Monthly Archives: January 2014

“When Elisha returned to Gilgal, there was a famine in the land. As the sons of the prophets were sitting before him, he said to his servant, ‘Put on the large pot and boil stew for the sons of the prophets.’  Then one went out into the field to gather herbs, and found a wild vine and gathered from it his lap full of wild gourds, and came and sliced them into the pot of stew, for they did not know what they were.  So they poured it out for the men to eat. And it came about as they were eating of the stew, that they cried out and said, ‘O man of God, there is death (poison, NLT) in the pot.’ And they were unable to eat. But he said, ‘Now bring meal.’ And he threw it into the pot, and he said, ‘Pour it out for the people that they may eat.’ Then there was no harm in the pot.’” – 2 Kings 4:38-41

“and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them” – from Mark 16:18.

While my ponderings here are not direct exegesis of the passages above, I want to incorporate two themes from them in a broader discussion. I recently attended a Christian conference where I presented a paper. I sat in on the four plenary sessions and attended other sessions during the conference to hear what others had to say on a myriad of topics. Some of the sessions addressed key hot topics in current Church discourse including interfaith dialog, sexual orientation, environmentalism, evolution, and so on. Some of what was shared was, to put it mildly, pushing the envelope of orthodoxy. As I listened, I also prayed that God would give me ears to hear and eyes to see what He was up to in this conference and within me in particular in being present to hear and see the goings on. In the end, I had to walk away clinging to the unity of the Spirit present within each who claim Christ as Lord and Savior no matter where we might disagree on doctrine or praxis. That is a very tall order.

I came away with the impression that God’s intention in my learning by being there was twofold, both requiring self-reflection and Bible reflection.

First, as seems always to be the case, the conference presented an opportunity to rely on God for discernment, that is, for discerning the spirit of the things being shared (1 Corinthians 12:10). That is most often accomplished by “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). This latter is a reliance on the voice of the Holy Spirit, especially as it unfolds the Bible’s meanings for us.

Hebrews 5:14 says “solid food is for the mature, who because of practice have their senses trained to discern good and evil.” Two questions arose. 1) Am I “mature” in Christ, able to discern good and evil? And, 2) what was I discerning? Mostly, I discerned truth in love, I believe. The heart of compassion of most of the presenters seemed apparent. Their intentions seemed good no matter what I might think of their general approach or methodologies. On the other hand, some presentations left me a bit uneasy. But discernment only works if I can also rightly divide between that which disturbs my flesh (ego) – “I don’t really want to think ‘X’ is acceptable, because I want to cling to what I ‘know’” – or my spirit – “This is something I need to be open to to grow in Christ because, in this, I am falling short.” As should be obvious, any disturbance in one has a corresponding disturbance in the other.

Second, I need to be exposed to ideas that make me uncomfortable, to force me into deeper prayer and study and to allow the Holy Spirit to convict me where my own views are less than holy and to strengthen me where I may have already arrived at Truth. Let us consider the two passages above in this approach.

The stew was made with the fruit of wild plants. Everything from God is good but not everything in creation is now good given the introduction of sin into the world at Adam’s fall. The Bible consistently encourages us that creation reveals the glory of God. We do not know what that fruit (the gourds thrown into the pot in the passage above) was, just that it obviously was not good. But Elisha added meal, some form of ground flour or corn, to the pot, and the stew was made good. He did not eliminate that which we might have equated to sin (death) in the pot . . . he redeemed it, making it good, by the simple addition of one more ingredient, what we call grace, which “removed” (or at least, neutralized) the poisoning effect of the bad fruit.

Consider that in light of my exposure to new ideas or ways of thinking theologically or interpreting biblically. Both knowing God (theology) or the Bible thoroughly are beyond the comprehension of any single mind or lifetime. We all “see as through a glass darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12). This is simply a function of our finitude in the face of an infinite God. So, I should always be aware of my limitations and understand that in those quarters where I fall short of God’s holiness (many of which I am blind to), exposure to new ideas will disturb the status quo. But in those areas, the introduction of that one new ingredient may well be God’s redemptive stroke to transform me incrementally from glory to glory into the image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18), moving me along the path of growing intimacy with God.

