Postmillennialism, and the Bible as you've never see it before...

I'm grateful to my friend James for 2 interesting links here that are keeping me occupied on the hottest day of the year!

First, do check out http://www.thebricktestament.com/ if you are prepared to laugh (at yourself, if you're a Christian). Someone evidently has too much time on their hands...

Second, I've been directed to the webpage of a guy going by the name of the Rev Ralph Allen Smith, who's in Mitaka in Tokyo. He's very much a Calvinist, and he has some fascinating stuff to add to the discussion on eschatology.

I'll leave anyone with interest to go and take a look (www.berith.org) but I just wanted to quote one section from the good Rev. that might contribute something to previous issues raised on this blog, about the Christian's commission, here. I had always thought postmillennialism was a bit off-the-wall, pre-WW1, but Smith does a good job of making it look biblical/convincing, and I like this: [sorry this isn't short but it's worth the read, I think]

"If it is really true, as [some] teach, that Christ is coming soon, perhaps by the year [2007], then Christians should be in the streets witnessing. One's job future, the children's education, political concerns, investments in real estate, stocks and bonds, in short, anything that concerns life in this world should be put aside as we prepare ourselves for the imminent end. If you believe in Christ's soon return, live like it. Like James said, "faith without works is dead" (Jms. 2:17). Show your faith by your works.

Some premillennialists, of course, disagree with the date-setting type of teacher. They believe that Christ may come any minute and so they must be prepared for His coming today. They also believe that Christ may not come today and so they must live for tomorrow. Cultural labor for God's glory may be meaningful, if Christ does not come soon, for it is a means of evangelism and a form of worship. But if Christ is coming soon, it may also be a waste of time since it takes years of education and labor to accomplish anything important in cultural evangelism. It might be good to invest money in the future since Christ may not come for another hundred years and children are important. But if Christ is coming soon, that money would be much better spent on evangelism. On the other hand . . .

Rather than go on like this, let me say it to you directly: if you believe in this type of premillennialism, you are in intellectual limbo. The best thing you can do is switch your theology. Can an eschatological doctrine that speaks with a "forked tongue" be true?

If you are an unpersuaded amillennialist, you will have to decide whether or not you agree with the date-setting premillennialists, like some amillennialists apparently do. If that is what you believe, live like [that]. If, on the other hand, you think that history may go on for a few centuries and that there may be some real benefit in Christian cultural endeavor, live like a postmillennialist.

If you are persuaded of postmillennialism, then you believe that Christ has called us to build His kingdom by the power of the Holy Spirit. You should be enthusiastically pursuing distinctly Christian cultural advance either by your own efforts or by financing others who are gifted by God. You should be dedicating yourself to training the next generation to be better and wiser Christians than the present one. If you have children, make certain that you provide a Christian education for them. Political concerns and financial investments, too, are part of your responsibility as a citizen of the heavenly kingdom. Evangelism must not be less emphasized, but actually more emphasized, for the Holy Spirit will only save the world through the preaching of God's people. Rather than relegate evangelism to the few hours a week that one has time for witnessing in the streets, the postmillennialists sees evangelism in broader terms. Witnessing in the street is fine in its place. But it is more important to develop a worldview and lifestyle that are so distinctly Christian that one is evangelizing in all that he does, for "whether we eat or whether we drink," we are to do all "for the glory of God." When the non-Christians see that we live to the glory of God, they will be converted.

Whatever we believe about the millennium, we should seek to live consistently with our faith. Lukewarm, lazy Christianity is an abomination to God (Rev. 3:16). Christian debate over doctrine is not a hobby or a game, nor can it be carried on as an academic exercise. It is serious pursuit of the truth conducted in the fear of God. We are seeking an answer to the most important question we face in our daily lives: "How must I live to glorify God?""

How hard it is for a [Japanese] to enter into the Kingdom of God!

Some blog-readers have asked me what exactly I'm going to be doing after the summer.

As many of you will know, it is my (I believe, God-given) life's calling to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with Japanese. And in September I'm going to start working in London as a tax consultant for Japanese businesses in the UK. As I have lots to say about Japan and Jesus, this blog may become inundated with posts along those lines... Even if that's not your thing, be patient and stay with me: there will be other stuff to come, and I welcome feedback to it all, even if most of you prefer not to post your comments to the site! And I promise not to post too much about tax...

Anyway, here's something for starters...

I've been reading a nicely focused and succint article: Why the Slow Growth of the Japanese Church? [Kenneth J. Dale, in Missiology, Vol.XXVI no.3, July 1998: 275-288].

This paper is slightly out-of-date now, but most of what it identifies as the 'obstacles' to the growth of the Church in Japan - religious, social and cultural, remain relevant from my own observation.

The article can make depressing reading, and while it is a stimulus to prayer and dependency upon God, it also provokes useful reflection on what must be done differently.

Dale's suggestions - creating new vision, transforming the image of Christianity, and simplifying the gospel presentation - are important and helpful, and I believe that in the decade since he wrote some progress is being made in these areas.

But one particular section, (pp.284-285) I think is crucial, especially as it seems to me that (1) it remains a task ahead of us, and (2) it underpins all of the rest of Dale's prescription.

I'll quote part of this key section:

If the church [in Japan] is to be true to its mission...it is necessary for [it] to be more involved in the problems of society.
By and large, the church is not greatly concerned about social problems but tends to look inward. Its concerns are for theological purity, Bible study, local church administration etc. To the people outside the church, these matters are of no interest. They feel therefore that the Church is not for them.

In order to fulfil its divine mission to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, the church must show greater concern for the problems of contemporary Japanese society: the rising proportion of elderly people; the unfavorable status of women in society; the environment in a society so bent on high production; resurgent nationalism and militarism; and injustice and graft in political circles. If the church is on the front line of the battle between light and darkness in all realms of life, the number of members becomes a secondary concern, for the church is truly fulfilling its mission to the world.

Dale is so right. The problem is How? Churches are small. They are full - it seems - of weak and vulnerable people, hardly the "cream" of influential society. Most people are too busy to commit themselves much even to Sunday fellowship and worship. If surveys are to be believed, a large number of Christian people in the marketplace never publicly identify themselves with Christ. Prayer must be a starting-point.

However this prophetic mission is to be accomplished, I feel I can't avoid participation in it. This may not be directly (because as an outsider, I have reservations about wading in and doing what I know to be the work of Japanese Christians, and also I've seen the problems caused by foreigners trying to do what the Church isn't ready for in other spheres - or maybe it's just because I'm a self-centred, lazy individual, who's more concerned about my own comfort than anything else: I do consider that a strong possibility..!) but it may well be by education and discipling.

I am looking forward to tax-consulting for its own sake, but one of my first concerns, moving to London, and then hopefully on to Japan before long, is to situate myself among Japanese in their daily struggles, and prayerfully work out what the gospel says to people in their situations.

Some early questions for me (I imagine) will involve work and attitudes to it, lifestyle priorities, loneliness and issues of culture & belonging. I don't wish to go with my own fully-formed "answers", but I hope to think them through "out-loud" in partnership with Japanese friends, Christian and not-yet. And I trust that as the gospel (incarnate in Christian people such as myself) engages with these issues and others, then the salt and light mandate will be obeyed, and others will be ministered to, some of them ultimately coming to Christ themselves.

Indefinitely, Maybe..?

The goverment today awarded Yuko "Indefinite leave to remain in the UK." What a relief.

For all that we've heard about the tightening up of immigration controls in Britain, it seemed a remarkably straighforward - if pedantic - process. We arrived early in the morning at the fortress-like home office of the Home Office in Glasgow, and passed through initial security without incident. Then we were frisked electronically and searched. The security man took a long look at the Bible in my bag, and turned to me confidentially. "We're not going to go through the Tribulation, you know," he said.

"I think you must know more about it than I do," I replied.

"Some of them will. Some of them will..," he said mysteriously, ushering us through into the principal 'holding area' for visa-applicants. We took in the scene around us.

You could tell immediately who was who: the Brit in each couple held the sheaf of papers and did the talking, while the outsider sat tight and looked scared. If things went wrong in the next 2 hours, they could be heading for home.

"Look them straight in the eye," I told Yuko. "Tell them who you are and what you're here for, and we'll have no problem."

"I'm wearing my wedding ring," she answered. That was bound to make it alright.

Waiting Time at present is 0 minutes... the L.E.D. display on the wall flashed up with evident pride in its own efficiency. ...There are currently 0 people waiting... About 12 people sat and waited.

Soon the announcement came: Ticket holder no.509 - please proceed to window no.5.

After all the efforts we'd made to get the necessary documentation to prove our solvency, it was somewhat frustrating to see the very pleasant staff member give our papers hardly a glance. We'd been told we'd have to prove that we really were married too, and that we were a bona fide husband and wife. "What on earth are they going to get us to do?" Yuko had asked me. The mind boggles...

In the end it was all over in a flash. Yuko didn't have to swear she liked fish & chips. I didn't even have to profess my undying love for my wife. We were asked: "Have you got the 500 pounds statutory fee?" Clearly this was what really mattered. "Oh yes," I said, flashing my plastic bribe.

We sat for about another hour as various photocopies were made of things we'd brought along, and other 'relevant' papers were shuffled. And then that was it. The stamp was there. Indefinite, said Yuko's passport. Leave to remain, and leave to leave. The price you pay for freedom.

500 quid lighter [yes, 500 - I thought it was steep too, but of course, she's worth every penny...], we returned to security. As we departed into the Glasgow drizzle, the guard gave me another knowing wink. Today's tribulation hadn't been so bad after all.

International Christian College Graduation, 8th July 2006

Sic transit gloria mundi!

With thanks to our friends and family for their love and prayerful support over the last two years. And to Father, Son & Holy Spirit: "Who am I, and what is my house...?" (2 Samuel 7:18)

We were out yesterday evening visiting friends and experienced something very beautiful: true hospitality.

This deeply touched me, and I recalled the profound description of hospitality written by the Roman Catholic priest Henri Nouwen:

Hospitality, Nouwen writes, wants to offer friendship without binding the guest and freedom without leaving him alone.

Hospitality, therefore, means primarily the creation of a free space where the stranger can enter and become a friend instead of an enemy. Hospitality is not to change people, but to offer them space where change can take place. It is not to bring men and women over to our side, but to offer freedom not disturbed by dividing lines. It is not to lead our neighbour into a corner where there are no alternatives left, but to open to a wide spectrum of options for choice and commitment . . . The paradox of hospitality is that it wants to create emptiness, not a fearful emptiness, but a friendly emptiness where strangers can enter and discover themselves as created free; free to sing their own songs, speak their own languages, dance their own dances; free also to leave and follow their own vocations. Hospitality is not a subtle invitation to adopt the lifestyle of the host, but the gift of a chance for the guest to find his own.

2 thoughts come to mind as I reflect on Nouwen's wisdom. Firstly, this model of hospitality could be extended to include parenthood. I speak as a non-parent, but I wonder how parents would respond to that idea.

Second, I think I can see more clearly the hospitality of God, who spreads a table before me, anoints my head with oil, and fills my cup to overflowing. He is a feet-washing family of welcome.

In the understanding of German theologian Jurgen Moltmann, the 3 Trinitarian persons are not merely persons but also "living space for the two others". Consequently, "we should not talk only about the three trinitarian Persons, but must at the same time speak of the three trinitarian spaces in which they mutually exist." Moltmann wants us to understand that God is "not a self-enclosed, exclusive unity," but "a unity which is open, inviting and integrating" – what he calls "the open Trinity".

Japanese evangelical thinker Miyahara seems to be thinking along similar lines with his formulation of the Trinity as "three betweennesses, one concord." The Japanese concept of 'betweenness' (expressed by the character 間) reflects the usual translation of John 1:14, where the Word became a 人間 (or a 'human-betweenness'). As Christ became a man 'between' (or 'among') men, so – Miyahara says – we are invited into this betweenness that exists within God.

Thus God is not just open in and of himself, but in Moltmann's words, "open to the world." It is as though humanity is invited into the 'space' within God. This is the "immanent tension in God himself: God creates the world, and at the same time enters into it."

On one (basic) level, this means our existence is patterned on God's. But the "cosmological perichoresis" [as I want to call it: perichoresis ((mutual) interpenetration) is a concept first applied to the Trinity by the Greek Cappadocian Church Fathers] that I have described above implies more: what is now predicated is not so much imitation of God as participation in him. Human personality, itself redefined in a quasi-perichoretic sense, is seen to be essentially other-oriented – to other people, and to God as the ultimate Other. Thus redeemed humanity – indeed, (for some thinkers) all creation, enters the perichoretic circle, and is caught up in the divine dance. R. Paul Stevens puts it like this: "Christian experience is nothing more or less than being included in the unity of the Trinity, participating in the mutual love, order and interdependence of the three Persons."

