Discipleship in a "Rapture" Culture

Biblical Interpretation, Ecclesiology, Mission, Prophecy, Social Issues, Thinking Critically 1 Response »
May 252012

Do you remember what was supposed to have happened on May 21st of last year?

Have you seen the movie 2012?

Have you read any of the Left Behind novels?

Have you heard of the term apocalypse?

Have you heard of the term rapture?

I bet you have heard of at least one of the above. Our culture is, in one way or another, obsessed with the end of time, with the almost total destruction of everything. So, the question is, as disciples of Jesus, what do we do with all of this? What should discipleship look like in a culture obsessed by the end of the world? Of course, who you ask this question will greatly determine what kind of answer you get. Some answers include:

  1. As followers of Jesus, we should try to understand if we are living in the final days of our existence so that we can feel the urgency to bring the gospel to the world.
  2. As bible believing people, we should take seriously its message about the end of time laid out in the prophetic books of the bible and use those details as a way of witnessing to non-believers.

Still yet, some Christians take this perspective:

  1. No matter what “time” we are in, we are called to take up our cross and follow Jesus in the world, living a life like he lived, and praying that God’s kingdom would come on earth as it is in heaven. We should be wary of certain end-times focuses as they could distract us from discipleship.

This third perspective is the perspective that I would like to promote by way of linking you to a 24 minute film produced by a student as a final for his master’s class in university. The film details the history and development of the idea of “the rapture,” especially as it became popular in America. Throughout this short film, several terms are used, some of which are defined for you in the film and one important one which is not. The one important one that is not defined I want to define for you before you jump into the film so that you are not totally out of the loop. That term is:

Millennialism – Of course, you will all know the term millennium as it relates to the number 1000 but you may not know its theological history. In the book of Revelation, a book filled with powerful and odd imagery, we read this in chapter 20:1-6:

“Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and locked and sealed it over him, so that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be let out for a little while.

Then I saw thrones, and those seated on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. Over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.”

On the surface we can see that the basic idea of the millennium or the 1000 year reign of Christ is that sometime in human history there will be a period of peace and improvement on the earth before the final judgment and establishment of the new heavens and the new earth. But beyond that basic description of the millennium, endless interpretations are offered in Christian history as to what this thousand years really means and what it really will look like. The most common interpretations can be classified into three perspectives: Premillenialism, Postmillenialsim, and Amillenialism.

First, Pre-millenialism is the belief that Jesus will physically return to earth and reign for 1000 years before the final judgment of all.

Post-millenialism, on the other hand is the belief that Jesus will reign spiritually through the church for 1000 literal years, bringing peace and worldly improvement during that time and then return physically after (post) that time is up.

Finally, A-millenialism is the belief that the 1000 years mentioned in revelation is a symbolic number, not literal, that we are in the millennium right now and that, after an unknown amount of time, Jesus will indeed return to judge the living and the dead.

So, now that you have way too much information in your head, take some time to watch this film and discuss it in the comment thread afterwards. Here is the link:

https://vimeo.com/12166965

Posted by zac at 9:28 am

What is the "point" of worship, anyway?

Books, Mission, Worship 2 Responses »
May 242011

I am currently reading through a book called “Worship and Misson After Christendom” by Alan Kreider and Eleanor Kreider. The book is full of some good nuggets of wisdom regarding the nature of Christian worship and mission. Today I was reading the chapter titled “worship forms mission” and I was struck by this paragraph:

“As the churches of the early centuries demonstrated, it is not necassary to be visible or to have outsiders present to be missional. Indeed, at times the church may grow most rapidly at times when its meetings are proscribed and outsiders cannot attend them. Such was the case in Ethiopia during the dictatorial rule of the Derg in the 1980s. But in any case, the church does not worship for the sake of the outsiders; worship is what the believers offer to God. And true worship offered to God has a characteristic by-product: it results in a people who are distinctive because their lives are shaped by the One to whom they have ascribed worth. The people’s worship attunes them to God’s character, and it aligns them with God’s purposes as participants in God’s mission.” – p. 144, emphasis mine.

Thoughts?