On the other hand, what if that one new idea is a deception, either as a come-on by the enemy or a worldly temptation to satisfy my own flesh (ego)? Should I cloister myself behind the walls of a fortress to guard myself from such possibilities? I think not, as the Psalmist wrote: God goes before us (into spiritual battle) and is also our rear guard (139:5). Hence, I can be assured that what may be poisonous (Mark 16:18 above) will not harm me. I believe and can trust in this only insomuch as I believe God is greater than any threat that other influences may represent. Again, as the Psalmist says, “Even though I walk through the valley of shadow of death, I will fear no evil” (23:4). Why? Because perfect love casts out fear, even of judgment if I should stumble (1 John 4:18) and because God is (perfect) love (1 John 4:8). Who (or what) can stand against me? (Romans 8:31). Whom shall I fear? (Psalm 27:1).

But why would we willingly enter into discussion with those we may even think are advancing the enemy’s agenda unawares? For one, we cannot witness to those with whom we have no contact. We cannot find a child lost in the woods if we stay on the safe, beaten path and avoid the risks of entering the treacherous terrain of the wilderness. But we can enter any place with confidence before the roaring lion seeking our destruction (1 Peter 5:8) because we are assured that the gates of Hades will not prevail against God’s Church (Matthew 16:18). That is, the Church, by taking the battle to the enemy and attacking those gates, will triumph over death itself just as Christ has already done. And, entering that battle, we “do not fear those who kill the body, but are unable to kill the soul” (Matthew 10:28a).

God is on the offensive in the spiritual battle for the redemption of all creation. The Incarnation was God walking right into the enemy’s camp, “the ruler of this world” (John 12:31). In those environs we do not have to be offensive and combative . . . we need only be holy and present according to the pattern of Jesus coming to the world in the flesh. Holy presence changes things but only as love / holiness is willing to self-sacrifice. Jesus said “Love your enemies” (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35). Demonstrate the living presence of God in your life in sacrificial ways. Embrace them and support them where you can. Show them you mean them no harm. Even allowing their ideas and words to be stirred into your pot, remember all the while that where the stew may be made poisonous, a little meal of the Bread of Life, can make it sweet and nourishing. Only by our own sacrifice, leaving our safe houses and running the risk of being rejected, even killed, may redemption come! Living for God in the face of death (separation from God) in the world is our calling to follow Jesus.

One of the most influential writings in history, The Art of War by Sun Tzu, mandatory reading for any candidate for military leadership, offers sage advice for Christians. Sun Tzu admonishes would-be warriors to “know thy enemy.” He also advises to “know thyself.” This is exactly why sports coaches constantly watch film of their upcoming opponents. Everyone has weakness(es). By close observation, those weaknesses can be perceived in the opponent and in ourselves, the former to serve as the target of our attack, the latter the place of our own shoring up. Even when we fail, the redemptive stroke is in our reflection to understand where our breakdown came.

Judo is another good example where the kinetic energy of the attacker is turned against the attacker. What the attacker perceives as strength – their speed and agility – becomes their downfall. David slew Goliath because Goliath’s ego had convinced the giant that he was so powerful as to be beyond any measure of attack from the puny Israelites. His pride, the ego behind the forehead penetrated by David’s stone, was his downfall.

Two more Bible stories show us that when we enter into the camps of the enemy, God goes before us. When Gideon’s 300 broke their clay pots, confusion reigned in the enemy’s camp and the Midianites were turned against each other, slaying their own comrades and ending in the utter destruction of that army (Judges 6-7). We find also that Jonathan and his armor bearer were able to overcome the Philistines by first putting themselves at risk then, by the boldness of their action, all of Israel, even those cowering in fear in the hills, was rallied to triumph and set the people free (1 Samuel 14:1-23).

In the end, just as Daniel was encouraged and strengthened by God (Daniel 10:19), we need not fear coming under the oppressive power of any enemy. Victory in Christ is already ours. We can eat of whatever is set before us without fear of our own corruption (Acts 10) but by so doing, we may gain access for witness to the unholy, like the smallest lamp dispelling the deep darkness of a place previously without light. Stir the pot of your own thinking. Expose yourself to the ideas that may now offend and the people expressing tem. Let God add the meal, to be the wheat of your consumption, to sweeten the pot and bring whatever seems poisonous to redemption.

(This paper was read at the Re-Imagining Faith: For America & the World conference on Thursday, January 9, 2014 at Georgetown College, Georgetown, Kentucky).

