Dedicated Journal

Dr. Rich Rollins

Adjunct Ministry Professor

Dr. Marty Trammell

Professor and English Chair

Introduction

A relationship is not based on the length of time you have spent together; it’s based on the foundation you’ve built together.

To enjoy the “new creation” relationships Paul introduces in 2 Corinthians 5:17, we need a foundation foreign to the teleology of earth. The above unattributed quotation, like most popular sentiments, is easier to explain rhetorically than to live readily – it is easier to talk about the foundation than to build it. No matter how true the second part of the quotation may be, the best a post-Christian culture seems to be able to offer is the same distorted rhetorical fruit that gave us problems in the garden. The shifting sands of popular culture are not a safe foundation for our relationships – nor are incomplete interpretations of popular biblical texts.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God. . . . (Ephesians 6:10-12 ESV)

Most interpreters emphasize the content and value of the armor, each piece’s connection with the character qualities of the wearer, and the ultimate victory of the properly-equipped believer.  Although these are important and necessary insights from the text, these interpretations can increase relational difficulties when readers attribute to Satan interpersonal difficulties he doesn’t produce – when we, in a sense, think that the armor of God is all that is needed. It is important to build a relational house of healing on the right foundation.

Too often Satan gets credit for relationship problems caused by moral failings, prostitution, addiction, displays of anger, and a myriad of other human failings – all things he would like to influence but certainly are not his domain. Part of the happiness in living a life where “the old has passed away, the new has come” requires knowing the rest of what Paul is talking about in Ephesians 6.

The Bible teaches that the believer faces three foundational enemies:  the flesh (Galatians 5:19-21), the world (I John 2:15-19, James 4:4-6), and Satan (Ephesians 6:10-18, 1 Peter 5:8-11, and Matthew 4:1-11).  John, in the Book of Revelation describes a 1000 year kingdom period during which Satan is bound and powerless to act on the human race.  Yet, even without his presence, enough men will “self-corrupt” so that when he is released, he will mobilize them as an army to confront God.  The curse of sin means that we can harm ourselves without Satan’s help.

The flesh is the enemy that produces so many of our relational difficulties.  What then is Satan’s role?  It is implied in the Ephesians passage.

The passage begins with the word λοιπον which, literally translated, means ‘‘for the rest.’’ This is a strange word to use in beginning a discussion of Satanic temptation and the believers’ counter to it. It is a word that implies that the writer is finishing up a previous discussion.  Perhaps it is a combination of our familarity with the passage and the stimulating metaphor that causes us to focus our attention on the armor alone and skip over verses 10 through 12.  After all, we think Paul is merely describing who our enemy is, that the real substance is in the source of our possible victory over his attack.  This interpretation is a mistake.

Our hermenuetic requires us to back up and consider the language in verses 10 through 12 so we can better understand how this passage continues what has been discussed previously.  The greater context begins with chapter 5, verse 18 in which Paul writes:

¹⁸ Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit, ¹⁹ speaking to one another with psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit. Sing and make music from your heart to the Lord, ²⁰ always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. ²¹ Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. ^[1] (Ephesians 5:17 – 21)

Unfortunately translations such as the NIV break this passage into several sentences leaving us with the impression that Paul is commanding us to be filled, relate to one another with psalms, sing and make melody, give thanks, and submit.  Each appears as an imperitive.  The ESV reflects the proper grammar.  Verses 18 through 21 are, in the Greek, part of one sentence.  The main verb is “be filled.”  The verb is modified or described by 5 participals: adressing, singing, making melody, giving thanks, and submitting.  The structure of the sentence indicates that there are at least 5 characteristics of Spirit-filled believers:  They have a positive way of interacting with others, they ascribe continuous heart-felt worth to the Lord, they are thankful, and they submit to those around them.

This last point informs the current debate about submission in our relationships.  Submission is a product of Spirit filling.  It is a product of spiritual strength and leadership rather than a reluctant or guilt-motivated capitualation to a greater authority. It is a combination of attitude and activity.  We read in Chapter 6, verses 1 and 2 that children should “obey their parents” and “honor” their father and mother.  True submission that comes from the Spirit’s filling is continually evidenced by these two characteristics – obedience and honor.  Too much literature supports the notion that submission is only an act of the will.  Paul disagrees.  Submission is the product of the Holy Spirit producing in us the capacity to obey and honor.  The will is involved in allowing the Spirit to fill us and bear fruit.

Verses 18 through 21 establish the context for the remaining verses.  The Spirit- filled believer expresses this act of filling in his or her relationships.  Paul cites five that are normative:  the husband and wife, the child with his parents, the father with his children, the slave (worker) and the master (employer), and the master (employer) with his workers.  Each of these relationships are mediated by Spirit filling.

The armor of God will not protect relationships where individuals are not attempting to allow the Spirit to control their behaviors. It is impossible for the husband and wife to love and respect, within the framework of the “new creation,” without the filling of the Spirit.  Couples face a human history which works against being complimentary partners.  The problem is highlighted in Genesis.

The first chapters of the Pentateuch describe the spectacular creative act of God as He speaks the world and the universe into existence.  After making man, God acknowledges that it is not good for man to be alone.  God’s solution is to make Adam a counterpart, “a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:16). God then does a strange thing.  Instead of saying, “Adam, do you realize that you have no helper?” and then presenting Eve, he gives Adam the task of naming the animals.

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.   ²⁰ So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. (Genesis 2:19-20 NIV)

Adam’s naming of the animals was not designed simply to give him a part in God’s creative act. The concept of naming referred to in this passage goes beyond calling a bear a bear, a lion a lion, a platypus a platypus, until all of the animals are named.  We believe the concept in view here is the act of identifying each animal.  He is not only naming them, but in naming them he is identifying their unique qualities.  God’s goal was not to have Adam take credit for the first taxonomy but to bring him to the realization that the animals had counterparts – he did not.   Each set of counterparts made up a corporate entity of male and female. Adam, after naming the animals came to the conclusion that he was alone – there was no female for him.

Then God creates Eve from Adam’s own genetic material.  With the creation of Eve, Adam and Eve become husband and wife.  The text of Genesis implies that they complemented each other.  The passage shows that, in Eve, Adam found great relief from the tension created by knowing he was alone.  Although we have no idea how much time elapses between chapter two and three, we do know that the story takes a detour.

In chapter three, the serpent comes to Eve to challenge her dependence on God.  Satan tempts her to strike out on her own.  “After all,” he argues, “God knows when you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that you will become like God . . . . To know good and evil.”  Wanting to be like God was Satan’s problem.  So, he tempts Eve.  It wasn’t a lie.  In chapter 3, verse 22, God says “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil . . . .” However, it formatted one of the saddest ironies in human history: that becoming like God we became separated from Him.

After eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve gives some fruit to Adam and he eats.  While Eve was deceived, Adam was not (I Timothy 2:13).  His choice was difficult for other reasons.  He could have thought to himself, do I keep God and lose my wife or do I keep my wife and lose God? He chose the latter and because of his choice, sin sank its fangs into the heart of humanity (I Corinthians 15:22).

Later, after explaining the consequences of Adam’s action, God turns His attention to Eve.

To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16, Emphasis ours)

The last sentence of verse 16 has traditionally been interpreted this way: “You will have sexual desire for your husband and he will be in charge of you.” However, as many Old Testament scholars have pointed out, the context is concerned with more than “sexual desire.” The same Hebrew word translated “desire” occurs again in Genesis 4.

Then the LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?   ⁷ If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires [emphasis ours] to have you, but you must master it.” (Genesis 4:6-7)

Contextualizing this passage helps us understand why the armor of God is not the solution to many of the sources of conflict in our relationships – especially marriage.  Clearly the word is used in chapter four, to imply control.  So, what was God saying to Eve in chapter three?  Ron Allen suggests the following:

I will bring something new into the wonder of the bringing of children into the world.

I will greatly magnify your pain in giving birth.  When you give birth to your children it will be in physical pain.

I will also allow pain to come into your marriage relationship with your husband.

You will tend to desire to usurp the role I have given to him as the compassionate leader in your home, rejecting his role and belittling his manhood.

And the man on his part will tend to relate to you in loveless tyranny, dominating and stifling your integrity as an equal partner to himself.[2]

From that day on, conflict over who’s in charge in the husband-wife relationship began to mirror the garden curse.  Allen continues, “If this is an accurate reflection of the intention of this curse on the woman, it is a curse indeed that has lasted through time.  No wonder there is such discord among married couples.”

Like men, women contribute to marital conflict when they put their energies into trying to take control, rather than in trying to learn control – especially self-control (which, for the new person in Christ, is an aspect of Spirit filling).  Instead of laboring to love patiently, some wives try to establish control by threatening their husbands, others use emotion and tears, while others use their ability to initiate or withhold sex.  Although these techniques are not exclusively female, they represent patterns of control fruited from the wrong tree in Eden.

Paul encourages Christian couples to consider that part of being “new” means submitting to the Spirit so that individuals can relate to each other in a way that meets needs and brings hope to the relationship.  In Ephesians 5, Paul exhorts husbands to love their wives, establishing a forgiving and grace-filled foundation for marriage.  Marriage should reflect the love of Christ manifested in the “new creation,” not the separation of the fall.  This is possible only with the filling of the Holy Spirit.  Characteristics of the Spirit-filled life include submission and thankfulness, and the fruit produced by “new creation” marriage is “new creation” love (Galatians 5:22).

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the             new has come. (2 Corinthians 5:17)

Paul reminds the believers at Corinth that they are a “new” creation.  The word, kainos is understood by scholars as “Qualitatively new, as contrasted with neos, temporally new.”[3]  The connotation of the word implies something that was previously unknown.  Paul’s use of the word empowers his declaration.  The believer is something new, not a garden-variety human being. The use of the aorist and perfect verbs strengthens the idea that all of this happened at a point in time and the benefits continue on in the life of the believer.  The transformation is complete and new.

Paul implies this newness in his discussion of marriage.  With Christ’s completed work at Calvary, our relationships are transformed.  They become more than what appears in the Old Testament.  Relationships are now Spirit-influenced, and the marriage relationship, specifically, becomes a reflection of the loving relationship Christ has with the church.  Satan can influence our “flesh” and the “world” to increase the isolation in our relationships, especially in marriage, but he isn’t always involved.  The destruction of a mutually submissive and caring relationship happens when we feed the old nature through the carnal appetites of the flesh and influences of the world.

For the marriage relationship, Paul also gives us God’s solution to the conflict introduced in the garden. “Each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband” (Ephesians 5:33). Because He created us, God knows that men need respect and women need love. Dr. Mark Goulston confirmed this fact when he wrote, “In my twenty-five years in private practice, one of the few things that has remained a constant is that most women want to be cherished and most men want to be admired.” [4]  Dr. Emerson E. Eggerichs agrees.  Eggerichs launched Love and Respect Conferences to communicate his belief that that love and respect are universal qualities that are essential to a successful marriage.  He writes,

You may remember how the Beatles sang, “All you need is love.” I absolutely disagree with that conclusion. Five out of ten marriages today are ending in divorce because love alone is not enough. Yes, love is vital, especially for the wife, but what we have missed is the husband’s need for respect. This Love and Respect message is about how the wife can fulfill her need to be loved by giving her husband what he needs – respect. And the husband can fulfill his need to be respected by giving his wife what she needs – love. Does this always work? No. But if one is married to a person of good will, I would bet the farm that it would work!^[5]

Eggerichs explains that when a woman is battered in a relationship, she will confess that she feels unloved.  A battered man, when asked if his wife loves him will most frequently answer, “Yes, but she doesn’t respect me.”  Women need to be loved and interpret their relationships based on that need.  Men need to be respected and interpret their relationships based on that need.  God, knowing who we are, has the answer:  “Husband, love your wife.”  “Wife, respect your husband.”  Respect and love can redeem relationships torn apart by the desire to control.

When women are commanded to respect their husbands, it is unconditional and not based on whether or not their husbands deserve respect.  When a wife is disrespectful in the way she treats her husband she deeply hurts the relationship.  A woman who is married to a jerk is best served if she doesn’t join him in the way she responds.  She must be truthful and kind at the same time.   The Holy Spirit empowers this difficult behavior. The filling of the Spirit inspires both partners to love in a way that connects the love God has for each human to our relational experiences. The flesh, the world and Satan consistently work to disconnect us, and although the armor of God helps us against Satan, it is the Spirit himself who helps us reconnect in our interpersonal relationships.

The wisdom in Paul’s instruction appears consistently in counseling. For instance, once shown respect, most men will begin to feel loved.  Contrary to their natural tendency, the “new creation” work of the Spirit can empower wives to diminish their controlling behaviors toward their husbands.  They can stop trying to re-create him into something outside the Spirit’s work of making husbands “new.” Of course, every wife sees potential in her husband that he may not see.  A godly wife brings out the best in her husband by following the Spirit’s counsel to respect him in a way he perceives as “respect.”

Despite the work of the Holy Spirit in creating the “new” person, showing respect is a lost art – abstracted by strangely juxtaposed images of equality, transparency and frankness.  When the husband is “acting like he’s eighteen again,” a wise wife knows when and how to say the right thing.  She doesn’t deliberately choose words to make him feel foolish.  She doesn’t attempt to cover her own insecurities in public by trying to make him look less mature than herself. She shows respect through the language and gestures she chooses to express herself.  She shows respect when she treats him according to what he could become as a “new creation.”

In God’s plan, the husband can’t, in fulfilling his responsibility to God, be either a dictator or a doormat.  Rather than being a tyrant or a tread-head, his privilege is to become the lover.  Instead of commanding her, he cherishes her. Instead of bossing, he blesses her. Instead of giving in or taking control, he gently controls the give and take.  He stops trying to remake her and starts loving her.  Again God in his wisdom designed the relationship according to the designed needs of the husband and wife.  The wife needs to be loved.

The discussion in Ephesians 5: 22–33 is predicated on understanding the role of the Holy Spirit.  Without the filling of the Spirit, the husband and wife continue to invoke the garden curse in their relationship and miss the beautiful and holy ecstasies of the “new creation.”  Within each of our relationships the battle between the old man and the new man, the Garden of Eden and the garden tomb, continues to create a spiritual PSD.  The trauma in being human can be transformed and the frequency reduced as we join the work of the Holy Spirit in birthing the new man.

The discussion about Satan in this passage is not incidental.  Satan’s problem is submission.  Scripture indicates that he was blinded by his own beauty and pursued equality with God.  He did not want to answer to anyone.  Paul reminds us that we are constantly faced with an enemy who attacks us specifically in the area of our relationships – at home, in the church and at work.  When we are in the battle we are tempted to see only the person in front of us.  A husband may be in turmoil about fully loving his wife and describe the enemy as his wife when in fact his “struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms” (Ephesians 6:12). The real enemies in the room are the world, the flesh and Satan who rape our relationships, promoting the traumas of the curse – traumas that incapacitate us and shame us, that keep us from thinking straight about what sin has done and continues to do.  The “new creation” enables us to remove the grave clothes, piece by piece, to move forward in the designer-inspired attire of the new man.

When Paul begins the discussion of the believer’s armor, he is not simply employing a witty introduction.  He is calling our attention to the topic he has been discussing – relationships.  He is reminding us that as we commit to having a spirit-filled life, we begin building the right foundation, not based on the length of the time we spend together, but on the new creation’s spirit-controlled love.

^[1] The New International Version. (2011). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[2]Ronald Allen.  The Majesty of Man, The Dignity of Being Human. (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1984), 147.

^[3] Zodhiates, S. (2000). The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament (electronic). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.

[4] Mark Goulston, M.D. The 6 Secrets of a Lasting Relationship, How to Fall in Love Again – and Stay There. (New York: G.P. Putnam & Sons, 2001), 80.

^[5] Eggerichs, http://www.Loveandrespect.com.

According to U.S. intelligence, the government of North Korea was behind a cyberattack on Sony Corporation designed to keep an American movie from being released. The cyberattack was followed by threats of violence against anyone connected with the movie, including, apparently, theater owners and patrons. The movie was a comedy depicting the plight of a couple of characters caught up in a plot to assassinate the North Korean president. Sony later took the threats seriously, at first announcing that the movie would remain unreleased, though later deciding to distribute the film after all.

The next-week’s headlines announced an even graver threat to free speech: a bloody attack by radical Muslims on a publishing group in Paris. Twelve people working for the publication Charlie Hebdo were gunned down. Their crime? Publishing cartoons that were disrespectful of Muhammad.

