Some Greek

Ok, so Clayton had asked me to tell you guys about the stuff on the trinity and incarnation I'd been thinking about last time we met, but I forgot. I have about 30 minutes before I leave for work, which wasn't enough time to stay for service, so I figured I would spend the time writing something productive.

The greek word used by the church fathers to describe the community found among the divine persons in the trinity was perichoresis (which in English can be roughly translated as interpenetration). Perichoresis exists in two forms - economic and ontological. Ontological perichoresis describes how the three persons of the trinity are made of the exact same substance and share the same being. The economic trinity refers to the fact that in everything that the persons of the trinity do, they act together. For example, consider creation. The Bible says Jesus created the world (John 1:1-3 “all things came into being through Him”, Colossians 1:16), it says the Father created the world (Genesis 1:1 “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”, Isaiah 42:5), and it says the Holy Spirit created the world (Job 33:4 “the Spirit of God has made me”, Genesis 1:2). In all things the trinity acts together.

The greek word used by the church fathers to describe the church is koinonia (which in English is something between community and communion). The church is the gathering of believers that share everything in common (Acts 4:23), that have the unity that Jesus and the Father share (John 17), and that are joined into one body (1 Corinthians 12, among other examples).

What I have only recently discovered that I find amazing is that two words are used by the church fathers to describe the union of the divine and human nature in Christ: koinonia and perichoresis. In other words, in Christ there is an interpenetration and communion of divine and human. What this means is that in Christ human community (koinonia) and divine community (perichoresis) are united and come together. Throughout the NT there are examples where believers are said to be "in Christ" and "Christ in me." Because we are in Christ, we can now partake of the redeemed human nature and share in the community and unity of God. I am still struggling to understand the exact balance between economic and ontological perichoresis through what the church fathers call the communication of attributes - clearly we don't become God, but in Christ a new human nature spreads to all of humanity, one that allows for fellowship with God (Romans 5).

So what's the point? 1) We tend to think of salvation in terms of forgiveness, but restoration to fellowship, communion, and unity with God are equally important components. 2) We tend to think of the gospel as the passion narrative, but in the NT angels announce the gospel of the birth of the messiah to shepherds. We need to rethink and reclaim the full extent of the gospel: incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. FInally, 3) we need to recognize that we can share communion and interpenetration with God, feeling His real presence in our daily existence, and his real communication and interaction with the boy of believers. This should dramatically change our daily religious consciousness.

Ok, so that's a bit of greek and patristics for you. I'm discovering a lot of this by reading Martin Chemnitz's The Two Natures of Christ. It's dense, but you could read it for more information.

turning the other cheek

I am currently reading Jesus for President, which was written by two dudes who live in Christian communes (or "intentional communities") named Shane Claiborne (author of Irresistible Revolution) and Chris Haw. Simply based on the fact that these guys live in communes you could probably guess that there ideas about Jesus and politics are pretty different from your average American Christian - and you would be correct. I'm probably close to half way through the book right now and I'm really enjoying it. I don't think I agree with everything that they're saying, but it is making me think and I appreciate that. I expect that I will have a lot more to say on the book in the coming weeks, but for now I wanted to focus on a specific passage that made me reconsider a pretty well-known part of Scripture.


The book talks a lot about how Jesus' methods of doing things were completely different from anything else - that his "kingdom's" focus was far different that any others. Specifically his reactions to injustice and violence. The book argues that Christ's method was neither passive nor vengeful, but an alternative "third way". The authors point to Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount and the idea of "turning the other cheek" (Matt. 5:38-42):

"When hit on the cheek, turn and look the person in the eye (v. 39). In the orderly Jewish culture, a person would hit someone only with the right hand. In some Jewish communities, if you hit someone with the left hand, you could be banished for ten days. So a person would have to use a back slap to hit someone on the right cheek with the right hand. It's clear that Jesus described a backhand, like an abusive husband to a wife or a master to a slave. It was slap to insult, degrade, and humiliate, a slap meant not for an equal but for an inferior, to put someone in their place. But by turning the cheek, the other person said, 'I am a human being, made in the image of God, and you cannot destroy that.' Do not cower and do not punch back. Make sure the person looks into your eyes and sees your sacred humanity , and it will become increasingly harder for that person to hurt you." (Claiborne & Haw, pgs. 92-93)

It seems to me that most of the interpretation regarding this Scripture centers on meekly submitting to the assailant and allowing God to have His justice rather than you fighting back or seeking vengeance on your own. Claiborne and Haw's take on the passage is entirely different - there is a powerful dignity and boldness to be found within the victim's reaction. It is as though they are actively fighting back without violence and not simply allowing themselves to be passively tread upon.