Last April, 535 delegates gathered in Chiang Mai, Thailand for the Global Business-as-Mission Congress, many delegates were from countries closed to Christian evangelism. The global, virtual think tank that preceded that convention has produced thirty issue papers. Topics range from the biblical and theological foundations of the marketplace to business as mission models that combat sex trafficking to mobilizing marketplace Christians in the developed world.

One block from the convention site sits the Zion Café. This small restaurant shares a common wall with a brothel where young women on bar stools line the curb each evening as living advertisements. The Zion Café serves as a place of respite from the streets and a launch point of daily outreach ministry to the hundreds of young prostitutes working in the surrounding neighborhoods.

In October, the Christian Community Development Association held its annual national convention in New Orleans. Among more than one hundred workshops on every aspect of community development, eight of those workshops focused on small business development, social entrepreneurship, and job creation as tools for fighting urban poverty.

In recent years, more than three dozen books have been written on the integration of business and mission, especially as an effective means of holistic witness. Business as mission, or BAM, witnesses to the glory of God by taking an axe to the roots of poverty as it is coupled with preaching the Gospel. Most BAM initiatives to date involve micro-lending and developing microenterprises in developing economies.[i]

I share these things to illustrate some of the variety and the proliferation of market-based ministries springing up around the world.

Henry Blackaby summed up Jesus’ earthly ministry as a call to every Christian to be evangelistic witnesses to the glory of God. He wrote: “Watch to see where God is at work and join Him”(69).[ii]  The growth in number and variety of marketplace ministries around the world the last two decades looks something like the beginnings of an exponential curve. Ken Eldred titled his own book, God is at Work (2005), and many missiologists justifiably argue that it is time for us to join Him.

But what can or should we do? Without theological clarity in answering the call to marketplace ministry, we risk religious disasters that could leave those ministered to worse off than in their beginning, now poor AND disillusioned.

I took part in the Global Business-as-Mission Think Tank and was a contributor to the issue paper on the biblical foundations of business as mission. This came about a year and a half after the publication of my book on marketplace theology, Eden’s Bridge: The Marketplace in Creation and Mission.

As a serial entrepreneur called to seminary to study the integration of Christian faith and economics, my biblical journey began with Deuteronomy 8:18. It reads, in part, “Remember the LORD your God, for it is He who is giving you power to make wealth, that He may confirm His covenant which He swore to your fathers.” This passages presents a couple of questions: how does God give us the ability to create wealth and how does it confirm His covenant with Israel?

Somewhere along my way, I became convinced the marketplace is a creation of God but could not point to particular Scriptures to validate my thesis. However,t if business is part of God’s created order, it is not unreasonable to expect to find biblical support.

I began to re-read Genesis 1 and 2 through economic lenses. There are three components necessary to facilitate most production – energy, raw materials, and labor. God created a life-supporting, self-sustaining ecosystem, full of energy and raw materials. He then created Adam to work within and manage its further development. In economic perspective, the earth-sun ecosystem is the primary means of production and source of all the amenities of modern life.

Adam’s roles, as laborer and caretaker, are clear in Genesis 2:15. To date, most market related studies have focused on theologies of work and stewardship. But simply combining labor and management, that is, work and stewardship, does not a market make. There is still a missing ingredient: someone with whom to trade goods and services.

“God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’” But, why is it not good for Adam to be alone?

The Garden was designed to flourish, to increase in abundance to serve humankind’s physical needs. In part, it was not good for Adam to be alone because humankind was also intended to flourish as a critical component of the created order. There are three distinct ways that Adam’s isolation was a hindrance to his prosperity.

First, Adam could not prosper materially. His productive output was limited by his own capacity. The first mention of Eve is as a helpmate, a co-worker. The marketplace needs energy, materials, and labor, but it is ultimately founded upon the division of labor and consumption. Specialization and exchanges between workers increase efficiency and create new wealth. Eve’s role as helpmate was for Adam’s immediate prosperity by improving productivity.  Her role as wife is a projection of future proliferation.

Second, Adam could not prosper intellectually. God could have given Adam unlimited knowledge and wisdom and perhaps Adam could have produced miraculous output. But God, for whatever reason, did not. Together, Adam and Eve could collaborate. Eve’s presence offered an alternative intellectual perspective. And today we can easily identify an abundance of business and leadership literature on the value of collaboration.