Americans, famously passionate about free speech, decried these threats and attacks. As thousands of Parisians proclaimed “Je Suis Charlie,” I am Charlie, and marched through the streets of their city, the American ambassador marched with them. An editorial cartoon depicted the twin towers of the World Trade Center as enormous pencils rising into the sky, a black plane heading in their direction.

But while all this was going on there was little note taken of an attempt by a gay rights group to keep a television network from showing a program titled, “My Husband is Not Gay.” Press releases described the program as a “reality” show following the lives of several married Utah couples. In each case the husband claimed same-sex attraction, but rather than act on those impulses had chosen instead to marry a woman and form a conventional family: husband, wife, children.

The program should be suppressed, the protestors insisted, because it sent the wrong message. The idea that homosexual behavior was a choice, and that heterosexual marriage was a better choice, would damage young gay people struggling for acceptance.

The claim lies outside the purpose of this essay. At the center of the essay is the reminder that free speech means that we all have our say, that outside of threats, lies and calls to overthrow the government nobody can tell us what we can and cannot say in public.

This includes speech and art that we may rightly find foolish and objectionable. I will not see that movie that finds humor in a plot, no matter how silly, to assassinate a head of state. I suspect it would have been better not to have made this thing.

I have, however, gone online to take a look at some of the cartoons put out by Charlie Hebdo, and I found that some depictions of Muhammad are not only disrespectful, but gross. In one, Muhammad is shown from behind, naked and on all fours.

But it’s not only the Muslim prophet that is savaged by Charlie Hebdo cartoonists. One panel shows three rolls of toilet paper, one labeled Koran, one labeled Torah, and one labeled Bible.

Is this expression that Americans, including American Christians, should defend under the banner of free speech?

I’m going to take a deep breath and say yes. And I am going to argue that in matters of protected speech Christians have a special interest in drawing a very wide circle.

Here’s why.

For centuries, people saying what God told them to say have been persecuted. Some people, often powerful people, didn’t want to hear it, claimed these were harmful messages, and punished those men who delivered the message anyhow. Elijah was called a troublemaker. Jeremiah was denounced as a threat to the nation and was thrown into a muddy pit.  Peter and John were ordered to stop preaching the Gospel. Zealots plotted to assassinate the former Saul of Tarsus, the rabbi who was, in their view, subverting Judaism with his message of grace.

Medieval and Renaissance reformers were harassed and sometimes imprisoned or killed. The English Separatists were hounded out of their homes, finally choosing and expensive and dangerous journey to North America, where half of them died in the first winter. Ann Hutchinson and Roger Williams were exiled from Massachusetts Bay for saying things the colonial authorities did not was said.

History tells us that it’s in our best interest to defend free speech. And if we want to be able to freely say what we want to say and need to say it means we have to fly the same flag for speech we don’t like. The same folks who wanted to suppress a television show they disliked apparently had no problem with a Broadway show called The Book of Mormon (Featuring an openly gay actor) that trolls for laughs by jeering at Mormon ideas and lifestyles. They—and we—can’t have it both ways.

But Christians must draw a narrower circle for ourselves. What the law allows, Scripture sometimes forbids. “A soft answer turns away wrath,” the proverb reminds us, directing us away from shouting matches. “Walk in wisdom toward them that are without…” Paul admonishes. “Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how to answer every man.” (Col. 4:5-6)

This does not preclude speech that some people won’t like. We have the right and the duty to object to ideas and political policies that we believe are wrong. Paul engaged in vigorous debate with those who wished to silence the Good News. But he did not defame. He know Jesus, who, when he was reviled, did not revile in turn.

Should the people from Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to show up at military funerals waving signs saying God Hates Fags and claiming that an American soldier’s death was the direct result of God’s displeasure at the growing acceptance of gay marriage?

I think so. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution seems to allow it, as U.S. courts have affirmed.

But should they do it?

Absolutely not. Leaving aside a claim that’s highly questionable, it’s the wrong place, the wrong time, the wrong vocabulary.

I’m glad they can say these things; they are Americans, free under the laws of the land to say what’s on their minds.

But I wish they wouldn’t. They are Christians, they say. If so, they are to be governed by the law of love.

It’s in our best interest as Americans and Christians to advocate for a wide latitude in protected speech. It’s a matter of obedience as Christian Americans to practice Scriptural restraint.

Things That Shape Us: Theological Reflections

The Wilson Dam, located in Alabama, was completed in 1924, and was the first dam built under Tennessee Valley Authority, created in 1933.^[1] The TVA is one of the largest producers of electricity in the United States. As of 2010, the TVA has assembled the following:

• 11 coal-powered plants.
• 29 hydroelectric dams.
• 3 nuclear power plants.
• 9 combustion turbine plants.
• 3 gas-fueled combined cycle plants.

The TVA was designed to modernize the region, using electricity to combat human and economic problems. Electric lights and modern home appliances made life easier and farms more productive. Churches were some of the first structures to be wired with electricity—because they were some of the largest buildings in most towns. Because churches had electricity, much of what represented “community” revolved around church activity. Thus, the TVA, and electricity in particular, shaped American life, and much of church life for that matter, from that point forward.

Consider as well modern air-conditioning. “In 1906, Willis Carrier filed a patent for the first modern air-conditioning device. It was called the ‘Apparatus for Treating Air’ and it was able to treat both air temperature as well as humidity.”[2] Jesse Rice notes:

Keep in mind this was a time in history (not so long ago) when people only had access to locally grown food that had to be purchased on a daily basis. There were no refrigeration trucks to move California oranges to Idaho. There were no modern refrigerators to keep food fresh for days and weeks (or in the case of some college dorms, months) at a time. The milkman still delivered dairy products to front porches every day… Everything eaten by consumers was locally grown and had a very brief shelf life. But air-conditioning changed all of that.^[3]

American culture was rapidly “syncing up” to the latest development in technology. And as they did, new social changes began to emerge that coincided with the invention of air-conditioning. For example, as the front porch disappeared from the average home, so did a normal rhythm of connecting with neighbors. As entertainment and social events moved indoors, the shared experience of the neighborhood began to shrink. The world was beginning to connect, or “dis-connect,” in ways it hadn’t before.  The air-conditioner shaped us.

When it comes to technological advances in culture and society, technology has taken on this “shaping” effect. As Marshall McLuhan, the famous, “the medium is the message” communications theorist advocated, each “medium” is an extension of ourselves, altering the relationship of the person to their surrounding cultural context.[4] Business, education, politics, entertainment, and even church, have all been shaped by technology. Equally true is the effect technology has had in shaping our theological perspectives in terms of understanding ourselves, not only in relation to and with one another, but with our heavenly Father.

In terms of social media’s influence, consider the following observations of Facebook:^[5]

• With over 500 million users, Facebook is now used by 1 in every 13 people on earth.
• 250 million users log onto Facebook every day.
• The average Facebook user has 130 friends.
• 48% of 18-34 year olds check Facebook when they wake up, with 28% doing so before even getting out of bed.
• The 35+ demographic represents 33% of the entire Facebook user base.
• 72% of all US internet users are on now Facebook.
• Over 700 Billion minutes a month are spent on Facebook.
• Over 200 million people access Facebook via their mobile phone.
• 48% of young people say they get their news through Facebook.
• In just 20 minutes on Facebook over 1 million links are shared, 2 million friend requests are accepted and almost 3 million messages are sent.

Scripture, in general, addresses this shaping reality in various ways. Romans 12:2, for example, says, “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (NASB).  The verb “conform” (suschématizó)  speaks to the idea of allowing something from the outside to shape one’s self.[6] Whether one is passive or active in this process may, or may not, matter.  The point being, something external is shaping a person’s values, perspectives, attitude, and behaviors. This conformity dynamic is expressed in other passages of Scripture as well (1 Pet 1:14; Ex. 23:2; Lev. 20:23; Deut. 18:9; Dan. 1:8; Eph. 4:17; 5: 1-2; Col. 3:7-8).

In addition, consider the other verb in the verse; “transform” (metamorphoó).[7] Etymologically, this is where we get our English term, “metamorphosis.”  It carries with it the ideas of “change the form,” or “transform.” It’s an indication of one allowing something from the inside to shape one’s self. In contrast to conformity, whether one is passive or active in this process does matter. The point being, we either allow or disallow inside processes to shape us. And these inside processes are in both spiritual and existential terms generated from a “Someone,” namely, The Holy Spirit (c.f., Rom. 8:13-17; 15:15-16; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 1:13-14; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 3:4-7).

Developing an awareness of both utopian and dystopian voices within a theological framework regarding the use of social media, like Facebook, becomes paramount. For example, ministry contexts often view social media in largely dystopian terms. Namely, the influence of social media is a great “tempter,” causing people to get into fabricated relationships, creating an illusion of intimacy, and projecting intangible postures of reality.^[8] On Facebook you can read about others’ likes, relationships, romances, or even their favorite movies and music. But that doesn’t mean you know them—or that you’ve earned the right to speak into their lives. Social media removes nuance. It reduces people to words. Reading what certain people tweet may form unfavorable opinions about them. Their social media presence isn’t an accurate representation of who they really were.

Utopian views of technology, on the other hand, offer up social media as the ultimate space for developing mediated relationships. People use the benefits of technology to establish, foster and sustain healthy and growing identities with themselves, and with others. As Baym has noted, “…new media offer the promise of more opportunity for connection with more people, a route to new opportunities and to stronger relationship and more diverse connections.”[9]

The theological tension between conformity and transformative realities rests, most likely, somewhere between utopian and dystopian views of technology (Rom. 15:1; 1 Cor. 6:12; 8:9; 10:23; Eph. 4:29). There is often no “context” provided for social interactions online. Social media does most often feed narcissism. Sometimes our online tendencies are difficult to control, especially when one owns a smart phone. Social media encourages people to be in two places at once.  It may seem fine when one is watching a TV show with others to “multi-task” with a smart phone or tablet in hand. But to those we keep company with, don’t they deserve our undivided attention? As Turkle reminds us, we live in a world of “alone together.”[10]

Thus, in the context of developing a “theology of technology,” the minister must ask if he or she is being conformed by the outside agency of technology, or taking the initiative to allow the Holy Spirit to transform his or her perspectives of how one interacts with technology. The minister must ask, “In what ways does technology—either passively or actively—cause me to be conformed to the world’s values?” Equally they must ask, “How do I allow the Holy Spirit to influence my thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors in regard to my personal use of technology?”

The integrative purpose of having pastors and ministers interact with a theology of technology demonstrates thoughtful interaction with Scripture and theological ideologies, as well as pressing cultural concerns. The ministry leader has the freedom to draw on one’s own theological tradition, biblical understanding of ministry, and relevant research. Through a biblical integrative process one is allowed to demonstrate proficiency with theological analysis and its application to current issues. Ministry leaders also are given an opportunity to  articulate the specific needs, problems, benefits, or challenges unique to a particular ministry context (e.g., children’s, youth, adult, pastoral counseling, parachurch, Christian camping, sports ministry, cross-cultural ministries, etc.). This allows the leader to demonstrate an understanding of technological issues, and the subsequent challenges and impact associated within a local church, parachurch, or international ministry context.

Train up a Child: Philosophical Reflections

A basic overview of Scripture tells us children are a gift from God (Deut. 7:13; Ps. 127:3), adults receive blessing through their children (Num. 5:28; Deut. 28:4, 11; Lam. 4:2), children are desirable (Gen. 9:7; Deut. 6:3; Luke 1:24-25), children need to be taught how to think and act in relation to God and His ways (Ex. 12:26, 37; Deut. 4:9-10; 6:1-7; 31: 12-13; Ps. 78:4-6; Prov. 22:6), they must be taught to obey the Lord (Prov. 8:32; 19:26; Jer. 2:30; 3:22; Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20), God wants to have a genuine relationship with children (Ps. 8:2 34:11; 103:13; Mal. 2:15; Matt. 21:15; Mark 10:13-16), and He loves children enough to ensure they receive discipline (Prov. 3:11-12; 13:24; 19:18; 23:13; 29:15-17; Eph. 6:4; Heb. 12:4-11).[11]

The question, philosophically speaking, becomes, “In what ways can technology either help, or hurt, the process of training up a child in the way that he/she should go (Prov. 22:6)?” In recent years, young people have increased the amount of time they spend consuming media by a steadily growing rate.^[12] In grand-sum-total, today’s youth have increased media exposure by 2¼ hours, and usage by 1¼ hours, per day over the past five years. Consider the following table:

Average amount of time spent with each medium in a typical day (8-18 year-olds).^[13]

Use of every type of media has increased over the past ten years, with the exception of reading. In just the past five years, the increases range from 24 minutes a day for video games, to 27 minutes a day for computers, 38 minutes for TV content, and 47 minutes a day for music and other audio. During this same period, time spent reading went from 43 to 38 minutes a day. But breaking out different types of print does uncover some statistically significant trends. For example, time spent reading magazines dropped from 14 to 9 minutes a day over the past five years, and time spent reading newspapers went down from 6 minutes a day to 3; but time spent reading books remained steady, and actually increased slightly over the past 10 years (from 21 to 25 minutes a day).[14]

An explosion in mobile and online media has fueled the increase in media use among young people. The story of media in young people’s lives today is primarily a story of technology facilitating increased consumption. The mobile and online media revolutions have arrived in the lives—and the pockets—of American youth. Try waking a teenager in the morning and the odds are good you’ll find a cell phone tucked under their pillow—the last thing they touch before falling asleep and the first thing they reach for upon waking. Television content they once consumed only by sitting in front of a TV, set at an appointed hour, is now available whenever and wherever they want, not only on TV sets in their bedrooms, but also on their laptops, cell phones and iPods. Today, 20% of media consumption (2:07) occurs on mobile devices—cell phones, iPods or handheld video game players. Moreover, almost another hour (:56) consists of “old” content—TV or music—delivered through “new” pathways on a computer (such as Hulu or iTunes).^[15]

Ministry leaders across the lifespan will have to address these issues. The average children’s and youth minister will inevitably encounter parents who are concerned about the amount of technology consumption taking place on the part of their son or daughter. Surprisingly, studies are now revealing children and teens are equally concerned about their own parents’ consumption of technology![16] This will need to be addressed within the context of an emerging philosophy of ministry. In other words, asking appropriate “what” questions on the part of ministry leaders in addressing concerns, challenges, and issues within their unique ministry context. Some questions to being the conversation could include: “Given the increasing amount of time children are spending with digital media, what kinds of technology should we be concerned with?” Or, “What types of influences is media having on the shaping of young peoples’ faith?” Or, “What role does the church play in limiting or utilizing technology in its ministry programs?” These questions undergird a developing philosophical approach to technology within the context of ministry praxis.

I frequently use the nomenclature “exegesis of culture” to help ministry students navigate the nuances of culture—case at hand, technology and social media—in applying learned principles to their emerging ministry context. Thus, broadening definitions of “exegesis” beyond biblical hermeneutics to include our observations and understanding of culture must be applied—namely, how we critically explain and interpret the world around us. William Romanowski says, “The Bible gives us a complex understanding of culture. Culture is a gift from God, as well as a religious duty and obligation.”^[17] He continues, “The contours of a Christian cultural landscape are made up of cultural meanings: ideals, beliefs, values, attitudes, and assumptions that represent what it is like for people to live in God’s good but fallen world.”^[18] Accordingly, “cultural meanings” include the following biblically integrative principles found in the overarching Corban University Christian worldview hermeneutic:

• God is at work in the world and there exists an invisible spiritual realm (Creation).
• Believing people inhabit this landscape and faith is integral to all of life (Anthropology).
• Human sin is real and evil exists (Fall).
• God offers forgiveness and the possibility of redemption (Redemption).

I like what Walt Mueller, youth culture authority, says about developing a philosophy of ministry around ministry contexts in a postmodern world:

Those who fulfill their calling in conscious obedience to God face a unique set of challenges, perhaps the greatest being the need to cross the expanding cultural-generational gap. On one side stand adults raised largely in a modern cultural context. On the other side are children growing up in a new and radically different world—a postmodern world never experienced by previous generations. While adults and young people long to see this cultural-generational gap closed, it continues to expand as the culture changes at breakneck speed (emphases added).[19]

Thus, in the context of developing a philosophy of technology in emerging ministry perspectives, ministry leaders must figure out what the best ways are in ministering to families with techno-savvy “screenagers”—youth who spend most of their time in front of some form of screen (smart phone, computer, laptop, tabled, or TV)—consuming culture, and creating culture, one gigabyte at a time. Regardless of theological orientation, epistemological frameworks, and cultural identities, postmodern ministry demands we take note of, study, and understand technology in philosophical terms, so we in turn can minister more effectively in a world changing at breakneck speed.