This idea really struck me and i think it is a good lesson for the church as a whole. Especially within the culture, I think Christians have a tendency to stoop to either violence or passivity and fail to go that "third way". Often we either passively wait as culture passes us by and we are rendered totally irrelevant or we over-aggressively attack it back and completely alienate the people around us.

A specific example that comes to mind for me is the homosexual marriage debate. Obviously many Christians are very outspoken against anything having to do with homosexuals. There is a whole bunch of homophobia and aggressive verbal attacking that goes on from people claiming Christ. On the other end of the spectrum, there are the more "PC" Christians who, embarrassed by their more conservative brethren, are highly passive and willing to give into the marriage thing so that people aren't offended and turned away from the Gospel. I definitely fall more on the "PC" side of things, but as I've thought about it more and been confronted with this "third way" stuff, the more I believe that there is a way for traditional, God-ordained marriage to "turn its cheek" and show that it is sacred and created by God and that it is OK to stand up for marriage and kids having a normal mom and dad. It is also OK to offend some people (there are good and bad ways to do it) because the Gospel is offensive and Jesus was offensive - but He spoke the truth and stood up for the truth and he did it without being passive or violent.

Honestly, I don't know what taking the "third way" looks like in this particular situation (and many other situations) and it is oftentimes scary, but it is something that I'm going to try to work on.

The Ball is Rolling...

So, I guess I'll be the one to push it off since I'm and work and work is slow.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about evangelism lately. Mostly because I'm not really an "evangelist." I like to live like I have Jesus in my life, but I'm mostly scared to death to tell anyone that I have Jesus in my life. By "anyone," I mean people I don't know. I've always put a lot of emphasis on developing a relationship before I try to talk to them, but that turns out to me just never getting around to it.

My biggest problem is that I have a hard time putting my thoughts into words. I know how I feel about Jesus, but I don't know how to tell others about that. Clayton has recently challenged me to figure out how to say what it is about the gospel that has changed me. I must say that thinking about this has made me feel like I don't really understand. I know that Christ died beaten and scorned on a wooden cross for my sins, but why don't I act like it all the time?

I think this feeling of not fully grasping the gospel stems from my lack of making an effort to spread the gospel. I haven't been motivated enough to share the greatest news that could ever be told.

In an effort to understand how to talk to people, Clayton let me borrow a book called "Questioning Evangelism - Engaging People's Hearts the Way Jesus Did." It is written by Randy Newman and so far it has been really good. I've only gotten through a little more than the first chapter, but it has made me think a lot about how to bring a conversation around to the gospel. As you probably guessed, he suggests using questions to get people to open up and have a discussion instead of having an agenda or script. He also talks about answering questions with questions, which is what Christ did a lot. (Matt 22:17-20, Matt 12:9-12, Luke 20:1-8) The scripture references and the "real life" examples he uses are mostly from someone asking a question, but the motivation behind the question was to put him on the defensive and not really a sincere inquiry. Here is an example:

Accusatory tone: "Why do you still believe in God in light of people's dying of AIDS?"
-"How do you explain so many deaths?"

This response engages the person without you having to go into defense mode. Instead, it opens up a dialogue where you can see where the other person is coming from. We've talked about the pizza a lot in Thirdcamp and I think this questioning approach is a good way to get the conversation to a place where you can see which piece of the pizza the person in interested in.

I'm pretty excited about reading more about this approach and applying these things in the way I talk to people. Now that you all know where I'm at, I'd really appreciate any input or other book recommendations.

tomatoes on my sandwich,
Aaron

What is Third Camp?

"I desperately needed to find a 'third camp,' a group of Christians who had concern for justice in the world but who grounded it in the nature of God rather than in their own subjective feelings." -Tim Keller (The Reason For God: Introduction)

While reading the introduction to Tim Keller's book our bible study came across these words that tie together the desire Keller has and we have to live a life that is caring, compassionate, and appropriate in God's eyes. A life lived as a result of a changed heart through knowing God and the Gospel. The tasks of understanding and living a life that is a response and reminder of the life Jesus lived is a daunting one. We attempt to meet with each other and encourage each other through study of scripture, reading other books, and viewing everything in our lives as part of God's creation and a way to understand our relationship with Him.

This blog is another attempt to share with each other what we learn and experience day to day. A better, more technologically savvy way to attempt to grow together in our knowledge of our world and our God. We will write on books, art, scripture, and experiences that effect us. We will ask for comment, affirmation, and correction from each other.