After Pentecost: "Guest Blogger" Mos Def

We continue our series "After Pentecost." Exploring the life of the Christian in "Ordinary Time". Todays perspective is brought by Mos Def.... sort of.


 I would post a 're-mix' of something Mos Def said back in 1999.


He was originally talking about Hip-Hop, but I thought it might also speak to the Church. I replaced "hip hop" with "the Church". Hey Mos Def, if you're out there, I hope this is cool with you. Let me know.


From Fear Not Of Man [Explicit] by Mos Def

A lot of things have changed
A lot of things have not, mainly us
We gon' get it together right? I believe that
Listen.. people be askin me all the time,
"Yo Mos, what's gettin ready to happen with [The Church]?"
(Where do you think [The Church] is goin?)
I tell em, "You know what's gonna happen with [The Church]?
Whatever's happening with us"
If we smoked out, [The Church] is gonna be smoked out
If we doin alright, [The Church] is gonna be doin alright
People talk about [The Church] like it's some giant livin in the hillside comin down to visit the townspeople
We (are) [The Church]
Me, you, everybody, we are [The Church]
So [The Church] is goin where we goin
So the next time you ask yourself where [The Church] is goin ask yourself..
where am I goin?
How am I doin?

Til you get a clear idea

So.. if [The Church] is about the people
and the.. [The Church] won't get better until the people get better
then how do people get better? (Hmmmm...)
Well, from my understanding people get better
when they start to understand that, they are valuable
And they not valuable because they got a whole lot of money
or cause somebody, think they sexy
but they valuable cause they been created by God
And God, makes you valuable
And whether or not you, recognize that value is one thing you got

How the west gave up it's common life

My history professor at North Park, Phil Anderson, is rather keen on quoting Blaise Pascal's famous adage, "the heart has reasons that reason knows nothing about." This saying illustrates beautifully the tension between the philosophy of the Enlightenment and the actual experiences of individuals. This dichotomy of dispositions, although always abiding within the human person, was most dramatically thrown into tension around the time of Pascel.

Pascel was writing at a time where reason was ascendant amongst academians, and "heart religion" was caliph of the common. He lived in the seventeenth century; a time in which the young Modern Era was coming of age, and the forces of head and heart were beginning to tear open the wine-skins of Protestant confessional religion (born just a generation before). The rending that was beginning take place would eventually change the way people saw the world, and themselves forever.

For hundreds of years Western societies had functioned under the assumption that spiritual authority rested in the hands of the Roman Catholic Church. That assumption had crumbled in many ways in the Sixteenth century. As people began to return to the earliest sources of sacred texts they found that, in some cases, Catholic tradition seemed to contradict what was being said. Reformers like Martin Luther, and John Calvin took a stand on the Bible over and against tradition and the reformation was born.

This new movement soon had a problem on it's hands. If the Bible is the basis for doctrine, who had the authority to interpret it. People could make the Bible say just about anything they wanted. The solution that many in the reformation came up with was confessions. Confessions are documents that set parameters on what is right and wrong thinking. The solution held for a while, but soon it became clear that it wouldn't solve the issue of authority.

There are essentially two major dangers in strict confessionalism. The first is that there is not enough room for the individual experience. The second is that there is no rational reason to set the boundaries on the confessions where they are set. Out of these two dangers came two movements that would inform nearly all of the western cultural landscape for centuries: the evangelical awakenings and the enlightenment.

The first danger manifested itself as a problem early on in the life of the church. Confessional Christianity had an inability to speak to a persons particular anxieties and experiences. Faith was communicated as a set of confessions one can intellectually assent to about who God is and how he operates. Those confession however created a great deal of anxiety among people about they worked out in their lives. People began to ask questions:

If God predestined the elect, how do I know if I am one of them?
Does faith alone mean people are not challenged to live the Christian life?
Is my life good enough?
Is there a way for me to encounter God himself?


Confessional theology tried to explain how God worked, but left little room for adressing the real concerns of real people at that time. Out of the silence of confessionalism, and from the anxieties caused by reformation theology, something new emerged.

In Germany groups of Lutherans, called Pietists, began to meet in homes in an attempt to bring the life of the Sunday liturgy more into their lives. In England protestants who sought after a life more affected by the Gospel called for a more radical reformation. These folks were called Puritans. As the message of these groups, and many more groups like them began to spread. Charismatic leaders, like John Wesley, began to be touched by God in a personal way, and began to preach the need for the Gospel to individuals.