Circle of Five: Methodological Reflections

Here are some basic things we know: In the 1960’s the greatest influence on teen faith was the family, followed in order by school, friends, and the church. In the 1980’s friends and peers had taken the number one spot—family dropped to two, and media was a new entry at number three.  School made the list at number four, and you guessed it… the church dropped out altogether!^[20]

Today, moms and dads are slowly slipping down the scale of influence in their child’s life. Unfortunately, some parents suffer from “ephebiphobia.” By definition, ephebiphobia is, “The fear of youth… first coined as the ‘fear and loathing of teenagers.’”^[21] So what happens as a result? Parents don’t engage with their teen, abandoning them to fend for themselves, or many parents simply try to manage behavior. Much of our communication with our child operates in the realm of external behaviors our children exhibit, not on internal thought processes, attitudes, values, or beliefs.

Leading experts in methodological practices within ministry contexts speak to the role between parents and teens. Chap Clark notes, “Even with the best of intentions, the way we raise, train, and even parent our children today exhibits attitudes and behaviors that are simply subtle forms of parental abandonment… the good of the unique individual has been supplanted by a commitment to the good of the ______ (fill in the blank: team, school, community, class, or organization).”^[22] He continues by stating, “Adolescents have suffered the loss of safe relationships and intimate settings that served as the primary nurturing community for those traveling the path from child to adult. The most obvious example of this is in the family.”^[23] Now, almost ten years into the new millennium, parents, youth workers and teens themselves are wondering if things are getting better. Technology and social media, as noted above, take a prominent role in both the discussion and emerging approaches found within every kind of ministry model.

Part of the answer in addressing these types of issues is in intentionally developing models of ministry, which come along-side parents in speaking into the lives of their children and teens. The reality is moms and dads are experiencing difficulty in raising their kids. They need help! Pastoral and ministry leaders must apply theological and philosophical biblical integrative principles into contextual models of ministry, guiding families through the difficult years of childhood and adolescence.

One example, or strategy, for a methodological approach to ministry is referred to as the “Circle of Five,”[24] a general framework of ministry programming, which encompasses both theological and philosophical underpinnings noted above. The goal is for pastors and ministry leaders to apply the principles of “observation,” “interpretation,” and “application” to their unique ministry context, evaluating where the issues of technology, and social media specifically, intersect. In other words, the many “challenges” of ministry leadership, administration, staffing, resourcing, budgeting, etc., are fluid and flexible, while the principles and approaches within the model’s framework remain somewhat constant.[25]

What is the Circle of Five concept? The basic idea is to surround a child or teen with five adult influencers who can speak directly into their lives in positive “holistic” ways: emotionally, cognitively, socially, academically, physically, vocationally, and most importantly, spiritually. Largely, any adult can take on the role of an influencer in the Circle of Five, but parents noticeably play a central role in determining who those influencers will be (see Ex. 12:26, 37; Deut. 4:9-10; 6:1-7; 31: 12-13; Ps. 78:4-6; Prov. 22:6).

First in the Circle of Five are “parents.” A parent is someone who can speak holistic development into the life of a child. They care for their physical, mental, emotional, social, and spiritual well-being. Research consistently supports the notion that the greatest single influencer regarding sex, drugs, alcohol, rock-and-roll music’s influence, and religion are their parents.[26] A question, methodologically speaking, arises at this point: “What about teens who don’t have a positive parental influence in their lives?” The answer: this is where the church raises the bar on becoming an “extended family” to children and teens who need spiritual guidance and nurture (Prov. 8:32; 19:26; Jer. 2:30; 3:22; Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20). Regarding our discussion of technology, parents then are seen as the primary spiritual-care-givers in helping their child safely navigate the landscape of digital and social media engagement.

Second, are “disciplers.” Disciplers have great influence in the life of a child or teen. A discipler is simply someone who can speak wisdom into the life of a child (Isa. 54:13; John 6:45; 13:15; Titus 3:14; 1 pet. 2:21). A discipler is someone a teen can learn from and follow as a role-model. This is the kind of person, that when you examine their life, you say, “I’d like my son/daughter to grow up like them.” Preferably, we want this person to be a person with: good morals, a healthy work ethic, a balanced outlook on life, and general ability to have healthy relationships and resolve conflict. Disciplers too can aid the child or teen in discerning between the proper and right appropriations and use of technology and social media.

Third in the Circle of Five are “mentors.” A mentor is someone who can speak life skills into a child. “The first recorded modern usage of the term “mentor” can be traced to a 1699 book entitled, Les Aventures de Telemaque, by the French Christian writer François Fénelon.”[27] A mentor is: a trusted friend, coach, neighbor, relative, counselor or teacher, usually a more experienced person (Ps. 145:4; Prov. 27:17; 2 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 5:1-5). Some professions have “mentoring programs” in which newcomers are paired with more experienced people, who advise them and serve as examples as they advance. Schools sometimes offer mentoring programs to new students, or students having difficulties. A mentor doesn’t have to be a “religious” person either. They can be anyone who can be a positive influence on a teen. Social mediated relationships via the internet can be framed in redemptive purpose when a mentor comes alongside a child who is immersed in the throngs of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snap Chat, Tumbler… and every other “apps” at their disposal.

Forth are “ministers.” a minister is someone who can speak spiritual insight into the life of a child or teen (e.g., Prov. 20:6; Col. 1:7; 1 Tim. 1:12). One’s first thought may be to think of a professional or assigned-by-the-church-board-type-of-leader. These are important people no doubt, but youth pastors, who have a youth group of ten or more teens, don’t have the time or ability to speak into a teen’s life on an intimate and deep level. Ministers come in all shapes and sizes (literally!). A minister speaks into a child or teen’s life in spiritual and redeeming ways. A caveat is warranted at this point: ministers do not replace the parent as the central spiritual guide for their child. They only come alongside and support parents in the spiritual development of a child. Ministers’ are equally vital in helping children and teens develop a “faith language” that makes sense to them, and in which they can articulate to others.

And lastly, there are “small group leaders.” The power of small group ministry goes without question as being a foundational piece of methodological ministry praxis (Ps. 5:14; John 13:34-35; Rom. 12:10; Gal. 6:2; Col. 2:2; Philemon 2:1-12; 1 Pet. 4:9; 1 John 3:16). A small group leader is someone who can speak relationship into the life of a child or teen. Every teen needs peers who accept them and are willing to support them. They need peers who can listen to their joys, pains, concerns, frustrations, etc. in the context of non-judgment and compassion. However, peers alone have difficulty—largely due to their own ‘issues’—for being able to help one another navigate through the challenges of adolescence. Thus, an adult who can serve to guide a group of students in this process is incredibly important element in the life of a child or teen. The power of small group ministry equally takes on a “stabilizing” effect when talking about the use of technology and social media.[28]

Even though the world is seemingly more complex, teens maintain the same basic needs they have always had:

• To be trusted.
• To be loved.
• To feel safe.
• And to identify a significant purpose in life

We can accomplish this by surrounding our children and teens with a cadre of adult influencers who genuinely care about helping them transition from childhood to adulthood, regardless of cultural or ministry contexts. Pastors and ministry leaders who develop biblically-centrist methodologies of ministry, that intentionally understand both the positives and negatives of technology, works toward this end.

[1] Wikipedia contributors, “Tennessee Valley Authority,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, (Accessed December 20, 2014) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tennessee_Valley_Authority &oldid= 479382839.

[2] Jesse Rice. The Church of Facebook: How the Hyperconnected Are Redefining Community (Colorado Springs, Co: David C. Cook, 2009), 55.

[3] Ibid, 56.

[4] Howard Gardner and Katie Davis. The App Generation: How Today’s Youth Navigate Identity, Intimacy, and Imagination in a Digital World ( New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press, 2013), 22.

[5] Digital Buzz. “Facebook Statistics, Stats & Facts For 2011.” Digital Buzz Blog, (Accessed March 7, 2012) http://www.digitalbuzzblog.com/ Facebook- statistics-stats-facts-2011/.

[6] Only one other occurrence of Συσχηματίζωm appears in the New Testament. 1 Peter 1:14 – “As obedient children, do not be conformed to the former lusts which were yours in your ignorance” (NASB).

[7] Note: only three other occurrences of Μεταμορφόω occur in the New Testament: “And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light” (Matt. 17:2 – NASB).  “Six days later, Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John, and brought them up on a high mountain by themselves. And He was transfigured before them” (Mark 9:2 – NASB). “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2 Cor. 3:18 – NASB).

[8] Glenn Packiam. “Tweeting My Life Away: My Online Interactions Were Hurting my Pastoral Presence.” Leadership Journal. Summer, 2013, 40-43.

[9] Nancy Baym. Personal Connections in the Digital Age (Malden, MA: Polity Press, 2010), 1.

[10] See, Sherry Turkle. Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2011).

[11] See George Barna. Transforming children into Spiritual Champions: Why Children Should be your Church’s #1 Priority (Ventura, CA: Regal Books, 2003), 44-45.

[12] Victoria Rideout, Ulla Foehr, and Donald Roberts. Generation M2: Media in the Lives of 8- to 18-Year-Olds (Menlo Park, CA: The Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010), 2.

[13] Ibid, 2.

[14] Ibid, 2.

[15] Ibid, 2.

[16] For example, see: N.A. “The State of the Kid 2014.” Highlights Magazine. (Accessed: December 22, 2014) https://highlights.com.

[17] William D. Romanowski. Eyes Wide Open: Looking for God in Popular Culture. Expanded Ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2007), 50.

[18] Ibid, 161.

[19] Walt Mueller. Engaging the Soul of Youth Culture: Bridging Teen Worldviews and Christian Truth. (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 42.

[20] Ibid, 25-26.

^[21] Wikipedia contributors, “Ephebiphobia,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, (Accessed December 22, 2014) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ephebiphobia&oldid=454439300.

[22] Chap Clark. Hurt: Inside the World of Today’s Teenagers (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004), 47.

[23] Ibid, 50.

[24] The “Circle of Five” is born out of the 5:1 ratio concept, advocated by Chap Clark, originally in Chap Clark. “In Spite of How They Act…” Decision Magazine (Accessed October 30, 2011). http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/september-2004/in-spite-of-how-they-act/. See also, Kara Powell and Chap Clark. Sticky Faith: Everyday Ideas to Build Lasting Faith in Your Kids (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 93-121.

[25] For further clarification of programmatic constants, refer to: Dean Borgman. Foundation for Youth Ministry: Theological Engagement with Teen Life and Culture (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013).

[26] See for example: Christian Smith and Patricia Snell. Souls in Transition: The Religious and spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009). Kenda Creasy Dean. Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010). Amy Jacober. The Adolescent Journey: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Practical Youth Ministry (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011).

[27] Wikipedia contributors, “Mentor,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, (Accessed October 30, 2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index.php?title=Mentor&oldid=457229732.

[28] Jeremy Smith. “4 Tips to Improve Youth Ministry Social Media Failure.” Church Tech Today (Accessed, December 17, 2014) http://churchtechtoday.com/2014/06/25/youthmin-fail/.

Reviewed by Dr. E. Allen Jones III

As a recent reclamation project from the world of academia, I had heard the word missional bandied about in the past few years, but I have had little opportunity to actually engage with proponents of the movement.  Thus, I opened The Road to Missional by Michael Frost, a recognized leader in the missional movement, with a sense of discovery.  In the preface to the book, Alan Hirsch, an equally acknowledged leader in the missional movement, explained that the volume would not be like Frost’s earlier works The Shaping of Things to Come and Exiles, wherein he was an “evangelist for the cause”.[1]  Rather, this book would be a prophetic call for true adherence to a truly missional life.  On this account, Frost does not disappoint.

In the opening chapter, Frost laments what he calls a misuse of the term missional in popular church culture.  According to him, one does not do church in a missional way, nor is missional simply a new trend in our ecclesiology.  Rather, missional is a way of being.  It is, or at least was supposed to be, a “revolution” in the church.[2]  This is important, he says, as megachurches that primarily grow by attracting members from other churches have begun to adopt the term, yet youths continue to abandon the church to find spirituality in other places.  Frost fears that as traditional churches grab onto the term missional (along with couches in church and Bible studies in coffee shops) and publish increased attendance rolls, we fail to realize that the church is becoming irrelevant in our own time.

After pointing out what missional is not in the introduction, in his second chapter – “Missio Dei” – Frost tries to explain what he had hoped missional would be.  “Mission is both the announcement and the demonstration of the reign of God through Christ,” he says.[3]  Such a statement may seem uncontroversial to an evangelical audience, but it was apparent from the rest of his chapter that this self-definition entails a lively debate related to being missional.  For one, Frost explains that mission(al) is not simply doing evangelism and/or missions (i.e. cross-cultural evangelism).  At the same time, mission(al) is not simply having a positive social agenda.  Rather, mission stands over and encompasses both of these ideas.  If the church is truly missional, non-believers will acknowledge God’s reign through Christ, and the church will act as a transformative agent in our communities.  Yet, we cannot reduce mission(al) to either of these ideas.  In Frost’s words, the missional church should be like movie trailers or “thin places” as understood by the ancient Celts.  It is to be the first-fruits of Christ’s kingdom on earth.

Having oriented us to what he believes is a truly missional perspective, in the remaining five chapters Frost articulates what it would look like for the church to practice mission.  In “Slow Evangelism”, he argues that evangelism ought not be a matter of cold calling and track distribution.  Instead, it ought to be incarnational.  It should be an invitation to live under God’s reign through Christ, which will involve a personal and social transformation of the person.  It will not be a list of doctrines for one to accept, but will be a declaration of salvation that is based on historical events that have ramifications for the future.  In this way, Christ’s kingdom expands and is manifest on earth.

“A Market-Shaped Church” then discusses some of the practices that keep us from living this kind of proclamation.  According to Frost, the church has adopted the secular market’s view of people as objects to which we sell things.  Thus, we tell non-believers what they want to hear and try to bribe them into coming to church.  In turn, non-believers, particularly young people, treat the church with the same kind of suspicion that they give to big business.  Such practices are the polar opposite of David Fitch’s call for smaller, more integrated, and incarnational church communities.[4]

“Triumphant Humiliation” and “Breathing Shalom”, are Frost’s attempts at rejecting a market orientation in the church on one hand, and accepting slow evangelism on the other.  Instead of blaming the world for rejecting us, or accusing non-believers of persecuting us for our faith, Frost says we need to acknowledge that much of contemporary Christian culture is poorly presented and badly executed.  In such cases, the world does not hate us because we are the aroma of Christ, but because we are irrelevant people with an over inflated sense of self-worth.  Much better, he says, that we would take on cruciformity as our form of holiness and discipleship.  The cross will be our holiness in that it is Jesus’ work that transforms us, and in that it is the cross that becomes a model for our own lives.  Only by walking in the shadow of the cross will we learn to be like our master.  Only by following his lead can we show other people how to live under his rule.  Ironically, though, this life under the cross will bring a rediscovery of relationships, justice, and beauty.  In the shadow of the cross, we will practice peace with those around us.  We will practice justice for the oppressed in our communities.  We will see the beauty in all things – even things coming from non-believers – and we will give glory to God for his creation.

In the last chapter before his conclusion – “Moving into the Neighborhood” – Frost becomes immanently practical as he articulates his vision of incarnation.  Like the Word became flesh as Jesus of Nazareth and dwelt with humans, so we must move in to be with the poor and the oppressed in our communities.  According to Frost, commuter models of faith and short-term missions opportunities fail to demonstrate a cross shaped life.  Short-term missions help us believe that we have fulfilled our obligation to the world, and commuter ministries hold the poor at arm’s length.  Rather, as Jesus was a shepherd that stayed with his sheep, we must be willing to live our lives with those we hope to reach.  We need to practice local and sustainable faithful living.

Finally, in his conclusion, Frost explains that a missional life should sound like “worlds colliding”.[5]  Clearly there is suffering and injustice in the world, but Jesus also announced the coming of God’s kingdom.  Thus, missional believers live at the intersection of these two realities.  They practice incarnational ministry and server as “movie trailers” to the world of what the future reign of Christ will be like.[6]

The greatest strength of The Road to Missional may also be its greatest weakness.  As a prophetic call to mimic Jesus’ incarnational ministry in the world, Frost confronts the constant temptation in the Western church to become comfortable with our own salvation and to forget a hurting world.  Evangelicals can and should appreciate his vision of what it could look like for believers to take up the cross and announce God’s rule on earth in Christ.  At the same time, Frost paints with a broad brush and speaks in absolutes.  He credits the many problems in the modern church to a somewhat vaguely defined brand of “traditional” or “mega-” church.  Thus, presumably, if the reader would accept Frost’s ideas and leave these kinds of churches to join more missional churches, the world will finally see the church be the true bride of Christ.  The missional movement will finally exemplify the Kingdom of God on earth.  While he does provide anecdotal evidence of egregious practices in some churches, I hesitate to believe that any person who wants to announce the reign of God in Christ will necessarily associate/not associate with particular kinds of churches.