Posted by zac at 2:00 pm

Some further thoughts on the implications of the cosmic scope of God's reign

Canadian Politics, Mission, Reconciliation, Social Issues No Responses »
Oct 262010

In the previous post, we saw that God’s plan for redemption is not limited to a people group or a nation, but is cosmic in scope. This all sounds great and profound, but in what way should this cosmic scope affect and shape our identity as followers of Jesus the Christ? Perhaps at least one way in which it should shape our practices is in terms of how we understand our own identity. Let’s take a common form of identity for an example:

Most of, if not all, the people who attend The ConneXion are Canadians. Yet in what way might we imagine this type of identity to influence or be influenced by faith in Jesus? Is our Canadian identity constitutive of our Christianity or vice versa? Now, this is a complicated question, especially seeing as how what exactly makes for a “Canadian” (is it love of hockey? multiculturalism? the diverse landscapes? social status? economy?)  and what makes for Christianity (is it a particular denomination? is it commitment to the church? is it doctrinal positions?) is up for grabs. Furthermore, this may seem to some an odd question and one to which we would (if we gave the pat answer) reply: “Of course my identity as a Christian is more constitutive of my Canadian identity than my Canadian identity is of my Christianity!” Yet if we were to challenge ourselves, perhaps we would have to ask, as Kent Dueck did this last Sunday while exploring Psalm 146, “at the end of the day, who do we trust?” Do we trust the identity that gives us the most “security” in life, or the identity that makes the most demands? The identity that encourages us to work for a life of individual pleasures or an identity that pushes us into the complicated and frustrating work of community and mutual submission? Don’t get me wrong, I am not trying to claim that everything “Canadian” is in opposition to God but rather that as Christian disciples we will always face the temptation to find our security in the “gods” of the world (whatever form they take) rather than the one who is “true” and “faithful” forever (Psalm 146:6). Canadian identity need not be a rival God, but it certainly can become one.

This is not hard to swallow, especially when one looks at what has gone on in the Middle East for so many years now.

Much evil has been done from both sides and yet at the end of the day, so much of the struggle comes to a head precisely over the question of identity (especially national). Previously I provided a quote from Alain Epp Weaver’s States of Exile and I think it appropriate to do so again to begin to imagine what the cosmic scope of God’s reign might mean for Christian identity in a world in which Nations and other Global Systems vie for allegiance:

Epp Weaver says, quoting Gerald Schlabach, “Christians can live rightly in the ‘land’ that God gives…only if they sustain a tension with landedness itself.” Part of this tension is not being fully at home in the land so long as others are excluded from the benefits of landedness, with exile allowed to shape our understandings of home.” pg.50

I think that last line, “not being fully at home in the land so long as others are excluded from the benefits of landedness, with exile allowed to shape our understandings of home” is critical for any Christian discipleship as it always recognizes that the many competing identities of this world always seek to make a dividing line between those who can come in and those who must stay out. This is easy to see at work in the Canadian question as well.

There is no doubt that while much has been done to try to atone for sins against the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, these peoples still largely find themselves excluded from the “benefits of landedness” and, recognizing that this is an incredibly complicated issue, one could make a pretty good argument that this is in large part based on certain notions of what makes for “Canadian” identity (individualism, certain economic systems). The Christian message must push us into discomfort in this regard, as the Gospel states that God’s justice and benefits are to encompass all nations, in their uniqueness; that all are to be beneficiaries of God’s reconciling work. May we, in our communities, ponder how our “landedness” (whether that takes the form of our Canadian status or economic or social status) must be put into question in light of those who are excluded, knowing that God executes justice for the oppressed and the hungry (Psalm 146:7). And in response to that pondering, may we imagine practices that can faithfully join God’s already active work among the nations.

Posted by zac at 3:00 pm

Whose Justice? Whose Testimony? A reflection.

Ecclesiology, Mission, Theology No Responses »
Oct 172010

In Isaiah 11:3-4a we are told that the shoot from the stump of Jesse “will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.” In other words, Isaiah knows that true justice cannot rely on judging what is often visible about ourselves, for what is often visible about ourselves is really a lie (we are pretentious and far too often inauthentic creatures), nor can this judgement be founded on what we say about ourselves as this is similarly deceptive. The shoot from Jesse will have a different way of judging and bringing justice to the earth that will not rely on these methods — he will see right through our pretentious selves and will speak to what is hidden.