Finally, being alone, Adam could not prosper spiritually. I like to say that holiness occupies empty space. Practices of holiness and evil occur only within relationships. Adam could relate to God but God had no need of Adam. Holiness, as opposed to egocentrism, only exists where deference, respect, cooperation, and collaboration take the welfare of others into account. The Trinity perfectly demonstrates mutuality. Adam was created as an individual but an incomplete reflection of the image and likeness of God without Eve. Adam was created a communal being. We are holy only in relationship to peers so even our spiritual needs are best met in community.

These three – material, intellectual, and spiritual prosperity – answer the shortcomings of Adam’s isolation. Exchanges of goods and services between Adam and Eve, and amongst human actors ever since, summarily labeled “the marketplace” or “business,” serve several related functions in creation and God’s redemptive mission in the world.[iii]

Three functions of business emerge from the preceding discussion. First, the marketplace allows us to flourish economically. The marketplace meets (and often exceeds) our temporal needs. By economic participation, whole nations flourish.

Second, the marketplace requires intellectual development in vocational disciplines. Specialization provides opportunity to pursue specific interests, tailored to personalities, gifts, talents, education, experience, and opportunity all toward fulfilling vocational lives and accelerating economic growth.

And third, every exchange is an opportunity to practice holiness. Exchanges can serve as places of spiritual formation and discipline as they reveal and shape both our character and attitudes. Sadly, we have largely subsumed our economic holiness to the self-indulgence of materialism and consumerism. We have taken God’s blessed abundance, the outcomes of organizing complex economies, and enslaved it for our own desires and pleasures. We have lost sight of the transience of holiness, that the blessings we receive must pass through us to be truly effective. It is within the process of giving away that we are most acutely spiritually formed and transformed into the image of Christ (2 Cor 3:18).

There are two more functions of business in God’s created order. The first is apparent throughout Scripture as it reminds us that creation reveals the glory of God. If we accept business as a vital component in the created order, then its practice should reveal the nature, character, and will of God.[iv] According to James 1:17, any good that business does comes from God.

The last function is closely connected to both revelatory grace and to spiritual formation. Good will come of the righteousness of intentional Christian practitioners. In this way, the final function carries over from God’s self-revelatory intent to become our witness in the redemptive mission of God. Our wealth developing works serve as witness to the Gospel and are inherent to it, especially as good news to the poor.

To illuminate the holistic nature of integrated vocation and faith, let’s revisit Genesis 2:15: “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.” God did not command Adam to work.[v] To cultivate and keep the Garden are inherent

to defining what it means to be image-bearing humanity. God does command work elsewhere in the Bible but only to correct sinful flesh which prefers sloth to escape the tedium and struggles of work in a fallen creation.

Cultivate in this verse, or otherwise translated as till or work, is from the Hebrew term `abad. This is the same term used when the Levitical priests are appointed to serve, to `abad, in the Temple. It is also used in Exodus 7:16 where Moses entreats Pharaoh to allow the Israelites to worship, to `abad God in the desert.

`Abad is also translated as the imposition of hard labor by the Egyptians in Exodus 1:14, and even as bondage in Exodus 6:5. The intentionality and intensity of `abad come with great expectation, even demand, by authority over workers. And, it is consistent with the use of the term bondslave to characterize our relationship to Christ in the New Testament. To `abad for God is to work, to serve, and to worship simultaneously.

So how does biblical economics work out in Christian life? John Wesley was concerned that Christian transformation, through the abandonment of vice and the adoption of frugality, would lead to increased wealth and the temptations of self-indulgence.

By response, in Sermon 50: The Use of Money, Wesley reduced economic obedience to God to three simple steps. The first was that Christians should earn all they can, so long as the means and the product were righteous. That is, neither is to pose physical, mental, or spiritual harm to the worker or the surrounding culture. Wesley found offense in the production of hard liquor for its direct harm to the drinker, their family, and their community, and for the over use of grains leading to shortages of bread.

Second, Wesley believed Christians should save all they can. Saving was not about storing up treasures on earth but a call to simple living and frugal spending. Wesley taught that once basic needs are met,[vi] greater satisfaction comes in doing good rather than in the accumulation of money or things. By discipline, considerable resources can be put to charitable investment.

Finally, Wesley believed that Christians, compelled by love and obedience to God, should give all they can. Wesley’s fears were confirmed as he noted self-indulgence victimizing charity. And the same holds true today, especially in developed economies. Church parking lots in affluent American suburbs are populated by an abundance of late model, luxury automobiles. Many Christians live in spacious homes filled with expensive gadgetry and fittings. Many of us could be much less selfish and help meet the needs of the indigent and unemployed across town and around the world.