[1] Alan Hirsch, preface to The Road to Missional: Journey to the Center of the Church, by Michael Frost (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 12.

[2] Michael Frost, The Road to Missional: Journey to the Center of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011), 16.

[3] Ibid 24.

[4] David Fitch, The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005).

[5] Frost, Road to Missional, 143.

[6] Ibid., 145.

Reviewed by Garrett Trott

Librarian

Who was the smartest individual who has ever lived?  Socrates, Augustine, or perhaps Einstein?  While all of these individuals were notable thinkers, James Sire, in his work, Habits of the Mind, suggests that perhaps the smartest individual who has ever lived was Jesus Christ.

While at first, one does not consider Jesus Christ to be an intellectual, Sire’s work assists any reader in connecting the dots between intellectualism and being Christ-like.  Sire begins his work by dismantling some of the assumptions that Christians have towards intellectualism.  For example, some argue that passages like 1 Corinthians 8:1-2, which state, “…this ‘knowledge’ puffs up, but love builds up.  If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know,” promote anti-intellectualism among Christians.  Sire disassembles these ideas and convincingly argues that an element of Christianity, and a critical element at that, is the intellect.

Sire closes his first chapter by providing an excellent definition of an intellectual:

An intellectual is one who loves ideas, is dedicated to clarifying them, developing them, criticizing them, turning them over and over, seeing their implications, stacking them atop one another, arranging them, sitting silent while new ideas pop up and old ones seem to rearrange themselves, playing with them, punning with their terminology, laughing at them, watching them clash, picking up the pieces, starting over, judging them, withholding judgment about them, changing them, bringing them into contact with their counterparts in other systems of thought, inviting them to dine and have a ball but also suiting them for service in workaday life (pp.27-8).

Sire continues his discussion of the intellectual life as a Christian calling by using John Henry Newman as an exemplar.  John Henry Newman led a very full life beginning in the Anglican Church and eventually transitioning to become a Catholic priest.  The Catholic Church approached Newman in 1854 to be the founding rector of the Catholic University in Ireland.  In so doing, Newman composed lectures that were compiled as published as “The Idea of a University.”  In this work, Newman, provides an ideology of what a university is supposed to do: integrating truth into the world.

Sire uses Newman’s ideology as a foundational element for the Christian’s intellectual life.  While Sire has defined “intellectual,” what does it mean to be a “Christian intellectual”?  Are there any distinctions?  Sire answers this question with a resounding “yes.”  While in many facets a non-Christian and Christian intellectual are similar, Sire notes one outstanding distinction: “A Christian intellectual is everything an intellectual proper is but to the glory of God” (p.88).

This distinction sets the tone for the rest of Sire’s work when he discusses intellectual virtues and intellectual disciplines.  Sire suggests four categories of virtues: passion for the truth, passion for holiness, passion for consistency, and compassion for others.  He argues that a proper tone for intellectual stimulation comes about when a passion for the truth is coupled with a passion for holiness set in the framework of humility.  Sire provides an excellent framework in which a Christian intellectual can flourish, yet be distinct from their non-Christian colleagues.

Sire does not let his work rest by simply providing a picture of how things should be or could be.  His work would not be complete without his closing chapter where he discusses the responsibilities of a Christian intellectual.  He begins this chapter by noting a key element, which he alludes to throughout his book: “no one is called to be a sloppy thinker!” (p.205) He states, “Being an intellectual is after all no big deal, nothing to particularly admire or condemn.  Why?  Because all Christians are called to be as intellectual as befits their abilities and the work they have been called to do” (p.205). Sire moves on and suggests that for a Christian to be an intellectual they must live in truth.  He breaks this idea into two critical elements: learning the truth and telling the truth.  Two very simple ideas with profound implication.

Sire argues that the smartest man who ever lived was Jesus Christ.  This is because he was fervent to learn the truth and impassioned to tell the truth.  As followers of Jesus Christ, Sire convincingly argues, that Christians have a responsibility to pursue intellectual growth, but to pursue it in order that God may be glorified.

I inherited a large tool chest from my dad. He had been a tool salesman, so it was packed with goodies. I had always loved working on cars and other things as a kid. So I knew that tool chest well and relished everything in it. Almost. A couple of items defied understanding. One of them had a long t-handle and a swiveling head with teeth like a vise grip. Several times I considered tossing it to make space for real tools. The head flopped too much to grasp anything. Besides, I had a box full of pliers and sockets to tighten or loosen anything I could ever imagine.

A few years later, I laid on my back cramped under a new kitchen sink. I had replaced the sink and now needed to install the faucets. Getting to those crazy nuts underneath was testing my sanctification. First one tool then another. All were either too long, too wide or too clumsy to get through that tight space around the faucet nuts. As I stared in frustration, wondering if anything would work, I remembered the strange tool shoved into the recesses of the chest. The long t-handle slipped through that tight space. The funky swiveling head aligned perfectly with the nuts. Those vise grip teeth eliminated any slippage. Five minutes later the faucet was flowing perfectly with no leaks. I had discovered the joy of a basin wrench. Once I saw the wrench in its proper context, I realized its value.

This issue of Dedicated addresses several contexts for ministry. Like a basin wrench, facets of our ministry must be seen in their proper context. Dr. Annette Harrison compares biblical metaphors for sin with their usage in contemporary context. She helps us to become better translators of biblical truth on sin to our changing culture.

Dr. Sam Baker shares his research on spiritual types. His work reminds Christian leaders that believers and churches have spiritual personality types. Churches, schools and families have developed patterns that serve as the primary means of growing in the Lord. His conclusions encourage us to insure our patterns of discipleship minister to the whole Christian.

Our reviews also help clarify contexts of current issues in biblical studies and in cross-cultural ministry. Dr. Gary Derickson reviews Interpreting the General Letters by Herbert Bateman and Five Views on the Historical Adam. Dr. Kent Kersey reviews another of Zondervan’s Counterpoint Series in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. Dr. Annette Harrison reviews Helping Without Hurting in Short-Term Missions by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert.

INTRODUCTION

As Biblical scholars are well aware, no single Hebrew or Greek word in Scripture translates literally as the English word sin. Instead, the Biblical writers used the language of metaphor to illustrate the complex concept. As Christians, our understanding of sin, how we talk about it and our personal responses to it have been formed by metaphors drawn from the Biblical texts. In essence, we have absorbed some of the culture and language of the Biblical writers. It is a mark of community membership that most Christians are able to talk about and think about sin in the same or very similar ways.

Non-believers, however, belong to a different community. It is no secret that American society is becoming more secularized and religiously pluralistic. Thus, when we attempt to have spiritual conversations with people who do not share our assumptions and conceptualizations of faith, we meet cultural divides, barriers to communication. In order to share our faith, as Lamin Sannah argues, we must become translators.[1]

We are familiar with the need to avoid “Christianese,” and some are adept at expressing Biblical truths in contemporary language. But good translators must go beyond substituting a word in the source language for one in the target language. Good translators also study the culture and the conceptualizations of the source community – in this case the Biblical cultures and languages – and those of the target community, i.e., non-believers.

This article presents an exploration of Biblical metaphors of sin, the associated implications for responses to sin, and what this entails for clear communication of the Gospel. First, it is necessary to introduce conceptual metaphors and why they matter in translation. Next, I will review conceptual metaphors of sin familiar to Christians, and then consider how our non-believing friends and neighbors may be thinking and talking about sin using examples drawn from media sources. In the end, it is my hope that we will all become better translators, equipped to bridge cultural and conceptual divides as we faithfully communicate the Good News of Jesus Christ.

CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR

Metaphors are not just for creative writing; they are the way we express complex ideas, perceive the world, and formulate plans and actions. Traditionally, a metaphor is a figure of speech that uses vocabulary from one area of experience to represent some facet of a more complex or more abstract issue, phenomenon or event. For example, “education is the key to success,” uses what we know about how keys lock and unlock doors to express the crucial role of education in achieving life goals.

While traditional metaphors are easily identifiable by their structure, Lakoff and Johnson describe a metaphor that is less easily recognized, a cognitive associative reasoning structure called a conceptual metaphor.[2]  Using data from everyday language, they argue that conceptual metaphors serve our understanding and analysis of complex issues. They illustrate how pervasive conceptual metaphor is in our speech, and ontologically therefore in our thoughts and reasoning. For example, “He attacked every weak point in my argument” expresses a perception of an argument as a battle between two sides. Lakoff and Johnson formulate the conceptual metaphor as argument is war, in the expression “attacked every weak point,” and then provocatively point out that were we part of a culture that conceptualized arguments as finely choreographed dances, our arguments would most likely be carried out very differently.[3]

Other scholars have confirmed these ideas, demonstrating that conceptual metaphors reflect and shape the very patterns of thought and verbal expression of our daily lives.[4] Tannen goes so far as to demonstrate that the widespread use of adversarial metaphor (like argument is war) results in adversarial behavior in the classroom, between genders, and in the legal system.[5] And a recent medical study of responses to metaphor during cancer treatment supports the claim that how we talk about cancer is related to the steps we are willing to take to either prevent it or to treat it.[6] Conceptual metaphors facilitate thought, perspective and verbal expression; they also affect our responses and actions.

SPEAKING OF SIN

Biblical writers did not all conceive of sin in the same way, as evidenced by the variation in vocabulary and accompanying metaphors. Many different Hebrew and Greek words are all rendered sin in our English translations, and so laypeople are mostly unaware of these differences. Expressions in Hebrew include: chata’ “to miss the mark,” aven “crooked or perverse,” ra’ “evil/violence breaking out.” [7] An important role of pastors and teachers is to help us understand the Biblical text and to help us learn the Biblical metaphors, which in turn teach us to think “Christianly” about sin.

For example, in Sunday School and in Church, we sing about how the blood of Jesus washes away our sins, the metaphor taught through the Hebrew kibbēs “to wash away sin.” We may also speak about the terrible burden that sinners bear, a reflection of the most frequent Old Testament phrase nāsā’ ăwōn “to bear or carry away a sin.” [8]

Greek expressions for sin include hamartia “to miss the mark; to err; to offend,” parabasis “trespass; to step across a line,” anomia “lawlessness, wickedness,” adikia “unrighteousness,” akatharsia “uncleanness, impurity,” and finally, apistia “unbelief.”

All of these expressions are metaphorical – their original uses and primary meanings were in archery, governing, cultic acts and philosophy. In essence, Biblical writers were using what they knew about how the world worked to illustrate and explain a concept for which there was no single term in their own language and no simple, single-faceted description for their immediate audience (and for audiences they could not have imagined). In doing so, they were building conceptual metaphors in the minds of their audience: sin is weight; sin is uncleanliness; sin is trespass; sin is lawlessness, etc.

Cognitively, once a conceptual metaphor has been established, additional reasoning and appropriate responses are associated with it. If sin is weight, we must lay it down (at the foot of the cross). If sin is uncleanliness, we look for a way to wash and be clean. If sin is trespass, we do our utmost to obey rules and follow guidelines. If sin is falling short (or missing the mark), then we have not done enough and we must try harder.  By speaking (and singing) about sin and the associated reasoning and response, members of a community reinforce and reify the conceptual metaphors. Ultimately, speakers cease to be consciously aware of the conceptual metaphor, though their choice of vocabulary and behavior indicate that the metaphor is operational in their reasoning.

The Hebrew conceptual metaphor sin is weight, from the expression nāsā’ ăwōn “to bear or carry away a sin,” is translated into the English language and into American Christian culture through words like “burden” and “weighty.” The hymn There is Power in the Blood inquires, “Would you be free from the burden of sin?” [9] Billy Graham and many others plead, “Don’t carry your burden of sin any longer, but by faith believe that Jesus died for you, and receive Him into your life today.” And finally, Charles Stanley writes, “The burdens we carry come in all shapes, sizes, and varieties. Many are weighty, but there’s one load that proves even heavier–and it can be traced back to the Garden of Eden.” [10] These examples demonstrate how well sin is weight has been learned and incorporated into Christian reasoning and speech.

Consider a second conceptual metaphor, Sin is falling short from the Hebrew chata’ and the Greek hamartia “to miss the mark; to err; to offend.” Though it is far from being the only source of the concept of standards in Scripture, when words like sin, standards and punishment appear together, the speaker is likely reasoning through the conceptual metaphor, as in Francis Chan’s explanation, “God is the only being who is good, and the standards are set by Him. Because God hates sin, He has to punish those guilty of sin. Maybe that’s not an appealing standard. But to put it bluntly, when you get your own universe, you can make your own standards.”[11]

In keeping with Sin is falling short, John Piper recently compiled a list that includes “[Sin is] the glory of God not honored… The holiness of God not reverenced…The greatness of God not admired…The power of God not praised…The truth of God not sought…The commandments of God not obeyed….” [12]

On the other hand, the adage “If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again” illustrates what Euro-Americans[13] believe is an appropriate response to missing the mark. It is not a big deal. Our culture teaches us to pick ourselves back up (by our own bootstraps), and get back to it! In fact, failure is touted by some successful businessmen and other well-known figures[14] as an experience that imparts wisdom and contributes to growth. Missing the mark is not a cosmic sin; it is part of practicing to succeed. The point is that even Christians are susceptible to misunderstanding the concept of sin because of conflicting conceptual metaphors drawn from more than one culture.

DOES THE SHOE FIT?

Consider again the conceptual metaphor taught through the Hebrew kibbēs “to wash away sin” illustrated by the words of William Cowper: “There is a fountain filled with blood drawn from Emmanuel’s veins; and sinners plunged beneath that flood lose all their guilty stains.” [15] In a culture with a sacrificial system and deep understanding of ritual purity or uncleanliness, this expression communicates appropriately. However, the dominant Euro-American culture has no traditional or cultural equivalent to blood sacrifice. It is possible to argue that classical mythologies from Egyptian, Greek or European cultures, or even those from indigenous Indian cultures employ the concept of blood sacrifice. However, those mythologies and the activities of ritual sacrifice are not part of our everyday lives. An effective metaphor is drawn from a domain the members of the community know well from personal experience. When showering after a workout or washing our hands before dinner is the closest we come to washing away uncleanliness, it is valid to ask whether even Christians understand the conceptual metaphor sin is uncleanliness.

Despite our lack of everyday experience with ritual purity, even contemporary artists such as Matt Redman continue to write on that motif: “What can wash us pure as snow? Forever welcomed as the friends of God; well there’s nothing but Your blood; Nothing but Your blood, King Jesus.” [16] And as much as we love these songs it is important to recognize that we had to be taught how to think about Christ’s blood sacrifice, and even to feel the power and joy of release because of it. sin is uncleanliness is not “native” to our linguistic and cultural training, how much more the metaphor of washing in someone’s blood. The closest Euro-American metaphor bloodbath is one of combat and violence rather than of cleansing and purity. It is worth considering how well even Christians truly understand it, let alone non-believers to whom the Gospel is presented with these images.

Another metaphor to examine consists of enslavement and captivity. They are present throughout the Biblical narrative as consequences for disobedience, though to my knowledge none of the Hebrew or Greek terms translated sin refers precisely to those terms. [17] Enslavement and captivity have traditionally held deep meaning for the African American community, which may account for much use of the conceptual metaphor Sin is captivity in many contexts from famous civil rights speeches to beloved Gospel music. The Gospel/R&B sister duo Mary Mary sings, “Take the shackles off my feet so I can dance. I just wanna praise You. I just wanna praise You. You broke the chains, now I can lift my hands. And I’m gonna praise You.” [18] Whether or not members of the African American community have personally experienced captivity, it is an ever-present theme of identity, evoking historical roots and even current social struggles.

On the other hand, for those who have no experience of physical captivity, Sin is captivity is another conceptual metaphor that may not be part of the “native” thought and language. Again, I am not saying that concepts of captivity and enslavement are unbiblical in any way, nor that they are inappropriate for use by Christians. Many Christians have learned the metaphor and find much meaning in it. John F. MacArthur, among others, has referred to “the shackles of sin” in a number of his sermons, for example.[19] It is beautiful figurative language, but it is a conceptual metaphor drawn from a different time and a different culture.

SAME WORDS; DIFFERENT MEANING

Many American Christians have learned to understand and to speak in Hebrew and Greek conceptual metaphor. This makes them “bilingual” to some extent, whereas members of the non-believing community are not. The depth of the conceptual divide between practicing Christians and non-believers, as well as all the ways it is rehearsed and reinforced through everyday language cannot be underestimated. Moreover, it is crucial to recognize that our inability to identify our own conceptual metaphors and those of our target audience only deepens the communicative divide even if, or perhaps especially if, we are using the same words.

There is good evidence for non-believers using traditionally Christian terms in such a way that they are redefined through the linguistic process of reappropriation. Reappropriation includes the deliberate use of words in new social and linguistic contexts in order to alter their meanings. It is often an indicator of social change. The following presentation illustrates the reappropriation of sin, sinful and sinfully, and establishment of accompanying conceptual metaphors.

First there is “Sin City,” the nickname for Las Vegas, through which Biblical interdictions against drunkenness, adultery and related behaviors have been transformed into trendy and desirable experiences. Moreover the title of a new comedy sitcom “Sin City Saints” plays on exactly this image. It is apparent that sin is entertainment, even if New York Times critic Mike Hale is less than impressed when he writes, “[Sin City] Saints,” the first scripted series from Mandalay Sports Media, throws together young-male-viewer bait — sports, Las Vegas, Silicon Valley, Malin Akerman — in a comedy less coherent than the halftime scoreboard video at an N.B.A. game.” [20]

Secondly, missteps or errors in judgment are categorized as sin in the following two examples. “I don’t know if blowing off the court would be such a sin in the eyes of voters as much as going after the judge’s wife with a private investigator,” is the estimation of a source quoted in an article about the re-election bid of an Arizona sheriff.[21] And in an article from a sports columnist, “Texas fans would quickly forgive Hamilton’s sins – the relapses, the give-up swing, the “football town” comments…”[22] These uses and others similar to them signal a shift in meaning for the word sin in everyday American reference. Rather than a penalty deserving death, sin is being redefined as a mistake, a blunder, a miscalculation.

Scattered occurrences such as these don’t seem to provide the linguistic momentum needed for reappropriation, but a search of the archives of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times reveals noteworthy patterns in the use of the word sin. These two publications are very large, influential, and they use news services like Reuters and the Associated Press that also feed other media outlets. Thus, they provide an adequate representation of the kinds of articles distributed around the country, regardless of other aspects of their reporting. The first pattern involves a weakening or trivialization of the concept of sin, and the second depicts those who talk about the religious concept of sin as strange or outdated.

There are 2715 occurrences of sin in the New York Times “News” sections (57% of the total). Many of these instances are in articles about political parties, candidates and elected officials, as well as stories of sexual abuse by priests, and coverage of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church. This is perhaps not surprising; wrong-doing is news and wrong-doing by religious figures is even bigger news. On the other hand, the rate of occurrence in the “Arts and Entertainment” sections was higher than expected (2071 or approximately 43%).[23]

The sin is a mistake conceptual metaphor is easily identifiable in these sections. For example, singer Jamie Foxx’s comment that his weak performance of the National Anthem “was not a sin against America” was picked up by numerous media outlets and also tweeted. [24] The use of sin in reporting about arts and entertainment in combination with the conceptual metaphor sin is a mistake (or a minor offense) trivializes the meaning of sin.

The second pattern is evident in the way people who talk about sin as a religious concept are presented as newsworthy. One article describes a man who carries a “worn black Bible,” who “believes Scripture is unequivocal,” and who says that “homosexual behavior is a sin.” [25] Another article portrays the antics of a North Carolina man who “passed out fliers with Bible verses extolling nakedness as a way to cleanse oneself of sin.” [26] And a third article documents the arguments of a Utah state senator who wants to use cannabis: “As long as I’m not committing a sin in the process of doing this, then I’ll let my principles take me where they may.” [27] The quality of the beliefs of these three men is not necessarily in question. The position of each is stated more or less clearly because the writer of the article uses the subject’s own words. The point is that making a religiously-based declaration of sin is news.

Compositional elements construct a perspective that a religious belief in sin is out of the ordinary or outdated. Pictographic descriptions – the worn, black Bible, or the man standing naked in the doorway of his home – construct a character, and then he or she is quoted directly speaking about sin. The consistent format of physical descriptions of the person combined with stated opinions involving a religious belief in sin reifies the conceptual metaphor sin is outdated.

Widespread media use of sin facilitates the process of reappropriation, moving the word from the domain of religious doctrine to the area of mistakes or minor offenses.  Those who continue to use the term as part of their religious belief are depicted as outdated or even freakish.

Conceptual metaphors emerging through language use in the media include: sin is entertaining (shows in Las Vegas), sin is a mistake (the misbehavior of a baseball player, a song off-key), and sin is for religious fanatics (nakedness and cleansing from sin?). In short, sin is not serious. In contrast, when something is described as sinful, it is tasty, tantalizing and trendy as in the following examples.

A newspaper description of the actual delicatessen depicted in the movie “When Harry Met Sally” includes these menu items: “matzo ball soup, chopped liver with onions, hot pastrami sandwiches and sinful cheesecake.” [28] A New York Times article about a local bakery describes “sinfully sweet rings.” [29] The top ten hits of a Google search using the string “sinfully rich” reveals eight that describe a chocolate dessert; the other two describe Italian pasta dishes. In other words, sin is delicious (and perhaps high in calories).

Another article announces a physical trainer service called SIN.[30] The article explains that this is an acronym for “Strength in Numbers,” yet the lack of punctuation between the letters indicates that the name was probably designed to result in a catchy acronym. Investigating name brand choices that involve sin and related words like sinful and sinfully is beyond the scope of this article. Even so, the reappropriation of sin-type words in marketing is noteworthy because of its contribution to the formation of conceptual metaphors.

Sinfulcolors.com sells vibrant nail polish, stickers and manicure tips. Comfortable yet fashionable women’s clothing is available through Sinful Clothing for Women: “Sinful clothing for women make a bold fashion statement of strength and beauty infused with a heavy dose of rock n’ roll and a sophisticated twist.” [31] In other words, sin is fashionable.

These conceptual metaphors are powerful because we become so accustomed to using them in our perception and reasoning that we cease to be aware of them. They are also powerful because they represent the shared assumptions of a community about the nature of reality; they are products of culture. The examples and discussion so far have revealed two cultures divided by their conceptualization of sin.

This leaves us with the question of how to cross the cognitive and cultural divide when we speak about sin. Though both communities are using the English language, we are experiencing the challenge of cross-cultural communication.

CONCEPTUAL TRANSLATION

Translation is required if we are to faithfully and accurately communicate the role of human sin in the Gospel story. To their credit, some pastors and teachers have looked for other conceptual metaphors in their attempts to communicate to non-believing culture. For example, A.W. Tozer uses the conceptual metaphor Sin is bad stewardship: “A man by his sin may waste himself, which is to waste that which on earth is most like God. This is man’s greatest tragedy and God’s heaviest grief.” [32] This conceptual metaphor speaks to the American value system that includes an appreciation for return on investment, efficiency and good management.

Another conceptual metaphor underlies this phrase attributed to St. Augustine, more a summary statement from Confessions than a precise quotation. “Sin is looking for the right thing in the wrong place.” [33] It appears to be an adaptation of the conceptual metaphor Sin is falling short from the Hebrew chata’ and the Greek hamartia “to miss the mark,” but it is applied it to a different kind of activity: Sin is a mistaken search.

If nothing else, attention to the power of conceptual metaphor makes for valuable teaching moments, as the following excerpt illustrates. Jerry Bridges first reveals the conceptual metaphor sin is an enemy before arguing against it because of its effects on reasoning and behavior.

“Too often, we say we are defeated by this or that sin. No, we are not defeated. We are simply disobedient. It might be good if we stop using the terms victory and defeat to describe our progress in holiness. Rather, we should use the terms obedience and disobedience. When I say I am defeated by some sin, I am unconsciously slipping out from under my responsibility. I am saying something outside of me has defeated me. But when I say I am disobedient, that places the responsibility for my sin squarely on me. We may in fact be defeated, but the reason we are defeated is because we have chosen to disobey. (Pursuit of Holiness, 84)

As asserted early in this discussion, conceptual metaphors do more than facilitate thought, perspective and verbal expression; they also affect our responses and actions. And the link between an understanding of sin, and behavior regarding sin is essential for the integrity of our Christian message. This is why it is crucial that a conceptual metaphor communicate completely across the cultural divide. This final example appears to achieve that goal using words drawn from everyday language: “The crumbled pieces of the Fall are all around us:  broken people, shattered families, and fragmented communities. We know that this is not the way it is supposed to be, but we too often struggle to know how to respond…” [34]

“Broken,” “shattered” and “fragmented” are inchoative verbs expressing a change of state – an effect beyond a mistake, more serious than entertainment, and immediately relevant rather than old-fashioned. The paragraph’s dominant conceptual metaphor sin is brokenness expresses a dilemma that both Christians and non-believers understand from their experience in everyday life. Broken things need repair; broken people need help. Moreover, a broken object generally cannot repair itself. It needs someone more able and whole to return the object to its original, intended state. This conceptual metaphor works because it successfully associates common understandings with a behavioral response that is faithful to the Biblical concept of sin.

CONCLUSION

The cultural divide between Christians and non-believers is readily apparent in the ways that members of each community speak about sin. Christian understanding is complicated by conceptual metaphors drawn from languages and cultures foreign to our own. Even so, we have learned them so well that we no longer clearly recognize the conceptual metaphors so useful in reasoning and speaking about, and responding to sin. On the other hand, the non-believing community has reappropriated sin and words related to it with the result that Christians and non-believers may use the same word, but access different conceptual metaphors in the interpretation of meaning. The communicative challenge before us is to look for the life experiences we all have in common in order to develop shared conceptual metaphors that clearly communicate the complex nature of sin, as well as the appropriate, Biblically-based responses.

ENDNOTES

[1] Lamin Sanneh, Translating the Message: The Missionary Impact on Culture. (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989).

[2] George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By (University of Chicago Press, 1980).

[3] Throughout this article I follow Lakoff and Johnson’s convention of small capitals for the format of conceptual metaphor.

[4] Cf. Zoltan Kovecses, Metaphor: A Practical Introduction, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2010).

[5] Deborah Tannen, The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words (NY: Ballantine Books, 1998).

[6] David J. Hauser and Norbert Schwarz, “The War on prevention: Bellicose Cancer Metaphors Hurt (Some) Prevention Intentions,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41 (2014): 66-77.

[7]  Harold L. Willmington, Willmington’s Guide to the Bible (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1981), 718-726.

[8]  Gary A. Anderson, Sin: A History (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995), 16-17.

[9] Lewis E. Jones, There is Power in the Blood (1899). Online: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/t/h/therepow.htm.

[10] Charles Stanley, “The Burden of Sin,” Christian Post, October 14, 2012. Online: http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-burden-of-sin-83248.

[11] Francis Chan with Danae Yankoski, Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God (David C. Cook, 2008), 36.

[12] John Piper, “What is Sin? The Essence and Root of All Sinning.” n.p. Online: http://www.desiringgod.org/conference-messages/the-origin-essence-and-definition-of-sin.

[13] I use “Euro-American” to acknowledge that American culture is not a monolithic whole, and that the American cultural system I know best and can speak from has been heavily influenced by its northern European ancestry.

[14] Thomas Edison’s 1,000 attempts to invent the incandescent bulb are frequently cited as an example of failures that lead to success.

[15] William Cowper, There is a Fountain Filled with Blood (1772). Online: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/t/f/tfountfb.htm.

[16] Matt Redman, Nothing But The Blood, (ThankYou Music, 2004). Online: http://worshiptogether.com/songs/nothing-but-the-blood-redman/.

[17] Note that while the historical captivity of Israel in Egypt, as well as exile and enslavement in Assyria are related to sin and punishment narratives in Scripture, the closest term used in Scripture is the Greek aphesis ‘dismissal, release or pardon (from debt)’ (from Mark 1:4).

[18] Erika Atkins, Tina Atkins and Warryn Campbell, “Shackles (Praise You),” Thankful  (1999).

[19] Cf. John F. MacArthur, Jr. Christ is Everything, n.p. [preached 29 August1993]. Online: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-120/christ-is-everything.

[20] Mike Hale, ‘Sin City Saints,’: A Yahoo Basketball Comedy,” New York Times (March 22, 2015). Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/23/arts/television/review-sin-city-saints-a-yahoo-basketball-comedy.html?_r=0.

[21] Jacques Billeaud and Ryan Van Velzer, “Arizona Sheriff’s Re-election Chances Called into Question,” Los Angeles Times (April 25, 2015). Online: http://www.latimes.com/nation/sns-bc-us–arizona-sheriff-racial-profiling-20150424-story.html.

[22] Kevin Sherrington, “What do the Rangers Have to Lose by Bringing Back Hamilton?” Los Angeles Times (April 25, 2015). Online: http://www.latimes.com/sports/sns-tns-bc-bba-sherrington-column-20150425-story.html.

[23] This may be in part because of the nickname for Las Vegas – “Sin City,” and also due to Spanish language titles of art performances, as well as other Spanish language articles (sin means “without” in Spanish).

[24] Christie D’Zurilla, “Jamie Foxx Says His National Anthem was ‘Off’ But Not ‘a Sin Against America’.” Los Angeles Times (May 5, 2015). Online: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-jamie-foxx-explains-national-anthem-mayweather-pacquiao-20150505-story.html.

[25] Erik Eckholm, “Opponents of Gay Marriage Ponder Strategy as Issue Reaches Supreme Court,” New York Times (April 22, 2015). Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/23/us/opponents-of-gay-marriage-ponder-strategy-as-issue-reaches-supreme-court.html.

[26] Greg Lacour, “Naked North Caroline Man Irks Neighbors, but Police Say No Crime,” New York Times (March 24, 2015). Online: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/03/24/us/24reuters-usa-north-carolina-naked.html.

[27] Daniel Wallis, “Utah Lawmaker Invokes Morman Prophet Grandpa in Medical Pot Plea,” New York Times (April 22, 2015). Online: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/04/22/us/22reuters-usa-marijuana-utah.html.

[28] Joe Yogerst, “Have Yourself a Treat With These Famous Movie Eateries,” Los Angeles Times (August 13, 2014). Online: http://www.latimes.com/brandpublishing/travelplus/summerseries/la-ss-have-yourself-a-treat-dto-20140813-story.html.

[29] Susan M. Novick, “Where Those Sinfuly Sweet Rings are Made Locally,” New York Times (October 25, 2009), LI11.

[30] Courtney Rubin, “For That Door-to-Treadmill Serivce,” New York Times (Dec. 17, 2014). Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/18/style/for-that-door-to-treadmill-service.html.

[31] Online: http://www.buckle.com/womens/brand:sinful, accessed 11 May 2015.

[32] A.W. Tozer, The Root of the Righteous (Harrisburg, PA: Christian Publications, 1955), 99.

[33] Augustine Confessions (trans.  by Henry Chadwick; Oxford University Press, 1991). Quote accessed online: https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/6819578.Augustine_of_Hippo.

[34] Matt Lucas, “Picking Up the Pieces,” Corban University theme description, 2014.

[1]

INTRODUCTION

At the onset of adulthood, how does one determine which path to take in regard to faith? In the end, will one’s journey lead one toward a kataphatic form of spirituality, or an apophatic one? What do these words even mean? Should later adolescents, in their movement toward adulthood, be expected to know the difference? And are these historical paths to faith embedded into religious customs and catechetical models within their faith communities, or the Christian institutions they attend? How are churches and pastors addressing the issues of faith formation in their younger congregants, expressly as they transition from adolescence to adulthood?

On the part of those who investigate spiritual formation there seems to be an objective to codify, sort out, and better understand spirituality in terms of cognitive, affective, behavioral, and spiritual constants. How do “believers” demonstrate spirituality in terms of growing in “things of the Spirit?”[2]  What tendencies are observed in the way individuals articulate their faith?  Can such things be observed, analyzed, or explained?  What effects do such things as a fervent prayer life, devotional reading of the Scriptures, and daily practice of the spiritual disciplines have upon personal expressions of spirituality?

The questions are further attenuated when assessing the spiritual lives of individuals passing from adolescence into adulthood. As practical theologians and ministry practitioners seek to guide emerging adults toward a deeper sense of “life in the Spirit” (Rom. 8:2), there seems to be a juxtaposition between ingrained catechetical models—commonly held within strong ecclesiastical borders—and the desire to accommodate a holistic sense of authentic Christian faith. The salient question becomes, “How do we help emerging adults acquire a dynamic, nurturing and developing sense of faith?”

The church in this postmodern era—and pastors especially—are uniquely burdened with these challenges and the need to provide specific attention toward fostering models of spiritual growth for all individuals across the lifespan. It is anticipated the following article will provide additional insight and application to the spiritual lives of emerging adults, specifically, for the benefit of ministry within the local church.

CATECHESIS IN CHRISTIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Since the establishment of the religious academy, students have tended to reflect their spirituality along the lines of their unique ecclesiastical training models. As Rhea has rightly said, “In the milieu of Christian higher education, many situational dialects exist and are fostered in order to contribute to the larger, comprehensive educational goal of a Christ-formed mind.”[3] One typically associates the visages of monasticism, asceticism, sacra-traditional liturgy, and High-Church tradition with Catholic and Orthodox forms of spiritual pedagogy. On the other hand, cognitive engagement, emotionally animated, extrinsic homiletic and pedagogical models of faith instruction have classically characterized the Protestant groups. As students enter the halls of their faith-based academies, they soon learn the particular facets of a unique type of spirituality taught to them by their professors.[4] Broadly speaking, Catechesis, in the context of both higher education and the church, “…shapes missional imaginations, which help us recognize God’s activity in Jesus Christ and in us, as Christ calls us to participation in his redemptive work in the world.”[5]

Emerging adulthood, most notably, takes on the resonance of transition and self-discovery in spiritually awakening terms. The twenties can be described as a, “…somewhat chaotic season of high-stakes decision making about jobs, lifestyle housing, and relationships. Young adults at this stage have been characterized as transitional, idling, flexible, trying or tinkering (emphases in original).”[6] As Dean notes, “Scholars now posit emerging adulthood as a youthful life stage of its own, since the development tasks once associated with identity exploration… are increasingly postponed. Most young Americans eschew the title of ‘adult’ until their late twenties or early thirties.”[7] Upon entering college or university, “Students at Christian institutions often find that the combination of Bible classes, chapels, small groups, and campus-sponsored ministries provides all the spiritual nurture that they need.”[8] Even interactions in class on singular subjects such as prayer are,”…not simply pedagogical in the classroom, but also institutional.”[9] In other words, the “curriculum” of higher education aids students in appropriating a particular type of adult spirituality.

Through a comprehensive understanding of spiritual typologies vis-à-vis the “Circle of Sensibility” (see below), differences and similarities between students can be observed and assessed. It becomes imperative to the overall goal of understanding the broader context of spirituality that both the professor and the student be made aware of their similarities as well as their differences. In this way a basic understanding of spiritual types enhances the greater goal within Christian higher education when individuals realize their own unique faith-expressed tendencies, and gain knowledge of the experiences and paths to spiritual growth of others.

THE CIRCLE OF SENSIBILITY & SPIRITUAL TYPE THEORY

In recent decades, researchers have designed instruments and constructed models to investigate and explain how people express their spirituality. Urban T. Holmes III, of particular interest, developed a phenomenological model of spirituality, delineating a concise overview of key concepts characteristic of Eastern and Western Christian traditions.[10]  Using a two-scaled model referred to as the “Circle of Sensibility,” Holmes provides a user-friendly model of understanding Christian spirituality, which is represented diagrammatically along horizontal and vertical axes, (see Figure 1).

According to spiritual type theory, within the Circle of Sensibility it is possible to locate every Christian type of spirituality. Imagine four points on a compass. The horizontal (East /West) axis represents the apophatic and kataphatic scale. By way of definition, “apophatic” and “kataphatic” originate in the Greek (apophatikos and kataphatikos), meaning “negation” and “affirmation” respectively. In historical theological terms, Kataphaticism has been associated within the domain of positive theology and Apophaticism within negative theology.

Kataphatic spirituality describes the revealed God. The kataphatic way makes use of words, symbols, and images to relate to and describe God. The kataphatic advocate uses images and symbols in speaking about one’s relationship and union with God. Kataphaticism “…underscores that God Himself has had a history and that the way to Him is through that history.”[11]

At the other end of the horizontal axis is the apophatic way, a type of spirituality that describes the mystery of God. The apophatic seeks to understand and relate to God through silence, going beyond images and words to mystical union. The apophatic way is one of darkness, emptiness, and the negation of images. Apophaticism “…underscores in an unusually powerful way that the human heart is satisfied by nothing other than God.”[12] Apophaticism “points to the ever-greater God, a God greater than our hearts, the ineffable, the Nameless, utter Mystery, who can be loved only because he has first loved us.”^[13] Apophatic theology and kataphatic theology are both evidenced in a wide variety of Christian literature.^[14]

The vertical (North/South) axis represents the mind and heart scale. At one end of the axis is an illumination of the mind, a thinking, cognitive, intellectual-oriented type of spirituality. The other end of the vertical axis is an illumination of the heart type of spirituality, which focuses on feeling, sensation, and emotion.

According to Holmes, the Circle of Sensibility, “Defines for us that sensitivity to the ambiguity of styles… and the possibilities for a creative dialogue within the person and within the community as it seeks to understand the experience of God and its meaning for our world.”[15] Or as Ware states, “It provides a tool and a method by which to conceptualize and name spiritual experience within a basic framework.”[16]

Sager, building on Holmes’ work, developed an assessing tool utilizing the Circle of Sensibility in evaluating individual tendencies toward a particular type of expressed spirituality.[17] When Sager’s preferred spirituality type inventory is administered, individuals become aware of dominant trends in their expressed spirituality in one of the four spirituality type quadrants (e.g., Apophatic/Mind, Apophatic/Heart, Kataphatic/Mind, Kataphatic/Heart). Sager’s assessment has proved helpful in gaining a deeper understanding of preferred spirituality types.[18]

Corinne Ware further applied both Holmes’ and Sager’s typology of spirituality to personal and congregational expressions of faith.[19]  She developed what is called “The Spirituality Wheel,” which provides a helpful picture-model of contrast and comparison of personal experiences, as they exist within the context of corporate worship, to a preferred type of spirituality. Ware’s theory is built on the premise that when individuals compare themselves to others in the context of communal experiences, they are capable of recognizing their own unique faith patterns and/or preferences.[20]  Ware, in addition to Holmes and Sager, provides greater viability to the potentialities and empirical uses of spiritual type theory.

When spiritual typology schemata have been applied to the context of historical Christian faith, there is generally thought to be a dividing line between expressions of spirituality over time.[21]  Theological disagreement, religio-political posturing, ecclesiastical disparity, and institutional-bound training have only exacerbated the extent of these differences. As a consequence, the sentiment typically shared by Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians alike is that little or no commonality between the groups exists, rather, distinct and separate group differences. In many cases, training models have tended to provide the means by which these differences are encouraged and preserved.[22]

METHOD

Participants

The participants in this study were selected from Corban University. Corban University was founded in Phoenix, Arizona, in 1935. In 1943, the then “Phoenix Bible Institute” was turned over to the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC).^[23] The university has gone through several organizational and operational changes throughout its history. The school’s current denominational affiliation is loosely associated with the GARBC denomination, and is more broadly evangelical—continuing to retain conservative and Baptistic doctrinal roots. Corban has drawn a broad cross-section of evangelical and mainline Protestant students to its campus in its recent history. Corban requires undergraduate students to fulfill twenty-four units of Bible and theology course work, subsequently earning a Bible minor, along with each liberal arts degree.[24]

Spiritual type data was collected by way of convenience samples in each of the spring semesters from 2008-2014, with a total of 227 participants involved in the study. All participants were enrolled in the same upper-division theology class—in the respective semester—from which the data was collected.[25]

The sample of 227 participants was comprised of 110 males and 117 females. The mean age for male participants was 21.3, and 21.5 for females. When asked, “How long (years/months) have you been a Christian,” the average number of years/months participants self-reported was 13.20 years. [26]  Breakdown of denominational affiliation among participants are as follow: 39% Baptist, 13% Evangelical Non-Baptist[27], 44% Evangelical Non-denominational, and 4% Mainline Protestant.

Procedure

Aggregate spiritual type scores for individual participants were determined by administering a spiritual type battery assessment—incorporating self-reporting techniques of a written narrative, a forced-choice preferred spirituality type inventory, and a spirituality type selector test.

Spiritual type data was examined by means of using coding category analysis for the written narrative portion of the assessment (Part I), and verified self-scores on the forced-choice sections of the assessment (Part II and Part III). Correlation analysis for the importance and frequency of practice of spiritual disciplines was also determined.

Participants received all three parts of the spiritual type assessment battery in an inclusive packet. In Part I, entitled “Your Spiritual Story,” the written narrative section of the assessment, participants were asked to write freely on the subject of their self-perceived spirituality. Participants were given no other guidance beyond the initial set of instructions. In this way, Part I serves as a free-response, open-ended type of question, to which participants were asked to compose an answer.^[28]  Data collected from the narrative sections of the battery was obtained, specifically crosschecking uniformity measures in Parts II and III of the assessment.

Analysis of the narrative section was carried out by means of coding category analysis.^[29]  The coding categories for Part I are based upon patterns and regularities inherent in, and characteristic of, spiritual type theory, and the four spiritual types found in the Circle of Sensibility model. Summary scores for each participant was compared to the coding categories established for the study, and independent spiritual type scores was obtained for each participant based upon recurring words, phrases, and themes found in one of the four spiritual type quadrants. Thus, participants involved in this study who obtained a determinately summarized rate of 75 percent on Part I of the assessment were suitably assigned a spiritual type score within one of the four major spiritual type quadrants. If the 75 percent cut-off rate did not reveal definitive patterns and expressions of spirituality associated with the coding categories, a spiritual type score was not given. In the rare case a participant did not receive a spiritual type score for Part I, it most commonly had to do with the participant’s insufficiency to provide clear and adequate information related to their personal story of spirituality (e.g., a participant who only wrote one or two sentences at most, lacking comprehensible detail), or wrote nothing at all.

Part II of the assessment utilized the “Preferred Spirituality Type Inventory.”  The Preferred Spirituality Type Inventory contains 44 forced-choice items—divided across four subsets of paired couplings (subsets A, B, C, and D). Participants were asked to read sets of paired couplings across the page, and then circle the sentence in each coupling that comes closest to describing preferences and habits in their spiritual experience. Participants were asked to answer all questions. In the case that more than one answer applied to how a participant felt, they were instructed to choose only one answer for each pairing.

Combining scores found in subsections A & B and C & D revealed composite spiritual type scores for each participant on Part II of the assessment (e.g., K-/M-, A+/H-, K+/H-, A-/M+, etc.). There are a total of 36 possible outcomes of composite scores. “Positive” scores obtained on both axes (e.g., K+/M+, K+/H+, A+/M+, A+/H+) indicated a tendency in spiritual patterns and expressions of the respondent toward the extreme of a given spiritual type quadrant.^[30]  “Negative” scores on both axes (e.g., K-/M-, K-/H-, A-/M-, A-/H-) indicated a tendency in spiritual patterns and expressions on the part of the respondent to be receptive to the diagonally adjacent, or parallel quadrant’s expressed patterns of spirituality, as well as those found in their own. Variations between the extremes occur as scores reflect both positive and negative mixings between the two axes.

Part III of the assessment battery included the “Spirituality Type Selector Test.” The Spirituality Type Selector Test contains twelve groups of statements regarding corporate and personal expressions of spirituality. The purpose of the test is to “draw a picture” of one’s experience of corporate worship in comparison with their personal style of spirituality.[31]  Each of the twelve groups in the test contains four statements; each corresponding to a particular facet of spirituality as related the four quadrants of spiritual types found within the Circle of Sensibility. Participants were first asked to read through each group of statements and select the statement(s) that best describe their experience with their place of worship group. Participants were then asked to go back through the same group of statements a second time, choosing statements that describe their personal preferences of spiritual experience.

Obtaining a spiritual type score for individual participants in Part III of the assessment consisted of simply counting the number of responses to the place of worship and personal “wheels,” and then assigning a spiritual type score to the quadrant with the greatest number of responses (e.g., K/M, K/H, A/H, A/M). In this way a self-representative and visual score was obtained for individual participants. In rare cases, participant scores resulted in a “tie” between quadrants (i.e., an equal number of responses in two or more quadrants). In the event a tie occurred, participant scores were adjusted according to displayed tendencies along the horizontal and vertical axes. In other words, participants tend to express their spirituality one way or the other toward kataphatic/apophatic and mind/heart extremes. If however, there was no way of adjusting a participant’s score along either the horizontal or vertical axes, then a “combination score” was assigned to the participant for Part III of the assessment.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and distribution of adjusted spiritual type scores of participants are reported in Table 1 and Figure 2. 92 participants (51 male, 41 female) obtained adjusted spiritual type scores of K/M (kataphatic/mind), reflecting 40% of the total sample (N = 227). 109 participants (49 male, 60 female) obtained adjusted spiritual type scores of K/H (kataphatic/heart), reflecting 48% of the total sample.  11 participants (5 males, 6 female) obtained adjusted spiritual type scores of A/H (apophatic/heart), reflecting 5 % of the total sample. 15 participants (5 males, 10 female) obtained adjusted spiritual type scores of A/M (apophatic/mind), reflecting 7 % of the total sample.

DISCUSSION

Spiritual Type Outcomes

Of the 227 participants who participated in this study adjusted scores revealed spiritual types’ representative of all four quadrants in the Circle of Sensibility. The four types, when assessing groups of individuals, have been reported by other researchers as well.[32]  A higher percentage of scores was represented in the K/M (kataphatic/mind) and K/H (kataphatic/heart) quadrants (40% and 48%) for participants. And lower percentages of scores was represented in the A/H (apophatic/heart) and A/M (apophatic/mind) quadrants (5% and 7%).

For the K/M participants, self-reported data was oriented to K/M spiritual type patterns and expressions of faith: daily involvement in Bible reading, seeking spiritual insight from intellectual and scholarly pursuits, looking for spiritual guidance from classroom and learning interactions, seeking God’s will through meditation and what is revealed in selected passages of the Bible and observing ecclesiastical practices (e.g., Bible study, prayer meetings, campus related small group study and discipleship, participation in “Lord’s Supper,” etc.).

The data regarding prayer for K/M spiritual types revealed participants to be uniformly involved in sacramental symbol-oriented types of activities in their prayer life. This was articulated in a variety of ways in the written narratives: learning theology and doctrine in class, attending chapel, participating in Bible studies on/off campus, and praying with the Psalms and other biblical passages. The data also revealed a high concentration of spiritual effort in the area of cognitive-thinking oriented patterns found within the traditional K/M type. One participant noted, “I find prayer exhausting at times… Peace can be found through prayer of course, but more often than not I feel compelled to pray more for others than for myself. I find prayer lists to be helpful and keep me on task.”

The data from participants receiving adjusted spiritual types scores of K/H disclosed emphases focused on sensate patterns and expressions of faith: celebration of expressive worship—especially in chapel services, sharing my spiritual journey with others, times of personal examination and a desire to seek God through personal holiness. By way of example, one participant stated, “I would like to say I express my love to God the most through song, but I think it leans more heavily to the way I interact with people. God has given me the gift of love and compassion for people in my life.”

The data also revealed that for K/H participants’ prayer involves being fed by the Lord Jesus Christ through feeling and sensate expressions. Westerhoff maintains prayer for the K/H type entails: clapping, touching, body movement, shouting, and the free expression of emotion.[33] The written narrative data for K/H participants disclose these kinds of kinesthetic self-expressions. One participant expressed it this way: “I tend to move by body to the sound of the music [in chapel, specifically], and raise my hands if I feel led and moved by the Truths [sic] that are present in the lyrics. I often close my eyes or focus completely on the screen with the words to avoid being distracted by the worship team or anyone else that is present in the room.”

For participants receiving adjusted spiritual type scores of A/H, the data revealed the following kinds of spiritual dispositions: practicing the presence of virtues, seeking the movement of the Holy Spirit, meditation and contemplation, quietness, solitude, sorrow, private time for prayer and reflection and communal engagement through campus relationships. One participant typified the A/H orientation by stating, “…I similarly, ultimately lament the limits of knowledge of God, instead of a felt knowing of God… it has contributed much to my reflective and contemplative nature.”