Few places were as impacted by this as the North American continent. America had been settled by many people who had come with the hope that they could build new religious communities that were not under the restrictions of the state churches in Europe. These communities grew into places where people were ready to hear a more radical message of the Gospel. American Christians were like dry wood, and the history of America is in many ways shaped by the great awakenings that have burned through the land generation after generation.
The desire to bring the Gospel more fully into peoples lives was not limited to only spiritual awakenings in new ways of meeting and preaching. It also helped birth new ways of thinking. In the Danish city of Copenhagen a young philosopher named Søren Kierkegård began writing about Christianity in a way that flew in the face of Confessional Christendom. He proclaimed the price of admission to Christianity was not right belief, but blood. If faith is not a martyrdom, he declared, it is a sham. As you can imagine his writings ruffled a few feathers, which in many ways was his aim. However Kierkegård's main target was not the church, but the philosophy of a man named G.W.F. Hegel.

Hegel was a philosopher who was part of a movement historians call the Enlightenment. Hegel believed that reason should help people navigate through the dialectical vicissitudes of history and theology. The problem that enlightenment thinkers, like Hegel, had with Confessions was not that they relied to strongly on reason, like the evangelicals in the awakenings. The problem early enlightenment thinkers had was that the confessions limited the free reign of Science, and Reason. This was the problem that emerged from the second "danger" previously stated. For early enlightenment thinkers, the rational and empirical were seen as the only reliable sources by which the world might hope to be deciphered, the main question for Enlightenment thinkers quickly moved away from discussions on who has the authority to interpret the Bible. They now were concerned with what human faculty can attain truth. Where the people of the awakenings saught a personal connection with God apart from intellection, the enlightenment thinkers sought personal intellection apart from God.

Some Enlightenment thinkers argued that empirical data was all that could be trusted, others argued reason. A philosopher named Immanuel Kant came on the scene are demonstrated both were needed. This showed that comprehendible truth was partially dependent on experience. Truth became more and more subjective.

In the mean time the Evangelicals continued to experience awakening after awakening. However each awakening brought new perspectives on God. Soon the Protestant church was divided along every possible doctrinal, cultural, and biblical dispute anyone could think of.

The Confessionalism of early Protestantism was intended to create a frame of reference in which people could discern the authority of the Bible in their lives. However once authority was up for grabs, everyone got their own piece of it. Without a common authority, there is no grounds for common truth. Today we are left in a world that views truth in an increasingly subjective way. In the Church a personal relationship with God has become more important then the community of God. In philosophy people have rejected the modern notion that truth can be found at all; any truth claim is only subjectively relevant. The West has given up it's common life, we are now simply millions of people in different worlds, but living in the same space.

At the beginning I quoted Blaise Pascel. Pascel also wrote the following, "If man made himself the first object of study, he would see how incapable he is of going further. How can a part know the whole?" We sought to explain how God worked, but came to the coclusion that we don't even know how a mere human worked. Perhaps if we get back to why God worked we can once again take hold of a world together. How God works we can never know, but why was made clear. God so loved the world.

After Pentecost: Guest Blogger Soong-Chan Rah

We continue our series "After Pentecost." Exploring the life of the Christian in "Ordinary Time". Todays perspective is brought by guest blogger Soong-Chan Rah. Soong-Chan is Soong-Chan Rah is the author of The Next Evangelicalism and is Milton B. Engebretson Associate Professor of Church Growth and Evangelism and North Park Theological Seminary, Chicago, IL.


 Today he discusses the question "should a Christian have a role in the political life of their community?"

A frequently asked question these days relates to the role of the church in civic society. Even as Christians debate the issues of abortion, immigration, war, and health care — different perspectives within the church (oftentimes in conflict with one another) seem to emerge. Should individual Christians and the Christian community (i.e. – the Church) have a voice in the political dialogue?

Some Christians may argue that the church needs to be disconnected from the state, forming a counter-cultural community that focuses exclusively on the exhibition of piety and holiness. Others may argue that the church needs to become deeply invested in the state in order to bring about God’s kingdom specifically in the United States. I present these two extreme perspectives fully realizing that most will not fall on the extremes, but somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, where we fall on the political involvement spectrum may be determined by our personal political leanings and the administration in power at the time.

For example, if we disagree with the government on a number of issues (such as prayer in schools, sexual ethics) our tendency may be to withdraw from society at large in order to form sub-cultures that stand in opposition to the world. Or we may find ourselves in agreement with the state on a number of issues (the use of war, a certain type of social conservatism) and therefore, decide to fully invest in a particular party that advocates for these issues. Our involvement in the state may be determined by the level of agreement we have with the political party in power.
Romans 13:1ff is often used to justify a passive role for the church in relation to the state. An extreme application of “being subject to the governing authorities established by God” may be the loss of the prophetic role of the church and the church allowingcarte blanche to the government authorities. However, given the wide range of possibility in types of government, could being subject and honoring the existing governing authorities take different forms and expressions? For example, could supporting a democratic system of government involve action rather than inaction?

What does support look like? In the Old Testament you can follow two different strains of political involvement. The first set of examples is found in the Biblical prophets, like Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea. These prophets are ultimate outsiders, speaking prophetically and challenging the establishment. Prophets are covenant enforcers, who call the nation of Israel, God’s people to live up to the standards of God’s covenant. There are also the Biblical examples of Nehemiah, Daniel, and Joseph. These men are insiders who actually wield a direct influence upon the government powers. What is interesting to me is that the challenges raised by the prophets are against their own people while those who are government insiders are actually working in the context of foreign powers — serving the governments of Egypt, Persia, Babylon (about as hostile as you can get to the agenda of YHWH’s people). Maybe support takes on different forms and different times. Maybe the main role of God’s people is to be subject to government by bringing God’s perspective to bear on even the most secular of institutions.

After Pentecost: guest blogger Yasuyuki Kamata

We continue our series "After Pentecost." Exploring the life of the Christian in "Ordinary Time". Todays perspective is brought by guest blogger Yasuyuki Kamata.


Yasu Kamata is a recent graduate of North Park Theological Seminary.  A native of Japan, he will return to his home country from this fall and serve with KGK, a member of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (IFES) and a sister organization of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship.  His role would be “to help students grow deeper and broader” – deeper by understanding historical Christian faith, and broader by being exposed to the realities of this world, on campus and beyond.  For a description of the IFES movement, please visit http://www.ifesworld.org/ or http://www.ifeseastasia.org/.

Striving and Trusting for the Kingdom
The disclaimer, or a statement of the obvious
As I write this reflection, I would like to give a disclaimer, or state the obvious:  This is not a balanced reflection. I am a person with a particular story, and this reflection comes from a particular moment and time in my life.  As I type it from my notes, I find myself feeling a desire to nuance or balance some statements.  The logical connections might not be that clear either.  But I will let them be, with some of the rawness and lack of balance, with the hope that others will graciously correct me.  

How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! 
What does it mean to be a Christian living after Pentecost?  As many of our readers would know, Pentecost is the coming of the Holy Spirit.  Because the Holy Spirit dwells in us, we are able to live a “kingdom lifestyle,” to live as if the coming kingdom of God has come on earth.  

The other day, I was reflecting on how privileged I am.  I was born in the country with the 2^nd highest GDP in the world, and currently live in the country at the top.  I don’t have to worry about not having things to eat or a place to stay.  I’m a man.  I have a lot of choice.  I just finished my 2^nd Masters degree.  Compared to many people in this world, I have a lot of power and privilege in this world.

As I was thinking about these things, a passage of Scripture came to mind.  “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!” (Mark 10:23)

“How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”  At least, Jesus does not say that it is impossible.  But it’s still pretty darn hard.  How hard is it?  As hard as trying to make a camel go through a needle’s eye.  So that’s virtually impossible.  But then Jesus affirms, “with human beings this is impossible, but not with God, for all things are possible with God.”

Why is it so hard? 
Why is it so hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God?  
What is the kingdom, anyway?  It is, as the Taize chant goes, “justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Romans 14:17).  It is God’s reign come to earth.  It is a “new world order.”  From observing Acts and reading some of Paul’s exhortations, being the Church, the herald, sign, and foretaste of the kingdom, seems to involve things like “sharing of possessions” “looking out for each other” and “accommodating to & serving each other.”  
Why is it so hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of God?  I think that part of the reason is that the rich has enough power to erect their own kingdom in which everything revolves around them.  I will state the following as a person with power and privilege – we create our own kingdom so we won’t have to share, look out for others, or accommodate to others.  Instead, we get to live at our own fast pace, our own convenience, and satisfy our own “needs.”  The paradox is, however, that by living such a life, we, the rich, manage to alienate ourselves from true kingdom lifestyle, which is abundant life itself.  

Now, no one will ever be free from the allure to live a self-serving lifestyle.  The moment one gains comparatively greater power & wealth (broadly defined) over others, the temptation happens.  Issues of power and wealth is present in every level of human existence; between husband and wife, within a family, between friends . . . someone once said that as soon as there are two people, politics occur.  Likewise, as soon as there are two people, issues of power and wealth start to occur.  

The human predicament is to use whatever power or wealth for our own good.  It would therefore be good for us to remember that we are blessed so that we may be a blessing, and that we are saved from the tyranny of sin, death, and the devil and saved for service to God and neighbor.  It would be good for us to remember the 12 apostles’ request to Paul that he will continue to remember the poor (Galatians 2:10).  For our purposes, it would probably be good to expand the notion of poverty beyond material to include spiritual dimensions.  

Lukewarmness and helplessness
So how can we start to live like in such a way that “remembers the poor”?  
Now, the other day, I was visiting this blog (http://krazydelicious.blogspot.com/) and came across a summary from chapter 4 of Francis Chan’s book Crazy Love, called “Profile of the Lukewarm.”  One of the characteristics, according to the summary, is that “Lukewarm people are thankful for their luxuries and comforts, and rarely consider trying to give as much as possible to the poor. They are quick to point out, “Jesus never said money is the root of all evil, only that the love of money is.” Untold numbers of lukewarm people feel “Called” to minister to the rich; very few feel “called” to minister to the poor.”

Well, that description hurts because it applies to my life.  Being in an academic institution, I’ve found it pretty easy to get caught up with attending to just my own needs and seek out relationships that would benefit me.  In a few months, I will be in the world of student ministry, but I’m sure it would be very tempting to work only with the best and brightest and neglect the least, the last, and the lost, both on campus, across the country, and around the world.

What shall I do, then?  I’m from the world of student ministry, so I will quote from a book that was popular in that world as well.  Ole Hallesby, in his bookPrayer, has a great passage that I will quote in length:  

“Prayer and helplessness are inseparable.  Only he (pardon the non-inclusive language – it’s from 1931!) who is helpless can truly pray. 


“Listen to this, you who are often so helpless that you do not know what to do.  At times you do not know how to pray.  Your mind seems full of sin and impurity.  Your mind is preoccupied with what the Bible calls the world . . . Now and then you must ask yourself the question, ‘Do I really desire to be set free from the lukewarmness of my heart and my worldly life?  Is not my Christian life always lukewarm and half-hearted for the simple reason that deep down in my heart I desire it that way?’


“Thus an honest soul struggles against the dishonesty of his own being.  He feels himself so helplessly lost that his prayers freeze on his very lips.


“Listen, my friend!  Your helplessness is your best prayer.  It calls from your heart to the heart of God with greater effect than all your uttered pleas.  He hears it from the very moment that you are seized with helplessness, and He becomes actively engaged at once in hearing and answering the prayer of your helplessness.  He hears today as He heard the helpless and wordless prayer of the man sick with the palsy (Hallesby, 17).”

Hallesby’s point is:  we cannot live the kingdom lifestyle by our own strength; that is to assert our self-sufficiency.  No, in the face of sin, we are not self-sufficient at all.  But it is in the place of helplessness, in the place where we accept that we are powerless against the powers of this world, that God can start to do his good work in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.  

Because He has done it
I recently came across a book called Wild Man to Wise Man.  That might sound a bit too pop-psychology-like to some, but  this was written by Richard Rohr (the Franciscan monk who wrote the big book on the Enneagram), so it’s a pretty wise book. Now, in this book, Rohr has this chart in which he outlines the different stages a person goes through.  At the very final stages, he has a stage which he calls “the holy fool.”  The description of that stage, if I remember correctly, is something like “fully enjoying and swimming in God’s grace because they know He has done it!”


“He has done it.”  Not by their own effort, but because He has done it.  
I know a couple of people whom I think could be classified as Rohr’s “holy fools.”  They are all old people, who have seen the thick and thin of a life lived in, with, and for God.  And they live a kingdom lifestyle that I can’t emulate.  Not that they are perfect, but they have been greatly transformed by God through many years of struggle.  No doubt, they must have had many moments of feeling helpless as well in the midst of those.  
So, as people living in this post-Pentecost world, still waiting for the fullness of the kingdom to come, let us struggle.  Let us strive to live the kingdom lifestyle, and “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” (note – working out one’s salvation isn’t about “earning our salvation through works” but about “starting to use and train what you already have,” like “working out your body” in a gym).  At the same time, let us not be disappointed, be disillusioned, or lose hope when we – either as individuals or as the Church - find out that we fall short of the kingdom lifestyle, but continue with the assurance that “it is God who works in you to will and act in order to fulfill his good purpose.”  But rather, let us remember that when we stand absolutely helpless before the enormity of our own sin and the sins of the world, that is when God works most powerfully, ”for when I am weak, he is strong.”  And let us keep running the race in the confidence that when we persevere, the holy fool-ness in us will continue to grow, and that on the day the kingdom comes, we will look back and say “yes, he has done it!”