Thank God for hospitable friends!

Nippon

You could say Japan is important to me.

I have spent only about 12% of my life there to date, but I don't doubt that percentage will rise in the future. I'm married to a Japanese. I read, speak, occasionally write, sometimes think, and once-in-a-while even dream in their language. I love the country - from densely-packed and sweltering summer Tokyo, to the autumnal colours around Kyoto temples and shrines in the breeze, from cherry blossoms on the Izu coast to the ultramarine bays of Okinawa.

And I've always got on well with the people, too. I like the Japanese character - basically gentle, reserved and curious. I prefer to bow when I meet someone than to shake their hand. I like the sense of team spirit, the loyalty and the fierce national pride. In Japan, things work, and if they don't, someone comes to fix them for you the same day. And apologises for causing you trouble!

But I'm not an idealist about Japan. The work ethic is quite ridiculous. Family life is generally poorly-supported. Most people have little time or inclination to think out of the box. There is an almost oppressive spirit of conformity. Many of these things apply also to the Church.

Development has been economically successful but environmentally ugly (at best) or crippling (at worst). The attitude towards outsiders like me can be very exclusivist, and most people have no moral issue with saying what they don't actually think, or doing what they don't actually believe in. For me, getting proficient linguistically was an enormous struggle, but the gap between proficiency and real, sensitive communication remains a gaping chasm sometimes.

Every day I pine for Japan. And I pray for her. I long to return. And I long to be a part of her again.

"Which one's the wild boar?"


...asks my kind and loving wife.

Thoughts on the Bible

I've had quite a lot of "thoughts" recently, which aren't terribly systematic, I'm afraid... Hopefully that should be an invitation to contemplate (or to post a comment!)

One of the most common questions I am asked when people hear that I'm a Christian is, "Do you believe the Bible is literally true?"

Now I think this question reveals a lot. It shows what those who either (1) would not identify themselves as Christians, or else (2) would say they were Christian, but don't identify themselves with me, think you have to do in order to be the kind of Christian I am : i.e. they think you "have to" believe the Bible is literally true.

It is - at least as far as I can see - almost always a hostile question. The thrust of it, and the implication behind it, is: There is no way I am going to believe that - in fact I think that believing that is intellectually/morally irresponsible/stupid. And so I certainly couldn't become a Christian [of the type that you are].

And I always answer no to the question anyway. Which tends to throw people a bit.

Let me ask some questions of my own: Do you believe that the phone book is "literally true"? Do you believe that your marriage certificate is "literally true"? Do you believe that your grandmother's autobiography is "literally true"? Do you believe that what your wife said to you this morning before you went to work is "literally true"? Do you believe that this blog is "literally true"? [of course it is ;-)]

Now that's put the cat among the pigeons, hasn't it? Except that it hasn't. It's not literally true.

But what do I believe about the Bible? If it's not "literal", whatever that means, what is it? Why is the Bible important?

Well, first of all, the Bible is my book as a Christian. Christians who don't - for whatever reason - much read or much care to align themselves with - the Bible, miss out on their heritage and their possession. As a Christian I am part of the people of God, and the Bible is my charter, my ancenstral record, my lineage, my cultural reference, my family story. Abraham, Moses, David, Ruth, Rahab and Mary matter to me because they are part of my history. We are the people of the Book.

And the God of the Bible is my God. In that sense, the Bible wasn't written to me, but it was written for me. I get to know God through the Bible, as three persons in interaction with others, and in involvement in the world. I find my own place in space and time in the Bible's story and its spirit, and I understand myself to be part of the story as it continues to unfold. I see past, present and future in perspective. The Christian who neglects the Bible cuts herself off from her past - she is disconnected and rootless.

Sometimes people are fearful that they need to accept (whatever they mean by that) the whole Bible before they can become Christians. But most Christians have never even read the whole Bible. God doesn't ask us to fully read and understand the terms & conditions before we click 'OK': he asks us to join his redeemed family as those in desperate need of being rescued from sin and death, and then to become in a community of Bible-readers or Bible-listeners.

Or - conversely - some people don't want to become Christians because they feel that they can't accept the whole Bible. This usually means there are bits of the Bible they (think they) know about that they feel they can't take "literally". There are two aspects to this - (1) the Sodom and Gomorrah factor ["how can God destroy 'innocent' people, and say he hates homosexuality?"], and (2) the Dinosaurs in Genesis & Jonah in the Big Fish factor ["what a load of rubbish.."]. Supplementary to this, there's the whole thing about the Bible "contradicting itself."

Now this is difficult to respond to.

Let me try.

The standard evangelical "answer" to these questions in the last hundred years or so has been to begin with the doctrine of inerrancy. This says (in summary) that the Scriptures as originally given are true in everything they affirm. There are no "errors". But the problem with this "answer" is that it doesn't really deal with objections. It's a put-up-and-shut-up, Go-to-hell-and-do-not-pass-serious-thinking response: The Bible doesn't contain "contradictions" because by definition it can't. Sex outside of marriage is wrong because the Bible says so. Thank you and goodnight.

Traditional Protestant and Evangelical systematic theologies have almost always started with the doctrine of Scripture. We set out our stall with this as our main selling-point. And we're surprised when people don't buy it. That doesn't mean that I haven't found it helpful in the past, but as a Christian, and as an apologetic to myself.

At this point I need to stop and say I am extremely wary about moving away from inerrancy. I recognise here more than anywhere else in theology the danger of starting off a slide into a liberalism, whereby Christianity ends up watered down to nothing more than happy humanism with a bit of God-talk thrown in. I've been there. For Christ's sake, let's not go there.

But I have to wonder if we really need inerrancy - formulated (as it was) as an anathematizing response to those with a liberal agenda, to bat over the heads of those who come to the whole question of God and Jesus Christ with a liberal approach.

I think I would rather begin with tension - with plurality of voice - with (and OK, let's use the word) "contradiction" and seek revelation there - in contemplation at least as much as in systematization.

Sometimes I've thought that the concept of perfection can be more helpful than inerrancy for explaining Scripture and what our approach to it should be. Inerrancy just needs too many qualifications - it's based on original manuscripts that don't exist, and most of us couldn't read even if they did, it allows for unquantifiable theological bias and "spin", it permits the conventions of unspecified different genres... all to the point that you end up wondering what inerrancy actually stands for. I'm happy to accept that God does not err, but the danger with teaching Bible inerrancy is that all Bible-readers [you & I] do err from time to time, no matter how much we pray for God's Spirit to teach us.

The Bible is perfect. This has nothing to do at first with the vexed [modernist] question of whether the Bible has any factual "errors" in it or not: it's to do with source and spirit. The Bible is given by God to his people, and is breathed out by him. The Bible is perfectly human, perfectly divine.

The Hebrew word perfect describes something that is complete, something that totally fulfills its purpose. Like the Bible: intended thoroughly to equip us for every good work, it will not return empty to God, but will achieve the purpose for which he sent it. As befits Christian theology, Christ is the paradigm: perfect human, perfect God. Getting sick, stumbling over his words, telling bad jokes, getting misunderstood, treading on Peter's foot, apologising for making a bad smell... If any of these things run against our understanding of perfect humanity, we have surely misunderstood what redemption means, for none contradicts the perfect love of one who is fully entered into the human condition.

Here is the authority of the Bible: its voice the polyphony of human authors perfectly attuned to the words of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit spoken "at many times and in various ways" (Heb.1:1) and yet for us, that we should hear, respond, and be saved.

Returning to the questioners, have I anything better to offer them than have the proponents of inerrancy? I believe so.

Contradiction is part of life and is the situation into which God speaks. The God who declares his hatred of sinners nevertheless loves them with an undying love, which in the end proves to be ("literally") a dying love. The "literality" of Jonah's experience in the Big Fish is not a sine qua non of my faith in God, so much as its truth is a part of my story which only has meaning if it is perfect, and appropriated as such by me. If we doubt the Bible, rather than being pushed away from it, we are invited into it, with all our fears, questions and pain, to add our voice to the covenant community and to grow in faith. This approach is a "Come and see", "Faith seeking understanding", way into the Bible. It allows doubts and questions, and suggests that the Bible meets them, not necessarily that it resolves them. And above all, it takes us past any possible narrow biblicism to relationship, engagement, and the prospect of growth.