For A/H participants’ prayer is deeply rooted in the mystical expressions of Christian faith. The data disclosed such expressions by participants are exhibited in the following ways: creating an evolving dialogue with God through prayer, contemplation, experiencing God in “soulful” ways, meditation, silence, solitude, praying in the dark, experiencing the spiritual journey through prayers laden with pain and placing one’s self in a position of engagement with God—specifically in locations on campus where distractions are limited. One participant poignantly revealed A/H tendencies by affirming, “I struggle with prayer existentially and intellectually… I don’t have this nice and routine prayer life. Most of my prayers to God involve questions and various thoughts, hopes, and fears… I think prayer and worship is your life.”

The data descriptions for A/M participants presented the following tendencies: obedience to what the Church requires, devotion to mission-focused engagement (e.g., university sponsored missions trips), consecration of life to God, religious acts of service, seeing Christ in the face of others and experiencing the sufferings of Christ. One participant reflected, “I want to glorify God by serving Him in all my actions. I want to stay saturated in Scripture and prayer so that I can know how to serve Him. I talk to other people about my beliefs/convictions.” This emulates the kind of “striving for justice and peace” associated most commonly with the A/M type.[34]

Prayer for A/M participants’ involves intercession for justice and peace in the world, advancing the mission of the church, seeking personal insight for service and praying for difficult people. As one participant insists, “I love engaging in quiet prayer or reflection with a community of believers as well as on my own. Those reflection times are never long enough though… I think it’s in the quiet that I most often feel and understand the things God is teaching me or processing the situations He leading me through.”

It is apparent from the data that participants view their educational experience as one which endeavors to develop the whole person, in light of integral models of spiritual and academic formation. This is chiefly represented in the collection of spiritual types found within the participants’ self-reported data, when compared to the theological and doctrinal position of their academic institution. The sample, a reflection of its greater population, maintains consistency in being able to accommodate K/M and K/H spiritual types predominately. Even though slight gravitation exists toward the apophatic axis (i.e., 5% AH and 7% AM), the school, nonetheless, seems to foster an environment aligned more so to a kataphatic type of spirituality. As one A/H participant aptly put it, “I’ve always wondered why I was so different from the rest of my peers!”

IMPLICATIONS FOR CATECHETICAL MODELS IN EMERGING ADULT FAITH DEVELOPMENT

As Dean notes: “…every Christian community shares a certain amount of ecclesial DNA, which emerges in ways that are unique to every body of believers.”[35] The “DNA” of catechetical approaches observed within the context of the local church’s ministry can correspondingly be applied to the Christian academy. It is commonly understood that apart from the ministry of the church, the traditional base for training and development of Christian formation in the lives of mid-to-late adolescents happens within the walls of Christian institutions of higher learning. Historically, especially within the United States, a common design for faith formation has borrowed heavily on educational paradigms for information-processing, problem-solving, and application to broader experiences of religious life.[36]

The spiritual and theological pedagogies of Christian colleges and universities embed within their curricular endeavors ways of defining and developing the type of religious heritage they desire to pass onto their students. As Naidoo notes, “Many theology institutions are again envisioning theological education as a formational activity; an activity based on the assumption that the student’s personal appropriation of theology is the most central aspect of theological education.”[37] Setran and Kiesling also state, “Christian colleges move students systematically through a curriculum, educationally mapping a degree that forms a coherent worldview… establishing a clear mission and ethos, identifying a grounded theological vision of spiritual maturity.” [38] And, as already illustrated, these catechetical models tend to borrow heavily from ecclesiastical and denominational historical patterns, forms, and appropriations of Christian faith.

As is often the case, when a parent sends off a son or daughter to university, they hand off the responsibility for religious instruction and training to “experts,” who in turn will provide opportunities for engagement, reflection, and application for a growing and sustaining faith.[39] In youth group we’ve invited “…teenagers to set up chairs for the ice cream social and call it ‘mission.’ We assign teenagers one Youth Sunday a year and call it ‘worship.’ We play games in youth group and call it ‘Christian fellowship’.”[40] The expectation, on the part of youth pastors and college professors alike, is to move beyond these “fake peripherals,” and advocate for a deeper and more responsible outlook on spiritual formation instead.[41]

Dean offers, however, a word of targeted warning to the academy by asserting, “… the best guides for faithful reflexivity are not scholars, but mystics—contemplatives who understand the necessity of temporary apartness from society in order to become detached (decentered) from self-interest…”[42] Her advice is that, “…Christian teaching seeks morphosis, an epistemological transformation so profound that it changes not just what the learner knows, it also changes the learner. Transformative learning reflects the paideia’s emphasis on wisdom and wonder more than modern education’s insistence on data and deconstruction (emphases in original).”[43] This is where the value of an integrative approach to spiritual type theory helps.

A framework for assimilating spiritual type theory into catechetical models for Christian colleges acknowledges the power of an inclusive historical approach to faith formation. As Setran and Kiesling note: “It is absolutely critical for emerging adults to learn and to use the distinct language of Christianity: the creeds, the doctrines, and the biblical vocabulary that shape the contours of the faith community.”[44] Utilizing spiritual type theory, broadening catechetical perspectives to include all of Christian history’s approaches to faith formation’s practices, therein becomes imperative. One cannot expect to accomplish the task of helping mid-to-late adolescents’ spiritual faith formation without acknowledging, learning from, and incorporating the dynamics of both kataphatic and apophatic approaches to spiritual growth.

Individuals at the Christian university “…may feel that their spiritual health is ensured simply by virtue of having ‘accepted Christ’ and prayed a prayer for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.”[45] We must, out of necessity, “…develop a posture of formation that attends to both the external challenges posed by cultural shifts and the internal theological challenges posed by false gospel and the imposter religion of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”[46]  As Smith affirms, “In trinitarian [sic] teaching we are reminded that we are deeply dependent on the ancient creeds to provide the contours or, one might say, the grammar, the architecture for our catechesis and thus for our growth in wisdom… We long for transformational teaching, teaching that leads to wisdom and thus spiritual maturity…”[47] Thus, in catechetical models of Christian higher education’s pedagogy, the divine objective allows a student to encounter the “opposite,” in order to engage with potentialities for continuing spiritual growth. In this way kataphatic engagements set forth what can be said and should be learned and confessed by Christians propositionally, while apophatic engagements invite adolescents to fellowship with God in ways that transcend human capacities.[48]

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of this study, recommendations for continued research, utilizing spiritual type theory, are noted. First, an investigation of catechetical curricular differences between the four spiritual types is warranted. The intention here is to use spiritual type theory in analyzing preferences most commonly found in Bible and theology classes—determining where excesses and deficiencies exist. In an effort to offer a well-round, and holistic, model of catechesis, adjusting to a balance between the extremes is a reasonable response. As this study illustrates, curricular tendencies exist in catering to more heavily kataphatic theological and biblical locations in some settings. In an effort to appropriate a “balanced” approach, apophatic engagements, curricular wise, need to be considered equally. This recommendation should equally extend beyond the halls of academia to spiritual growth patterns exhibited within the local church itself.

Second, a localized study, focusing on investigating the spiritual types of specific denominational church youth groups, is recommended. In an effort to broaden an awareness and understanding of spiritual type theory, observing, analyzing and interpreting adjusted spiritual type scores of participants is warranted. In this way, denominational investigation of spiritual types among youth group participants would enhance a greater understanding of adolescent faith development. This type of investigation would equally uncover the religious instruction advocated within a particular denomination and its potential deficiencies. This, in the end, is an admirable goal for youth ministries seeking to develop well-rounded and effective catechetical models.

Finally, individual pastors and churches should make use of spiritual type theory in assessing their own approach to faith formation within their unique ministry context. This could easily be accomplished by assessing spiritual type outcomes among pastoral staff member, board members, and other key lay leadership positions within the local church. This would expose a general tendency toward either kataphatic or apophatic propensities within their ministries. In addition, an overall assessment of biblical and theological educational methodologies is necessary. In this way, the individual church will note where biases and deficiencies may exist, thus motivating the church toward broadening its overall approach to faith development for all of its parishioners.

ENDNOTES

[1] A longer copy of this article can be found in the Journal of Youth and Theology, 14 (2015) 45-71, published by Brill (http://www.brill.com/products/journal/journal-youth-and-theology).

[2] Romans 8:5 – Those who live according to the flesh have their minds set on what the flesh desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires (NIV). 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 – 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments (NIV).

[3] Rob Rhea. “Exploring Spiritual Formation in the Christian Academy: The Dialects of Church, Culture, and the Larger Integrative Task.” Journal of Psychology & Theology. 39, no.1 (2011), 4.

[4] T. Edwards. “Spiritual Formation in Theological Schools: Ferment and Challenge. A Report of the ATS Shalem Institute on Spirituality.” Theological Education, 17, (1980) 7-52. S. M. Schneiders. “Spirituality in the Academy.” In K. J. Collins, (Ed.). Exploring Christian Spirituality: An Ecumenical Reader (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 249-269.

[5] Kenda Creasy Dean. Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), 63.

[6] Richard Dunn and Jana Sundene. Shaping the Journey of Emerging Adults: Life-Giving Rhythms for Spiritual Transformation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 26.

[7] Dean, 9.

[8] David Setran and Christ Kiesling. Spiritual Formation in Emerging Adulthood: A Practical Theology for College and Young Adult Ministry (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 89.

[9] Mary Kate Morse, “The Teaching of Prayer in Bible Colleges and Seminaries” (2004). Faculty Publications – George Fox Evangelical Seminary. Paper, 1.

[10] Urban T. Holmes. A History of Christian Spirituality: An Analytical Introduction (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 1980, 2002).

[11] H. D. Egan. “Christian Apophatic and Kataphatic Mysticisms.” Theological Studies, 39, (1978), 424.

[12] Ibid, 422.

[13] Ibid, 422.

[14] Two classic works in particular typify the orthodox Christian traditions of apophatic and kataphatic theology and practice. On the apophatic side of the scale, the fourteenth-century devotional classic The Cloud of Unknowing, whose author remains unknown, provides an excellent example of apophatic thought. The Cloud “urges forgetting and unknowing in the service of a blind, silent love beyond all images, thoughts, and feelings – a love which gradually purifies, illuminates and unites the contemplative to the Source of this love” (See Egan, 1978, 413). On the kataphatic end of the spectrum the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyla, written in the sixteenth-century, presents a highly structured symbolic-image oriented approach to spirituality that continues to the present (See also, Kenneth Boa. Conformed to His Image: Biblical and Practical Approaches to Spiritual Formation (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan, 2001), 495).

[15] Holmes, 5.

[16] Corinne Ware. Discover your Spiritual Type: A Guide to Individual and Congregational Growth (New York, NY: The Alban Institute, 1995), 7.

[17] Allen Sager. Gospel-centered Spirituality: An Introduction to our Spiritual Journey (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1990).

[18] Ibid, 31.

[19] Corinne Ware. Discover your Spiritual Type.

[20] Ibid, 35.

[21] H.F. Wit, de. The Spiritual Path: An Introduction to the Psychology of the Spiritual Traditions (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University press, 1994, 1999). Trish Greeves. “Nurturing Spirituality in the Local Church.” Clergy Journal, 78 (5), (2002), 5-7.

[22] Greeves, “Nurturing Spirituality in the Local Church,” 7. Holmes, A History of Christian Spirituality, 4-5.

[23] Corban University. “Picture of Our Past: Corban’s History,” Corban University, accessed October 25, 2014. https://www. corban.edu/history.

[24] Corban University. “Frequently Asked Questions,” Corban University, accessed October 25, 2014. https://inside.corban.edu/visitor/ frequently-asked-questions.

[25] TH463: Biblical Spiritual Formation. Corban University, Salem, Oregon.

[26] Responding to this question required participants to determine the year and month they asked Jesus to be the Lord and Savior of their lives—making a conscious and complete commitment of faith and obedience, as a committed follower of Jesus Christ. Note: this question did not take into account when one was baptized, confirmed, or catechized into a particular church or denomination.

[27] For example: Presbyterian, Evangelical Free, Foursquare, Assembly of God, Christian & Missionary Alliance, etc.

[28] For further description of free-response, open-ended narrative analysis, refer to: C.M. Charles and C.A. Mertler. Introduction to Educational Research, 4th ed. (Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2002), 269.

[29] See for example: R.C. Bogdan and S.K. Biklen. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1992).

[30] See Sager and Westerhoff.

[31] Ware, 49.

[32] See Paul Bosch. “I was a teenage Kataphatic.” Paul Bosch’s Worship Workbench, Essay 24 (January, 1999), accessed October 17, 2002. http://www.worship. ca/docs/ww­24.html. Sager, Gospel-Centered Spirituality. Ware, Discover Your Spiritual Type.

[33] Westerhoff, 56.

[34] Ibid, 58.

[35] Dean, 105.

[36] Ibid, 115.

[37] Martin Percy in Marilyn Naidoo. ” An Empirical Study on Spiritual Formation at Protestant Theological Training Institutions in South Africa.” Religion & Theology 18 (2011) 118.

[38] Setran and Kiesling, 77-78.

[39] Dean, 117.

[40] Ibid, 145.

[41] Ibid, 145.

[42] Ibid, 165.

[43] Ibid, 172. Paideia being the prototype for the church’s earliest forms of education, according to Dean.

[44] Setran and Kiesling, 78.

[45] Ibid, 26.

[46] Ibid, 27.

[47] Gordon Smith. Called to be Saints: And Invitation to Christian Maturity (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 203.

[48] James Payton Jr. Light from the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition (Downers Grove, IL IVP Academic, 2007), 77.

I recently saw a meme featuring a picture of Karl Barth and Emile Brunner. The text read, “For every theologian there is an equal and opposite theologian.” This axiom seems especially apt for the many “Views” books published over the last few years by Zondervan.

Zondervan’s recent volume Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy is especially helpful. This text accurately summarizes the various views possible within the parameters of evangelicalism.

This book strives to gain an overview of five different ways of understanding the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The five contributors are Al Mohler, president of Southern Seminary; Peter Enns, Affiliate Professor of Biblical Studies Eastern University; Michael Bird, Lecturer in Theology at Ridley Melbourne Ministry and Mission College in Australia; Kevin Vanhoozer, Research Professor of Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; and John Franke, Professor of Missional Theology at Yellowstone Theological Institute in Bozeman, Montana.

The book follows the same formula as other “Views” volumes. After an introductory chapter each contributor presents his view and then each of the other authors respond.

The Evangelical Theological Society’s first article in its doctrinal statement reads, “[t]he Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” (The second, and only other, article affirms an orthodox belief in the Trinity.) According to the book’s introduction, ETS’s statement was created because “there was a direct correlation between believing in the accuracy of Scripture and reading Scripture accurately.” (Kindle Locations 59-60).

STRENGTHS OF THE BOOK

I want to highlight four overall strengths of this book, and then I’ll point out a weakness.

The first strength is the book’s demonstration of the broad differences among current theologians regarding biblical inerrancy. On the far right we have Al Mohler who holds to a very conservative view of the doctrine; on the other extreme, Peter Enns is well known for his opposition to nearly everything Mohler and other conservative theologians stand for.

Mohler and Enns draw the borders of the conversation, and it’s up to the other authors, especially Bird and Vanhoozer, to highlight the nuances.

Mohler’s penchant for confessional theology is betrayed when he announces his allegiance to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI). He states,

Without reservation, I affirm the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. I affirm               the document and agree with its assertions in whole and in part. To be true to the                 Scriptures, I believe, evangelicals must affirm its stated affirmations and join in its                 stated denials. (Kindle Locations 679-681).

Without reservation? That’s quite a pledge of allegiance. I wonder if Athanasius could have affirmed the Nicene Creed without some reservation. Anyway, Mohler’s wholehearted affirmation allows him to use the Chicago statement as an interpretive tool. When he exegetes some tricky biblical passages he frequently says, “according to the Chicago statement . . . .” Mohler, then, clearly shows us the most conservative position on inerrancy.

Many critics of the contemporary strands of confessionalism (especially amongst Baptists) wonder if confessionalism might be a form of credalism. Confessions are descriptive; they tell us what a group thinks. Creeds, on the other hand, are prescriptive in that they tell a member of a group how they should think. When Mohler uses the Chicago statement to guide his interpretations it seems this statement has morphed from confession to creed.

On the other extreme, Enns doesn’t even want to use the word inerrancy. One wonders why Enns still wants to be associated with evangelicals when he seems so intent on disagreeing with so many fundamentally held beliefs like inerrancy and the historicity of Adam. Enns rightly points out that “inerrancy has been a central component of evangelicalism for its entire history, a response to the challenges of biblical higher criticism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.” (Kindle Locations 1373-1375). If, as he mentions, inerrancy is a part of evangelicalism’s DNA, why not just join a different community with a less stringent view of the truthfulness of the Bible?

The second strength of this book is that it clearly locates inerrancy as a culturally bound expression of Bibliology. The doctrine of inerrancy cannot be historically separated from Schleiermacher nor epistemologically separated from Descartes. In other words, the doctrine of inerrancy is a way of saying that the Bible is completely truthful at a particular time in a particular culture.

Orthodox Christians have been forced to describe the Bible’s truthfulness in more relevant terms because of theological liberalism’s critical mass. This doesn’t mean inerrancy is an innovation; it means that the belief about scriptural truthfulness might be described in ways not familiar to Luther and Calvin. It is anachronistic to say that the Reformers or Church Fathers believed in the Bible’s truthfulness in exactly the same way we do. There is no way that they could have communicated the specific dangers of form criticism’s potential to divorce the Bible from its historical setting.

Bird, an Australian, is particularly helpful when he essentially holds to the tenants of biblical inerrancy without using the specific word. He believes inerrancy carries a lot of bad press outside of the United States. Bird avers, “the American inerrancy tradition, though largely a positive concept, is essentially modernist in construct, parochially American in context, and occasionally creates more exegetical problems than it solves.” (Kindle Locations 2454-2456).

We need to listen closely to our brother from Down Under. In another helpful section Bird builds the context even more. “Here is the problem: there are thousands of churches around the world that are both evangelical and orthodox and get on with their ministry without ever having heard of the CSBI and without ever using the word inerrancy in their statement of faith.” (Kindle Locations 2606-2607).

The third strength of the book is its establishment of inerrancy as a descriptive rather than a prescriptive doctrine. Many errors are the result of going beyond inerrancy’s claim that the Bible is inerrant to the claim that a particular interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. As Vanhoozer states, “After all, what is inerrant is the text, not our interpretation.” (Kindle Location 1121).

Vanhoozer skillfully unfolds a necessarily complex and nuanced understanding of inerrancy that is worth the price of the book:

I propose the following definition: to say that Scripture is inerrant is to confess faith             that the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make                             affirmations), and will eventually be seen to have spoken truly (when right readers               read rightly). (Kindle Locations 3569-3571).

The idea of “right readers reading rightly” is brilliant. When Franke, in his chapter, eschews any notion of strong foundationalism he fails to offer a good epistemological alternative. Vanhoozer’s notion of “reading rightly” leaves room for a way of seeing knowledge as more dependent on the Holy Spirit’s intervention. Vanhoozer’s definition might make possible a view of epistemology that combines the strengths of a thoroughgoing correspondence theory with Plantinga’s Reformed epistemology. The Bible is completely true, and the Holy Spirit confirms this through a properly functioning sensus Divinitatus.

The fourth strength is the inclusion of two of the most refreshing theologians writing today, Kevin Vanhoozer and Michael Bird. Vanhoozer shines in these view books because he is forced to succinctly summarize his complex views in a limited amount of pages. Bird’s sense of orthodoxy and humor is very refreshing in a theological landscape that often celebrates dry prose.

Some of the more “serious” authors don’t seem to get Bird’s jokes, but he really is funny. For example, Bird reports that Enns’ views on the Bible “have courted more controversy than Kim Kardashian’s attending a Jihadists-for-Jesus fundraiser.” (Kindle Locations 2018-2019).

In great humor, Bird makes a serious argument:

To insist on inerrancy as the singular doctrinal device for global evangelicalism’s affirmation of scriptural authority makes about as much sense as insisting that African, Asian, or Australian sports fans abandon their enthusiasm for local sports and start following American football instead. We internationals have our own form of tackle football; it is called rugby. We like it better than American football because American football looks wimpy in comparison. Rugby is an international sport with a world cup, while American football is played by the USA— oh, and Canada. Rugby is continuous, whereas American football has more breaks than a Harley-Davidson on Route 66.

Rugby was the game played by the great Scottish missionary Eric Liddell, while                American football was the game played by O. J. Simpson. I rest my case! (Kindle Locations 2896-2902).

WEAKNESS

The only real weakness in the book is the editors’ desire to have each author interpret three different passages to show how their view of inerrancy plays out in the real biblical world. It was never really clear why these sections were even in the book. Some authors didn’t spend a lot of time in interpretation and others dedicated a lot of their chapters in this exercise. These exegetical exercises didn’t really help explain their specific ideas about inerrancy and the book would have been better focused without them.

CONCLUSION

In the world where a new “views” book seems to be published every month, it’s hard to know which ones deserve our time and attention. You will do well to invest in this book.

Inerrancy might be the most important in-house discussion happening among evangelicals today. This book will surely draw the borders of the debate while also educating us about how we should understand the book that defines who we worship and how we worship.

As a student at Dallas Theological Seminary, I was taught how to begin with Scripture in the original text and end with a sermon that grew naturally out of my study of the text. This involved translating, analyzing, and organizing the material in order to communicate the message of the author in a way that was relevant and clear. This approach to study has proven a powerful tool and an effective practice for Bible expositing preachers around the world. Herb Bateman has encapsulated the six semesters of training into a single book, using the General Epistles from which to draw examples.

Dr. Bateman begins this fine work discussing Greco-Roman letter writing. This chapter is an excellent resource for those unfamiliar with the subject. Additionally, he provides a helpful discussion of pseudonymity and the use of an amanuensis to defend the apostolic authorships of Peter, James, and Jude.

His discussion of background information (Chapter 2) is helpful to see the broad picture of the history and cultural developments in Judea as they might impact the New Testament writers and audiences. He is balanced in his approach toward the use of historical background in understanding the General Epistles. For example, though he notes similarities between James and Qumran’s wisdom literature, he rejects the idea of James being influenced by the Essenes, and suggests rather that both spoke from the larger context of a Jewish understanding of wisdom characteristic of their society and evident in the literature from every area of Judaism (73-79). He places the biblical theology of the General Epistles under the rubric of “God’s twofold strategic program,” “to reestablish his kingdom rule on earth and to redeem a people to enter into that kingdom” (91, italics his). He provides an excellent discussion of the various Old Testament covenants and their relationship to Israel and the Church. Their fulfillment has been “inaugurated” in the church age, but their ultimate fulfillment awaits Jesus’ return (95-116). He says that the General Epistles affirm that “the redemptive portion of his [God’s] program has been achieved in the humanity of Jesus” (106) and that God’s “strategic plan” will be “consummated” in the Millennial kingdom (113). Thus he is a consistent dispensationalist in his interpretive approach to the Old Testament.

As he moves toward the practical aspects of study and sermon preparation, he first discusses the specific biblical theologies of each of the General Epistles. He does excellent work in synthesizing their major contributions and summarizing the details of the theology of each epistle. Though one might not agree with every detail of his interpretations in this section, he explains his views clearly and concisely in such a way as to be very helpful.

The strength of this book is the process it provides for the exegete. Dr. Bateman accomplishes this by describing a nine-step process for studying the General Epistles (Chapters 4-6). Though the General Epistles remains his focus when illustrating each step, this process is just as applicable for the study of any other literature in the Bible. His nine steps are:

1. Translate your passage from the Greek text.
2. Find the interpretive issues in your passage.
3. Identify major textual problems, whether it is noted in an English or Greek text.
4. Interpret its structure.
5. Interpreting style, syntax, and semantics.
6. Interpreting words.
7. Making an exegetical outline.
8. Identifying the central idea of a passage in order to communicate it.
9. The sermon itself (last step).

Some of the most helpful material from these sections included his discussion of structural outlines, chiasms and inclusions, the exegetical outline, and the subject-complement statement. His definition of a structural outline and explanation of its purpose are both clear and helpful (173). His discussion of chiasms and inclusions is clear and convincing that these are important literary structures to look for in large passages as well as sentences (187-91). He provides examples that are helpful is seeing the process and product of an exegetical outline. And he explains a subject-complement approach to summarizing the author’s message that shows its usefulness to the exegete (231-32). In all of this he provides excellent examples from his own practice that are easy to understand and appreciate the point he is making.

This is a very practical book, well written, and a valuable resource that will not just sit on the shelf. For the experienced preacher or Bible teacher, it provides great reminders and new insights into the study and communication of Scripture. For the student who wants to develop exegetical skills that will provide a solid foundation from which to preach or teach, this is a great instructional manual.

I commend this work and appreciate the contribution is can make to all who study it.

Corbett and Fikkert move beyond the argument that short-term mission trips are harmful to communities and demonstrate poor stewardship, to a careful explanation of how these trips harm. Then they lay out a comprehensive solution and provide a set of resources for short trips that includes a Leader’s Guide, Participant’s Guide and online videos.

The Leader’s Guide is divided into four sections of short, thought-provoking chapters that conclude with “Takeaways” so that the reader can immediately apply what was learned. In the brief introduction, the authors explain the “why” of the book and give suggestions about how to use it. “Part One: A Different Sort of Trip” guides the reader through an assessment of short term trips, describing both positive and less-than-positive outcomes. The authors argue that the cumulative effect of approximately 1.6 million adult Americans attempting to alleviate poverty in one to two week chunks is actually harmful to the visited communities, as well as to long term mission and development efforts. (This material is a condensed and slightly reorganized version of a chapter from When Helping Hurts by the same authors.) The next chapters present a vision for how to participate in God’s mission to reconcile the world to Himself in wholeness, including an explanation of poverty, again drawn from When Helping Hurts. Finally, the authors lay a foundation for brief trips that will do the most good and least harm based on the principles outlined in preceding chapters. The new paradigm is three parts discipleship to one part trip. The goal of the trip is to promote fellowship between the sending and receiving communities. Participants build understanding and demonstrate good-will as they discover resources, needs and priorities for service together.

The third section of the book consists of concrete and practical guidance for discovering potential partners on the field, deciding upon an approach, sharing vision, identifying leaders, gathering a team, and designing a program of discipleship around the trip.  More pages of the book are dedicated to the implementation of the new approach to short trips than to theory. The emphasis is on providing guidance and practical tools in order to apply concepts of healthy and effective cross-cultural work. The final section of the book is a replica of the Participant’s Guide that includes notes for the leader on effectively guiding interactive training sessions.

The Participant’s Guide provides brief readings to accompany the videos, along with questions to provoke reflective self-discovery and group discussions. It covers some pre-trip training, though more pages are dedicated to facilitating reflection and processing during the “trip” and “post trip” segments. The focus of the Participant’s Guide is on informing, encouraging and holding participants accountable with the goal of a transformational experience.

The videos repeat essential points also covered in the Leader’s Guide, as well as some thoughts that echo ideas in When Helping Hurts. A video format is well-suited to a generation who are more accustomed to taking in information through video than through printed materials. On the other hand, some viewers may become bored with shots of each of the authors presenting points from the book against a black backdrop. While the Participant’s Guide includes QR codes for the online resources, it would be helpful to make DVDs available as well for those who lack the appropriate apps and/or reliable internet access.

The books are written in personable and non-judgmental tones. The reasoning and explanations are clear and focused. Statistics and credible sources make convincing arguments. The authors suggest enough resources to guide and satisfy the person who wants to know more without overwhelming him or her. Suggestions and recommendations for developing and carrying out a trip are immensely practical. It is readily apparent that the authors put their real life knowledge and experience to work so that their audience will not have to reinvent the wheel or make the same mistakes.

Corbett and Fikkert are knowledgeable and experienced guides explaining complex realities and carefully reviewing relevant details of the terrain ahead. Straight-forward, balanced, kind, and humble, their writing demonstrates that these men have the best in mind for all parties involved – short term teams, sending churches, donors, long term workers, receiving communities, and most importantly God and His honor and glory. Though Helping Without Hurting resources were specifically developed for short-term teams in poverty alleviation contexts, the authors’ descriptions of paternalism and typical cultural misunderstandings of short term visitors, along with the questions provided for reflection and discussion are valuable for any short term team.

The debate over origins within the Evangelical community continues to morph into new issues. With the continued influence of critical scholarship on evangelical scholars, it has become more and more acceptable to interpret Scripture as an almost purely human work, with the authors trapped within the worldviews of their neighboring cultures, and God accommodating His truth to match their mistaken scientific perspectives. This has now led to differing perspectives on the reality and role of Adam and Even in the history of mankind.

To this new debate, Zondervan has contributed another helpful comparative work in which four “Evangelical” views on whether Adam is a historical person or not are presented with interaction between the for contributors. I found this very helpful and would commend it to anyone wishing to stay current with the continuing debate over the age of the earth and exactly how God created it.

Dennis Lamoureux presents us with a distinctly minority view within evangelicalism in his chapter, “No Historical Adam: Evolutionary Creation View.” He sees the Genesis account as an example of God accommodating revelation to the scientific level of the original audience “in order to communicate inerrant, life-changing spiritual truths” (41). He considers nature as “the Book of God’s Works” that reveals truth equal to the “Book of God’s Words,” the Bible (42). Genesis 1-11 is “a unique type of literature (literary genre) that is distinct from the rest of the Bible” (44). He argues that “the Holy Spirit graciously descended to the level of the inspired authors and used the science-of-their-day as an incidental vessel to reveal inerrant Messages of Faith”(55). He eventually concludes: “Adam’s existence is based ultimately on an ancient conceptualization of human origins: de nova creation. To use technical terminology, Adam is the retrojective conclusion of an ancient taxonomy. And since ancient science does not align with physical reality, it follows that Adam never existed” (58). Ultimately the examples of accommodation he uses from the New Testament proves to be hermeneutically unsound and are readily answered by the other three respondents.

John Walton gives us a second view on Adam in his chapter entitled, “A Historical Adam: Archetypal Creation View.” He argues that Adam and Eve were real people, but not especially the first humans. They only represent all of humanity but were not the original parents from whom all of humanity came (89). He believes their role in subsequent Scripture (NT) is always archetypal and therefore need not be historical figures (90). He sees them and their literary role based on the ANE literature and is therefore using that literature to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 (90-91) though he later admits that there are no parallels among the ANE creation accounts (98-99). For him the description of Adan’s creation is literary and archetypal rather than literal (98). He uses poor hermeneutics and misses the figurative language and figures of speech, all of which point to literal things. Often he uses arguments from silence to discuss or explain passages and make them archetypal uses of Adam. I would describe his approach as creating a literary category the authors of Scripture were not thinking in.

C. John Collins addresses the issue from an Old-Earth model in his chapter entitled, “A Historical Adam: Old-Earth Creation View.” In his view the six creation days “are God’s workdays, analogous to human workdays and not necessarily the first six days of the whole universe. Genesis 1 presents God as if he were a workman, going through his week, so that we can celebrate the creation as a magnificent achievement” (145, italics his). He, too, builds much of his argument from ANE literature, and even argues they did not take their stories literally (152). I would disagree in that there is nothing in their literature to indicate that they did not take their stories literally. In fact, it is far more likely that they did! He is very helpful in answering evolutionists and has some great insights. For example, he argues, “To the extent we base our inference entirely on, say, features of DNA, to the exclusion of other relevant kinds of evidence, we must also include such things as the aspects of human existence that are universally human and that are uniquely human” (165, italics his). He then shows the difference between humans and chimpanzees and gorillas in such things as language acquisition, art, craving for justice, and a sense that things are not the way they should be, all which he feels may constitute the image of God.

Finally, William D. Barrick addresses the issue from a Young Earth model in his chapter, “Historical Adam: Young Earth Creation View.” He spends little space defending his Young Earth view, which is good. His arguments tend to be more theological and focuses on the impact the story has on theology (219). He responds well to the misuse of ANE literature, and should be quoted at length “Similarities between the Israelite and the Mesopotamian materials need not require Israelite dependence on the Mesopotamian. Past and present scholars sometimes overstate the similarities while understating the differences. Genesis 1 does not offer a specific or direct ideological polemic. The biblical account of creation contains no description of God at war in any cosmic conflict among the gods, nor any victory enthronement motif, as one sees with these ancient Near Eastern myths. … With regard to the historicity of the biblical Adam, the Genesis account distinguishes itself from the ancient Near Eastern stories by the clear declaration that God created only one human pair (monogenesis) as compared to the polygenistic beliefs of other ancient peoples in the region.” (224)

Reading this book has renewed my interest in the origins debate as well as alerting me to the dangers of accommodating ourselves to science or extra-biblical sources, all of which are limited in what they can and do tell us about origins. I recommend it for those who wish to know more about the hermeneutical issues and the impact these views have on other areas of theology. It does matter what we believe about origins, not so much with regard to our justification, but very much with regard to our trust in the Scriptures.