Andy Rowell

Church Leadership Conversations

  • Current debates on the Trinity

    There is a lot of discussion going on about the Trinity these days. There was a debate at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School including Wayne Grudem and a related debate within Southern Baptist circles with Duke Divinity School's Curtis Freeman weighing in. This is related to views of women in ministry. Furthermore, there are theological blogs discussing perichoresis and Karl Barth's understanding of the Triune God unrelated to these other discussions.   I have posted links below.   

    Here at Duke, Geoffrey Wainwright is teaching a course this semester on the Trinity.  In my time at Duke, the books I have read that have focused on the Trinity are: 

    Links:

    Anathemas All Around

    …debate over Trinity.

    Christianity Today Magazine – Oct 14, 2008 12:26 PM

    Semi-Arianism Masquerading as Orthodoxy: A Baptist Scholar on the Trinity Weighs in On "Eternal Subordination"

    …Curtis Freeman, Director of the Baptist House of Studies, Duke Divinity School, Durham, North Carolina. His words, profound and direct, need no commentary from me.October 8, 2008Dear Wade:Thank you for taking up this issue of the Trinity. Getting a Trinitarian conversation going among Baptists is more important than one might first expect given …

    Wade Burleson – Grace and Truth to You – Oct 22, 2008 (6 days ago)

    Trinitarian Debates at Trinity

    …about the Trinity at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Central to the debate has been the subject of whether the Son eternally submits to the Father. Together Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware argued that relations of authority and submission do indeed exist among the persons of the Godhead, while Tom McCall and Keith Yandell argued against this …

    Michael Bird & Joel Willitts – Euangelion – Oct 13, 2008 3:13 PM

    Trinity Debate Roundup

    Collin Hansen has a CT article online about the debate last night.Andy Naselli live-blogged the whole thing.Phil Gons has an excellent post refuting one of the arguments against the Grudem-Ware position.

    Justin Taylor – Between Two Worlds – Oct 10, 2008 2:14 PM

    Resurrection as God's self-determination: a note on Adam Eitel, Bruce McCormack and Rowan Williams

    …relation between Trinity and resurrection in Barth's thought. According to Eitel: "God's eternal triune act of being and Christ's resurrection from the dead are not peculiar or separate acts. Rather, Christ's resurrection was the historical continuation of God's eternal being-in-act…. Put another way, the resurrection was nothing less than the h…

    Ben Myers – Faith and Theology – Oct 12, 2008 9:17 PM

    Perichoresis and Hospitality

    …that the Trinity can meaningfully be described as both one subject and three subjects. The earthly manifestation of the trinitarian perichoresis is seen most clearly in the radical deference and disposability of the divine persons towards one another. The Son does nothing on his own authority, but receives all things from the Father. The Father …

    Halden Doerge – Inhabitatio Dei – Sep 27, 2008 4:43 PM

    The Perichoretic Church

    …to the Trinity, a communion in which personhood and sociality are equiprimal" (After Our Likeness, 213). What makes the church an image of the divine perichoresis of the Trinity is not that human beings qua human being interpenetrate one another in a way analogous to the trinitarian relations. Rather it is that the church, as the community indwe…

    Halden Doerge – Inhabitatio Dei – Sep 25, 2008 9:53 PM

    Revisiting Perichoresis

    …reality as Trinity. We cannot simply "read" the divine dynamic of perichoretic unity from God onto created relationality. I think, however, that the criticisms of projects like Gunton's which use perichoresis as a sort of trancendental miss the mark. The problem is not that Gunton illegitimately extends a divine concept to human relationality. T…

    Halden Doerge – Inhabitatio Dei – Sep 25, 2008 9:11 PM

  • Review of Coffeehouse Theology by Ed Cyzewski

    Ed Cyzewski, Coffeehouse Theology: Reflecting on God in Everyday Life.  Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2008.  233 pp. $10.19 (paper), ISBN: 978-1600062773. 

