian message means anything to us today. Some of these definitions will be too precise for some and not specific enough for others; we’re sorry. There are many resources available and, hopefully, this will serve as simply a helpful introduction which results in further exploration of these and other theological concepts.

This week we're gonna look at a couple of terms at the same time because one depends upon the other.

Imputation - is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our "law-place," undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same (Rom. 5:12-19; comp. Philemon 1:18, 19). (Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary)

simul justus et peccator – Latin for “simultaneously just and sinner”. 16th century Protestant Reformer, Martin Luther, developed the phrase to describe the Christian life. We are reckoned as justified because of the imputed righteousness of Christ and at the same time we are still sinners.

Therefore, as Christians, we are two things...just like this guy;)

In the Words of Judge Dredd: "I am the Law!" - An Introduction and Definition

Okay folks, we have heard your cry for some sort of blog glossary, and we have finally figured out a way to go about it:) We have decided that we will post a definition once a week in order to allow for discussion and dialogue instead of simply putting up a permanent list with which no one can really engage.

SO, what follows is by no means authoritative or exhaustive; rather, it is our attempt to put some of the often-used terminology—Mockingbirdese, if you will—into context. One of the intentions of our ministry is to wrestle with theological concepts in the context of everyday life so as to deal with the question as to whether the Christian message means anything to us today. Some of these definitions will be too precise for some and not specific enough for others; we’re sorry. There are many resources available and, hopefully, this will serve simply as a helpful introduction which results in further exploration of these and other theological concepts.

We thought the Law was a good place to start.

The Law – is the first of two Words from God. In the Bible the Law refers to the 10 commandments given to Moses on two tablets at Mount Sinai. All other forms of biblical law (the book of Leviticus etc.) essentially refer back to these 10 laws that God gave to Israel found in Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5 and 6. Jesus summed up all of the Law with two: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the prophets.” – Matthew 22:37-40. SO, the Law is concerned with your relationship with God, others and yourself.

The law has different "uses" theologically. Two are agreed upon, and the third is debated.

The 1^st use of the law – has to do with civil matters. Think of laws that are there simply for your protection. The 1^st use of the law is the child gate at the top of the stairs that prevents the child from falling down. Sometimes called the “Natural Law,” this is analogous to the Law of Gravity—what goes up, must come down. That is not a moral statement; it's just the way things work.

The 2^nd use of the law – often referred to as “the theological, or moral use” – is of most concern to us in that it says the law functions in a way that constrains our consciences. The “Voice” that comes from the outside and impinges on us—the one that accuses, that lies behind our feelings of guilt, fear and shame--is a result of this use of the Law. This use of the Law causes us to constantly compare what we “ought” to do with what we actually do and, thus, exposes our sinful nature and shows us to be unrighteous and corrupt beings. This is why the Law is often referred to as "the hammer of God" because it crushes us. It is the primary use of God’s law.

The 3^rd use of the law – views the law as a teacher or guide and holds that the law is something that we can and should do through/by the grace of God. Essentially, Christ has set us free to do the law, and we need to be taught and corrected by it in the Christian life for the purpose that we become better people. This is the use of the Law that most directly affects how one views the Christian life and, as such, is one that we spend a lot of time examining here. [Please note: This is a use that we, theologically and pastorally, reject; however, it is one that we are attempting to discuss sensitively and thoughtfully, because it represents the primary way many Christians—people for whom we have the greatest respect—understand the Law.]

The Gospel In Three Minutes?

Obviously, a three-minute video is not meant to be an all-encompassing presentation of the entire story of redemptive grace; it's more of an opportunity to open a conversation with someone who perhaps has never heard that God's grace is not offered to us because we no longer sin, but it is given to us in spite of our sin.

That said, I think it fulfills this purpose well:

Big Foot Called My Unicorn an Antinomian

I came across a definition for the word Antinomian in a theological dictionary the other day which I think provides a wonderful opportunity for some clarification. Here it is:

ANTINOMIAN: from the Greek anti, against, and nomos, law. A term coined by Martin Luther in his controversies with Johan Agricola, who objected at first to the use of the 'law of Israel--specifically, the 'Decalogue' [10 Commandments]--in instructing believers in their obligations, and later also to its use as a means to call sinners to repentance, arguing that the preaching of the gospel sufficed for that purpose. Luther responded with a treatise Against the Antinomians, in which he defended the use of the Law in teaching and in preaching. . . .

So far so good. However, a little further down, it continues:

. . the term "antinomianism" has come to be applied by extension to all opposition to the value and use of the law in the Christian life. . . In the early church, Paul's struggles with the law and its insufficiency for salvation led some to establish a radical opposition between law and gospel.

While the entry does go on to further explanation, the implication is that anyone who "rejects the law as guide for Christian living" is an Antinomian. This is simply not true. The Antinomians against whom Luther wrote were, it is true, people who claimed that the law no longer held any sway for those "in Christ." However, their error was not that true Antinomianism was possible; it was their belief that we (Christians or non-) can ever be free from the accusatory power of the Law. As Luther wrote in the treatise, "For if you resolve to annul the Law. . . you do no more in effect, but throw away the poor letters L.A.W." Like Unicorns and a non-hilarious Tim Allen movie, and along the lines of thesis #13 of the Heidelburg Disputation, Antinomianism, after the fall, exists in name only.

Fundamental to our entire project here is to show how the power of the Law is at work through all institutions and in every life in a way that is specifically addressed by the Gospel. In short, we’re arguing that there are no true antinomians, although we all attempt to escape, explain away, drive away or ignore the Law.

We'll continue fleshing all this out, but the next time, or first time, or every time you hear the word Antinomian, know that there are purported Antinomians out there, but true Antinomianism--in light of the message of the Gospel--cannot really exist.

In the words of Mockingbird patron saint, Gerhard O. Forde: "Antinomianism is about the only heresy that is impossible to pull off. We might leave the church, but Law will go with us. You can count on that. Perhaps Johnny Cash’s song Sunday Morning’ Comin' Down catches that as well as any theological statement:

On a Sunday Morning ‘sidewalk, I’m wishin’ Lord that I was stoned. Cause there’s somethin’ ‘bout a Sunday, that makes a body feel alone, and there’s nothing’ short of dyin' Half as lonesome as the sound. As the sleepin’ city sidewalk And Sunday mornin’ coming’ down. (A More Radical Gospel, p. 107)

<