Electronic communication has removed excuse for ignoring the needs of the local and global poor. But even charity has failed by practicing enduring, dependency-creating relief rather than promoting local business development to alleviate global poverty. Between 1990 and 2010, half of the world’s poorest (some 700 million) moved above the United Nation’s measuring line of abject poverty.[vii] This was far more due to business creating new wealth and spreading it across the world than it was due to charity. And most new jobs have been created by small businesses as capital has flowed into developing economies.[viii]

More than ever, the poor can wade into the streams of global wealth. And that process can be accelerated intentionally by investing in small businesses at the lowest economic tiers.

To conclude: Business is a gift of God,[ix] an integral social component of the created order, given to bless humankind and reveal the glory of God, that shalom may prevail among and for all. The marketplace is land ready to be reclaimed for the Kingdom of God. May we, as the Church, move outside our sanctuary walls and get our economics right. Then we will be a powerful witness to God’s glory as a wise and understanding people, living by just statutes, and surely with God in our midst.[x]

Thank you.

Acknowledgement

The notes that follow are largely attributable to comments from and conversations with a dear friend and colleague, Rod St. Hill, Dean of the School of Business, Christian Heritage College (Brisbane area, Australia), lead author of “Your Kingdom Come, Your Will Be Done…In Business: Biblical Foundations for Business as Mission,” Business as Mission Think Tank (2013).

Georgetown College, Georgetown, Kentucky, January 9-10, 2014

I recently had the privilege of attending and presenting a paper, “Church Outside the Walls: The Global Growth and Meaning of Markeplace Ministries,” at the Re-Imagining Faith: For America and the World conference at Georgetown College (January 9-10, 2014). It was a bit (but only a bit) outside the vein of my normal climes but a welcome opportunity.

The tenor of the conference, at least to many of my contacts and acquaintances in the Church, would have sounded decidedly “liberal,” with content some might consider all but blasphemous and dangerous to Christian faith. But it was largely a healthy conversation open to embracing, or at least intellectually considering, alternatives to how we are currently practicing our Christian faith . . . in ways that are too often failing to transform the world or even provide sound witness to the glory of God. There was significant discussion of “hot topics,” including environmentalism, sexual orientation, “re-branding” Christianity, faith in vocation and the marketplace, evolution, inter-faith dialog, and otherwise openly challenging what many of my friends would consider orthodox positions of the Christian faith. There were even invocations of Buddhism in general and Ghandi specifically, frankly, a welcome breath of fresh air for many who seek the wisdom that God has granted to those outside the Church who are (like us Christians!) created in the image of God.

I think what I appreciated most was that this was an environment where one could safely introduce such topics without fear of being shouted down or labeled as a blasphemer or heretic. It was like attending the opening brainstorming session of an organization bent on redefining itself for adaptation to a changing environment and perfectly apropos. I appreciate fully that the idea behind the conference appeared to be considering re-interpretations of the Gospel for ministering in the 21^st century to a globalized, diverse, multi-faith and multicutural world.

I came away from the conference with a plethora of notes. I often capture big picture ideas in pithy statements, almost in article or book title form. Hopefully, in the coming days and weeks, I will be able to re-visit many of these to reflect and offer my own thoughts. But I think the over arching themes in my immediate response to the conference were along the lines of replicating the experience in other places:

• How do we create such a thinking environments in our local contexts?
• How do we create a safe place for such volatile conversations to advance Kingdom relevance and impact in our communities without creating greater alienation?
• How do we overcome the political and ideological divides within the Church itself, especially where we have largely disconnected from any dissenting voices, shunned the questioners, and locked ourselves into narrowly-focused homogenous groups?

I hope, now, given what I have left to say, that no one will think I thought the conference in any way a failure. I do, however, think there is considerable opportunity for expansion and impact.

What I did not see at the conference was diversity. The representation among attendees that I could casually identify was predominantly Protestant (Methodist / Wesleyan, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal, in particular). I specifically did not see representation of the Roman Catholic or Orthodox traditions, though they may have been present. Even so, if they were in attendance, they must surely have been in such distinct minority to elude the casual eye. Given the title of the conference was “Re-Imagining Faith: For America & the World,” and the theme of inclusivity was very strong throughout, invited speakers could have intentionally included Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, or adherents of other faith traditions to enhance the interfaith theme.

I also did not see appropriate representation outside middle class whites. As far as I could tell, there was only one African-American (an immigrant from Cameroon, I believe) attendee. There may have been others but their attendance was by no means apparent in simply scanning the crowd during the plenary sessions. The only strong connection to the indigenous black Church in the U.S. was the choir from the First African Baptist Church of Lexington which performed beautifully before and after Walter Brueggemann’s keynote address on Thursday evening. The Asian-American and Hispanic representation at the event was also of such distinct minority as to be, for the most part, lost in the sea of white faces. Leaders of predominantly minority churches must be given their voice at every opportunity, especially considering that, collectively, minorities are now in the majority but are still underrepresented in the halls of the “ruling powers and principalities” (governance, finance, academia, etc.) both domestically and internationally.

As is likely the case still in many academic and ecclesial settings, the male / female divide of the presenters was decidedly male with female presenters being a little more than one third of the total. The plenary presentations were evenly divided (with exceptional speakers, I might add – Drs. Walter Breuggemann, Molly T. Marshall, Stephanie Paulsell, and Miroslov Volf). The crowd appeared to be roughly a 60-40 male-female split, which could have been a balancing of the male domination of the academic and ecclesial disciplines by a strong representation of women in the field of social service agencies, though many female attendees were members of the clergy and academia.

Finally, as mentioned, the progressive leaning of the attendees and many of the presenters in general seemed weighted, even if not intentionally. Granted, one might expect that progressives are typically more open to new ways of thinking and doing Church. However, though I do not recall exactly how I first became aware of the conference, one must wonder how and where the conference was advertised. While it may not have been by any intentional measure, as said, toward progressive inclusion in this conference, advertising may be planned that would be more inviting to the conservative and ethnic strains of the Church to help with healing and collaboration across racial, doctrinal, and ideological divides, and toward Kingdom advancement in general, within the whole Church in the future.

However, again, I would have no one think I am denouncing or was disappointed in the conference given the critique that I offer. I walked away with a dozen pages of notes for further reflection and writing, which I hope to publish in the coming weeks (www.edensbridge.org). Overall, I thought the conference was a great success and worth the time and money to attend and I would do it again if possible.

The recent controversy surrounding the comments of Phil Robertson, of Duck Dynasty fame, in GQ magazine and the resulting backlash from gay advocacy groups provides a good example of the lack of intelligence too often displayed by members of the universal Christian Church. I am not speaking of Robertson being ignorant. Rather, there seems to be a lack of understanding between social and legal response on the part of these Christians as some have complained quite loudly in the media that Robertson’s right to free speech is being violated. That is wrong. Free speech protection is from government prosecution not social persecution. Robertson, I am sure, would be the last to complain about the public response. He was speaking, even if in terms some may consider crude, from honest and heartfelt closely-held religious beliefs. Sadly, however, much of the Christian response, even from well-educated and informed speakers, has been emotional rather than reasoned, adding to the ammunition of those who accuse the Church of being mostly rubes and ignoramuses.

This essay was written before the Robertson controversy arose but that sequence of events, I think, justifies the essay all the more. Christians, as becoming the sons of God, have been given access freely to the wisdom of God (James 1:5). This reason should be sufficient unto itself, but with the added incentive to grow into the humility of Christ, Christians should hesitate before speaking too quickly or bluntly in public. Christian thinkers have been among the thought leaders that created open and advanced societies, especially over the last five hundred years. Israel was expected to be a virtuous, and prosperous, example to the world that living according to God’s nature, ways, and will would entice the world to come out of itself and be drawn into the Kingdom of God (Deuteronomy 4:6-8). Today, that is the role of the Church today, to be salt and light to a world desperately seeking its own salvation and hope for a better future, a future only Christ can offer.

Upon reflection, I find this essay to be rather blunt in its assessment and I am sure there are some who will be offended. It is not that I am not interested in being more diplomatic but I do not find in myself the patience to redraft it. Perhaps I will at a later date but for now I will simply ask the reader to forgive me if it comes on too strong.

Much has been written for and against the role of intellectualism in the life of Christian believers and the Church. It would seem the conversation would grow stale and trite and be put to rest as an unproductive waste of time. But to do so is like only half-heartedly trying to revive a critically wounded patient. To stop short of making every effort, when even the least inkling of life remains, is to lose touch with the core value central to every human life: potential. So, I will here again take my turn at beating what some may presume to be a dead horse.

As a starting point, and even at the risk of being accused of prooftexting (because that seems always to be the first retort of contrarians), I will resort to Scripture: Genesis 1:26 – “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…” Since God is Spirit (John 4:24), we can rule out physicality as the focal point of the image and likeness. That essentially leaves two realms of human existence open to the discussion: intellect and character. It is not possible to have an intellect (weak or strong) without character (virtuous or evil) and vice versa, but I digress.

God gave us a capacity for thinking that is greater than other creatures. It is facilitated by the brain as a physical organ but the mind is not the brain. The mind can be expanded with learning. It can be corrupted toward evil or heightened to virtue. We lean toward good or evil, again substantiating the argument with a Scriptural view, according to wisdom. It is almost as if we can dissect the functions within the brain between knowledge, which is simply the acquisition, use, and maintenance of information, and understanding, making sense of what knowledge means. This too can be divided into knowing what knowledge means in a practical or physical sense, which requires the discernment (or wisdom) of experience and learning and applying knowledge to solving problems, creating better things for life, etc., and knowing, or understanding,  along the lines of morality, determining between right (good) and wrong (evil), which we might also label wisdom or discernment of a spiritual nature.

Interestingly, as a side note, a great deal of the Mosaic Law and the pronouncements of the Old Testament Prophets focused on what we would first consider moral lines but have enormously practical implications: such as not oppressing the poor so they can live in the shared abundance of earthly provision, the shalom of righteous community. Of course this also involves aspects of revelation and worship when the poor witness the goodness of God in the blessings of that abundance. But, again, I digress.

But the digression serves a good point: we cannot understand the integration we see above, of divine command, social structures and justice, personal ethics, revelatory grace, and appropriate worship, without thinking on it more than just a bit. We must engage the intellectual muscle we have been given to grasp the complex integration of these concepts, which point to an ecological whole of our reality, especially in relationship to God.

Somewhere along the line I came across a little book, published in 1965 and now one presumes lost in the milieu of printed things, entitled Just Think, Mr. Berton (A Little Harder). Written by Ted Byfield, a Canadian journalist and high school teacher, the book counters accusations drawn against the Church at-large by an antagonistic popular Canadian cultural critic and Church outsider, Pierre Berton. In the opening paragraph of the book, Mr. Byfield sarcastically captures Berton’s core perception of the Church. Speaking on Berton’s qualifications to criticize the Church from without, Byfield asserts Berton must be convinced that “Going to church often obscures objectivity and clutters the mind with a lot of prejudice.”

Actually, Mr. Berton may have done the Church a great service in offering an assessment from the outside, even if his vision was contorted by peering inwardly through stained glass windows. At the very least, I think, we can assume he was being honest in how he saw things. But the painful truth is, the perception too often rings true . . . even after passing through the doors and looking about with an unimpeded view once inside.

There is to be no doubt there is often an overt anti-intellectual attitude circulating within the Church. Sadly, however, there is also a covert, perhaps completely unrealized, anti-intellectualism that circulates as well. Two comments make my point. I take theology seriously so I write with intention to make my point as clearly as I can. That is not to say it will be presented in mono-syllabic words nor necessarily in short sentences. One comment came from a friend who read my book. He said, “I thought I would just sit down and breeze through it but there was no way.” That pleases me on two counts. One, he found it challenging (one hopes on the conceptual level and not just the structural). Two, he worked through it despite the challenges.

The other comment came after a fellow church member attempted to read one of my essays. He rejected the thesis out of hand. No, I should say, he refused to consider the thesis deeply because he claimed that he could not understand the essay. This is a man who is the head of an international trade association. His unwillingness to slow his mind enough to consider what the text was saying simply cut him off from gleaning anything from the essay. My undergraduate degree is in English literature. If you think what I write is challenging, try reading and comprehending Alexander Pope’s “Essay on Criticism” (http://poetry.eserver.org/essay-on-criticism.html).

I say all that to come to a discussion on the lack of critical thinking in the Church. We have given ourselves over to the deception that the Gospel is simple. We sum up our Christian faith in pithy statements and there is a place for those but they should not be the end all of our theological or biblical reflections. Consider: “Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.”   As a simple celebratory statement, this is absolutely loaded with assumptions, not the least of which require understanding “what is ‘a Christ’?” and “who is this Christ?” and why should his dying, revival, and return matter to me?

Take John 3:16: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” This is the “slogan,” if you will, of the Christian marketing schema but, again, it is loaded with assumptions. What God? What does begotten mean? How does it differ from me siring my own children? Why does God love the world? How do we know? Why is his Son a gift unlike any other? What does it mean to believe in him? Believe what about him? And, frankly, the questions, considering we are speaking of an infinite God, are infinite in both number and depth.

When we stop short, assuming we know as much as we can (or need or want to) about God, our pursuit of holiness stops just as short. Without engaging God intellectually, our understanding will not grow and our character development in Christ will come up short as well. That is not to say we are less cherished by God. That is not to say everyone has the same capacity to “love God with their mind.” But it is to challenge us to know him as deeply and intimately as we can. Luke 12:48b: “And from everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.” I am quite sure this appertains to mental acuity as much as physical possessions or the reach of an individual’s influence. Granted, there are some of limited mental ability who, by grace, receive the love and salvation of God just as they are. But those of us who have been given more capacity should exercise it!

When we reject the pursuit of God intellectually, through ever deepening biblical and theological studies, we are, in effect, telling him that we know quite enough and do not care to know any more. We may not need to know any more but that is an approach I might take to a relationship with a car salesman or store clerk in passing but certainly not with my wife or a dear friend. How much more so is it important to know God, to discern his voice, to understand his ways such that we might emulate Christ’s ministry to the Church and the world?

I think two Proverbs are poignant given our cultural repugnance toward learning:

Proverbs 6:10-11: “‘A little sleep, a little slumber, A little folding of the hands to rest’–  And your poverty will come in like a vagabond, And your need like an armed man.”

Proverbs 26:16: “The sluggard is wiser in his own eyes Than seven men who can give a discreet answer.”

The American people are some of the hardest working, most industrious people on earth and in history. We, along with a few other countries, have set the standard for human productivity. And we assail the lazy ones who will not work, citing 2 Thessalonians 3:10: “For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone will not work, neither let him eat.” – when exhorting others to go to work, to be productive, to make something of themselves. And all the while, we push away from the Table of God’s Plenty, intellectually satisfied with crumbs and leaving the most succulent and nourishing dishes sit untouched. We seem to abhor laziness until it reaches between our ears because disciplining the muscles is far easier than disciplining and renewing the mind. Compare

Romans 12:2: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect,”

and

1 Timothy 4:7b-9: “On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness;  for bodily discipline is only of little profit, but godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come. It is a trustworthy statement deserving full acceptance.” (emphasis mine).

How can our mind be renewed if the things of the enemy, the flesh, and the world are not replaced with the knowledge of God? How can we understand the value, or even the meaning, of godliness, if not by learning of God and his ways? Romans 12:2 goes so far to say that engagement of the intellect in thinking on the things of God, through a reforming exercise of the mind, is the path to discerning the very will of God.

So as not to belabor the point, if you are one leaning toward acceptance of the Christian faith walk as an easy or simple endeavor, I will end quickly. God has given us each a distinct capacity of the mind. We are to exercise it, like muscles, such that it will grow stronger in Christ, not for the sake of our “becoming smart” but for discerning how to be Christ to the world, to understand how to help, not just why, to understand complex social issues to help direct them toward reconciliation and healing that reveal God’s glory, toward his Kingdom coming on earth as it is in heaven.

The Church often wallows in its ignorance, willingly accepting far less than the gifts of the intellect renewed and empowered by the ministry of Christ on our behalf and toward a powerful witness to the world as creative thought leaders. Christians have led the march in the foundations of public education, in modern medicine, in political development, and in economic prosperity. They did so by overcoming the laziness of intellect that is natural to us all. The world often has a dim view of the Church along intellectual lines. But it is fully within our power to lead the world intellectually and to render that view untrue.

Suggested Reading

Byfield, Ted. Just Think, Mr. Berton (A Little Harder): A Reply to “The Comfortable Pew.” New York: Morehouse-Barlow Co., 1965.

Collins, Kenneth J. “Spirituality and Critical Thinking: Are They Really So Different?” (Evangelical Journal, 16(1), 1998), 30-43.

Sire, James W. Habits of the Mind: Intellectual Life as a Christian Calling. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

Stott, John. Your Mind Matters: The Place of the Mind in the Christian Life. Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006.