    29-year old Ed Cyzewski explains how his theological perspective has deepened and strengthened in the process of his theological education.  Cyzewski is a teacher–wanting to put his discoveries in language college students or other people beginning to be interested in theology can understand.  He earnestly shares personal stories and contemporary examples to illustrate the theological concepts he is trying to explain.  In his famous/infamous book A New Kind of Christian, Brian McLaren provocatively presents conversations between fictional characters on a number of controversial theological topics.  Cyzewski addresses many of these questions but shows how he has resolved them in his own mind.  If you were confused by McLaren's questions, Cyzewski helps sketch how an evangelical Christian might move toward resolution.  Maybe McLaren's A New Kind of Christian and Cyzewski's Coffeehouse Theology should be given to all Christian college students–the former to get them intrigued about theology and the latter to nudge them toward further constructive reflection.  Cyzewski's book is ambitious–tackling a number of issues related to systematic theology.  Perhaps one might want to read a more distinguished theologian who addresses these issues–perhaps Lesslie Newbigin or Stan Grenz; but academic theologians rarely address so many contemporary questions in such a concise way and in language as accessible as Cyzewski's.  One of the great parts of Coffeehouse Theology is that Cyzewski recommends many other books as he moves through the book–purposefully trying to intrigue the reader to explore further. 

    One minor critique of Cyzewski's book is his regular use of the term "contextual theology" to describe his approach.  He writes, "So we need to challenge ourselves to learn about God with an awareness of context–what we can call 'contextual theology'–while at the same time making sure we value different insights from different cultures where Christians are learning about God in their own particular situations.  In brief, that's where we are headed together in this book.  Coffeehouse Theology will help us understand who we are and by including perspectives outsider of our own in the midst of our study of Scripture" (20).  What Cyzewski actually means by the term "contexual theology" is "good theology" or just plain "theology."  Cyzewski does not intend to align himself with the "contextual theologies" that typically fall under that heading.  For example, Lesslie Newbigin characterizes "contexual theology" in a negative way as "a theology that gives primary attention to the issues that people are facing at that time and place and insists that the gospel cannot be communicated except in terms of these issues" (Lesslie Newbigin, The Open Secret: An Introduction to the Theology of Mission, rev. ed; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995, 133-134).  Andrew Walls calls “contextualized” “appalling jargon” (Andrew F. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of Faith, Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1996, 7, 84).  David Bosch writes, "It goes without saying that not every manifestation of contextual theology is guilty of any or all of the overreactions discussed above.  Still, they all remain a constant danger to every (legitimate!) attempt at allowing the context to determine the nature and content of theology for that context" (David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1991), 432, Cf. 420-432.   Darrell Guder's Missional Church uses the term "contexualization" but not "contextual theology." "The church relates constantly and dynamically both to the gospel and to its contextual reality.  It is important, then for the church to study its context carefully and to understand it.  The technical term for this continuing discipline is contextualization" (Darrell Guder, ed. The Missional Church: A Vision for the Sending of the Church in North America, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, 18).  Again, I do not think Cyzewski's approach has the weaknesses of the group of theologies under the heading "contextual theologies" but I do think it is unfortunate he repeatedly uses that term to describe his own approach.    

    All in all, Cyzewski's Coffeehouse Theology is a fine introduction to a number of contemporary issues in theology in language college students or other beginning theological students will understand.  I hope it will serve as the on-ramp for many into rigorous theological reflection.   

    Resources:

    Sample Chapter

    Post on Emergent Village blog: Why I wrote yet another book on contextual theology …

    Ed Cyzewski's Blog: In a Mirror Dimly.

    Ed Cyzewski's Website.

    Note:

    Ed Cyzewski is a Taylor University grad like I am. 

    See my post:

    Everything I needed to know about the church I learned at Taylor University.

  • A wider target: Deconstructing and redeploying the Seeker Sensitive Service planning of The Purpose Driven Church

    In 1995, Rick Warren published The Purpose Driven Church.  It was perhaps the most influential book in church circles in the decade.  It was the definitive "how-to" manual of how grow a megachurch.  In it, he presented Donald McGavran's "Church Growth" principles from the 1970's to a new generation.  Younger leaders in their 30's like Leadership Journal managing editor Skye Jethani and myself continue to feel like these ideas need further theological reflection.   In his post in January 2008 entitled Sense & Sensitivity: Why It’s Time to Abandon the Seeker-Sensitive Model, Skye reflects on biblical and monastic hospitality and urges churches to embrace people first rather than focusing on which people our church is targeting.  Although I largely agree with Skye, I want to affirm in the seeker sensitive approach the principle of intentionality.  I think it makes sense to be intentional about how we are communicating in our worship services but I agree with Skye that a narrow target is theologically problematic. 

    What we need I believe is a wider target.  The educational and missional and liturgical task demand that we attempt to communicate as clearly as we can with as many people in attendance as possible.  For those not involved in this ideological argument between seeker-senstive vs. not seeker-sensitive, this should be quite obvious.  In plain English, the pastor and worship leaders should attempt to draw in and engage as many people who may attend the church from the surrounding community as possible.  This is the wide target.  This involves speaking clearly, using music that has broad appeal, and using images that are accessible to a large range of people.  This is why the tasks of preaching and leading worship are so difficult.  However, this seemingly obvious insight does have some edge to it, some "bite," because it means that congregational worship and preaching that only appeals to the most entrenched insiders needs to be given greater accessibility.  The pastor can address very complex Christian concepts and stories but they need to use vocabulary that people readily understand (or they need to define those theological words).  Rituals need to explained.  Music needs to be singable or otherwise accessible or it needs to be carefully taught.  What Warren and other seeker-sensitive people get is that the person who visits the church for the first time needs to be given tips and help on making sense of what is going on.  This, as I argue below, however does not mean that churches need to only have one target audience.  They need to be intentional about communicating with the wider target of their surrounding community.   

    Here then is my comment on Skye's blog in response to his post. 

    I think this theological probing into hospitality is important work.  I agree with you that the biggest problem with seeker-sensitive approaches is that they seek to capitalize on people's social prejudices by giving them an environment, communication and music that makes them feel comfortable.  This can tend to reinforce social barriers.  If the worship service is designed to appeal to "Saddleback Sam . . . in his late thirties or early forties . . . among the most affluent of Americans" (Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, p. 169-170), then one wonders whether people who do not fit this profile will feel that they do not belong. 

    As one attempts to speak the language of the people; (I like this terminology because it makes one think of the missionary task or educational task); we must be careful to include the whole surrounding community–a wider target.  Warren and others are wrong I think for championing the targeting of one demographic (Saddleback Sam), but they are right in wanting to clearly communicate the gospel of Jesus to those present in language those people understand.  "Why do we got to all this trouble defining the typical person we're trying to reach?  Because the more you understand someone the easier it is to communicate with him" (Warren, Purpose Driven Church, 171).  Yes, that we can agree with.  Warren contradicts his own emphasis on Saddleback Sam when he notes in passing that his church has not rigidly followed the single-demographic targeting!   He notes, "One of the advantages of being a large church is that you have the resources to go after multiple targets . . . we've been able to add additional ministries and outreach programs to reach young adults, single adults, prisoners, the elderly, parents with ADD children, and Spanish-, Vietnamese-, and Korean-speaking people, as well as many other targets" (Warren, Purpose Driven Church, 159-160).  Warren's conscience, even in 1995 before his awakening to the needs to the world, would not allow him to strictly only target one group's needs.  But he is wrong that only large churches have the luxury of reaching a variety of people.  No, every church needs to intentionally communicate with (and minister to) the broad range of people who live within their community.         

    Therefore, I do not think that it is mutually exclusive to "welcome strangers indiscriminately into our tent/monastery/church" and "determine our target audience’s desires in advance."  Preparing for people to come over is precisely what hospitable people do.  The monastery has clean beds and food in the cupboards so that when the stranger shows up, they can be hosted appropriately.  Similarly, it is appropriate for churches to prepare well to communicate with the people who will come through the doors.

    Furthermore, negligence by worship leaders and preachers in preparing well to communicate in language that guests understand will not necessarily lead to congregation members stepping up and being more hospitable.  I have seen friendly and distant congregation members at both seeker megachurches and traditional small churches but my sense is that the pastor and worship leaders have a significant role in shaping congregational practice by their own example and practice.       

    See also my posts

    Strengths of the Purpose Driven Church and Sober Advice For Those Considering the Megachurch

    Why pastors should be both goal-setting fanatics and cynics