Reading this passage in light of Jesus’ coming, we cannot but make a strong connection between the shoot of Jesse, the coming of the Messiah, and Jesus. John’s Gospel reveals a Messiah who, like the Isaiahic one, does not rely on the “wisdom” of the wise to reveal the truth about Himself and humankind. Why? What was it that Jesus perceived “in a man” that made him “not need” man’s testimony (John 2:23-25)? I suppose it is once again obvious — our fleeting allegiances, our rampant misunderstanding of God’s ways…Yet John’s words are stronger: “he did not need man’s testimony”. In other words, what Jesus did in his life, death, and resurrection is something that always exceeds our testimony regarding it! God’s justice will always exceed our capacity to rightly accomplish it even as we must seek after it fervently. Does this mean we shut up about Jesus? Perhaps sometimes (although “shut up” here would have to be qualified). However, regardless of our situation, we must testify to the Gospel with all of our being: of that there is no question. However, based on the above verses, I think it is only right to say that testifying must not be so much an act of description in which we command our own reputation or identity and command our own eloquence and convincing arguments, but is rather a consistent and dumbfounded spoken and enacted announcement that always defer’s to a greater testimony spoken and enacted by the living God through the Spirit. When we have lost the dumbfounded, awestruck posture of testimony that can discern the ongoing testimony of the Spirit and have instead become comfortable with this dangerous and untameable proclamation, we no longer announce the victory of Christ over this world but instead, with futility, attempt to re-establish the world’s footing on its “own” foundation (there is none!) rather than on the boundless and “foundationless” sea of God’s grace. We did not first choose God, no, God has first chosen us! AMEN

Posted by zac at 1:36 pm

Who is "in charge" of the Mission of the Church

Colonialism, Mission, Theology 1 Response »
Oct 062010

Hey All,

So, what is the first image that you think the average non-Christian has come to mind when they hear the phrase “Christian Missionary Activity”? In many ways this is a loaded term and you probably have a lot of thoughts come to mind ranging from positive images of good people performing acts of generosity, to negative images of colonization which still stain the history of the church. It is likely though that the majority of images that the average non-Christian would have would likely tend to show the “Christian” in control and in charge of mission — in other words, the very stuff of ‘mission’ (how the Gospel should be preached, who the God is that we preach about, what people need to know, etc.) is rigidly decided and even pre-determined by those in the church ahead of time in terms of what strategy will be most effective in “winning” others to the faith. If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that while many missionaries do not fit the negative image described above, the church at large still operates to a great extent in this controlling fashion in mission (as a side, I would tend to think that long-term overseas missionaries would not fit this negative image as much because as anyone who has either done long term overseas missions or knows someone who has, knows that this style of mission will quickly prevent all opportunity for sharing the Gospel. My feeling is that the negative image applies moreso to the “mission field” within the affluent Western nations). However, what if mission could be conceived differently? Alain Epp Weaver’s States of Exile has a great passage which describes a far more radical conception of the church in mission:

“The church in diaspora [exile] is a church in mission. Jesus sends the church out into the world to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”. Exile is the site of mission, the name for the innumerable places to which the church is sent by her Lord. However, a peculiar thing happens as the church embarks on this exilic mission. As Christians in mission learn new languages, become immersed in new thought worlds, we discover that the Spirit of the God incarnate in Jesus has preceded us. While we thought we were going out to share information about Jesus with others, we gradually realize, as we seek to confess our faith in Jesus in ever-new situations, that we do not possess or control our proclamation of Jesus but that our prior expectations and certainties about Jesus’ identity are subverted. The church in exile is “not in charge” politically, but even more so, it is not in charge theologically: exile is thus not only the site of mission but also a style of mission.” p.67

What might the style of our “Christian” mission in our communities look like if we would understand mission in this sense? Thoughts?

Zac

Posted by zac at 4:00 pm
© 2013 The ConneXion Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha