Male and Female Relationship

Here is another paper that I am working through for that Systematics class at Fuller. (The same class that I posted earlier this month for...) This paper is about the male and female relationship. Again, the first section is the assignment that I had to work within, the second portion is the paper, and the third section is the endnotes... Sorry that the numbers don't show up for the endnotes. Would love feedback and creative thoughts regarding the writing...




An adult Sunday School class of a church in your city is beginning a series entitled “Relationships of Men and Women in the Bible,” and they have asked you to be a guest speaker for the first session. Of course, they want you to talk about Adam and Eve! Your next-door neighbor began attending that church a year ago, and you have noticed some problems developing in their relationship. The wife has become more passive and even depressed, while the husband seems to be caught up with the challenge to be the “godly leader” of “his home.” They have shown interest in this series and you expect that they will attend. In considering the needs of this group, you realize that your first talk could have major implications for their evaluation of subsequent sessions. Taking this opportunity seriously, you decide to write out your view of male/female relationships based upon the biblical account of creation, also relevant texts from the New Testament. Don’t worry that reading your paper to the class may only consume six or seven minutes... you know that the nature of its content will generate lively discussion!






We all come with different ideas regarding the male and female relationship. We all have had different experiences. Our different experiences have included families that have taught us differently, friends that have handled relationships differently, people who have taught us with different approaches to the male/female relationship, and life experiences that have given us different pieces of wisdom. Not all of our ideas are right, and not all of our ideas within the processing of our experiences are wrong. All of our experiences are simply what they are; experiences that are in need of process. With this in mind, we must approach the subject of the male/female relationship with great humility as we process through the Bible with one another.
Beginning the subject of the male/female relationship within the Bible, it seems to be fitting that we begin in the twenty sixth and twenty seventh verses in the first chapter of Genesis. Then God said, “Let us make human beings in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God created them male and female in his likeness and in his image. While being made in the likeness of God can also be translated as being made in the similitude of God, we may find it more interesting to look at the deeper implications of what it means to be made in the image of God. To be made in his image also literally means to be cut out of God. As we are cut out of God we receive God’s ontic imprint on our lives, which many believe manifests itself within the human character and the human soul. So when it comes to both males and females being made in the image of God, it will be helpful to remember that both males and females are “cut out” of God and this “cutting out” is represented in who we are called to be as humans.
So who are we called to be as humans? As we continue in the first chapter of Genesis we can see that God has made male and female in his image, and that in between the two statements of being made in his image, we read that we are called to rule over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, the livestock, the wild animals, and all the creatures that move along the ground. This seems to be the author’s way of emphasizing that we are called to rule over God’s created order. We must be careful when we intertwine being made in God’s image with ruling over creation. We must remember how God rules and refuse the temptation of ruling as the world views the action of ruling. Jesus says in Matthew 20:28 that he did not come to be served (passive), but rather came to serve (active) and to give his life as a ransom for many. The Greek word for ransom is lutron and means to be an instrument by which deliverance is made possible. Jesus is both the male and female example of what it means to rule, and thus we too are called to rule, or serve, or be a lutron by which deliverance is made possible for creation.
Within the idea of male and female being “cut out” of God, and both male and female being called to rule over the earth, we also have to address the reality of differentiation within our personhood. As humans, we have been differentiated as male and female. Sexually this differentiation is intrinsic to the polarity of the human within the framework of the image of God. It also seems that as individual humans are born, grow and function within a culture, differentiation seems to happen within the level of personality. It seems that God has found it fitting that this differentiation is necessary in order for males and females to rule over the earth. Thus, the “cut out” of the male and the female are different and yet equally important for this ruling over the earth. Within this differentiation of gender and personality , we must seek unity in ruling the created order not as male and female, but as humanity.
Unity within differentiation may sound like a positive idea, but this idealistic unity becomes more difficult as we begin to work our way through the third chapter of Genesis. He (the serpent) said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” (Gensis 3:1b-5) Essentially, the woman was coerced by the serpent into thinking that she should be God, not the she will be like God. God has already told her that she is like God. In this moment, Eve chose to work at becoming God, and the natural result was a division between humanity and God. Similarly, when sin enters the constructs of differentiation, one person views reality as an individual with an autonomous ego, rather than as a united corporate body, “cut out” of God to rule over the created order with God.
While marriage was instituted before this division happened between humanity and God, it seems that the marriage covenant has been helpful in maximizing the unity of the corporate body of husband and wife as a secondary order of God. Since differentiation is the primary order of God and precedes the order of marriage, we must keep our priorities straight in remembering that marriage is secondary and that marriage is made possible by the primary order of differentiation. Thus, in keeping our priorities in proper order, we must be mindful that marriage serves to achieve unity within differentiation. Thus, marriage seems helpful in aiding within the context of the primary order of differentiation. This responsibility, however, ultimately belongs to the primary order of human beings as differentiated, called to rule with one another in a unified fashion.
In bringing this conversation full circle, we must look at the eschatological dimensions of male and female. Mark shares the words of Jesus in the twenty fifth verse of the twelve chapter of his Gospel. “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” This verse seems to imply that as we move deeper into the reality of eternity, we will no longer be male or female. Thus the marriage relationship that we responsibly maintain as a secondary order will no longer apply as heaven and earth converge on one another. The way that these differentiated relationships are handled within the secondary order are temporal and will fade into the new order of the deepest levels of reality as God’s reign fully comes.
This topic is mysterious and must be handled with humility within the context of all of our different experiences. We are created, or “cut out” of God’s image, and a portion of what it means to be created in God’s image is that we are called to rule with God over creation. This ruling, or serving, is to be done in unity within the primary order of the differentiation of male and female. Unity within the ruling is difficult, especially within the construct of a humanity that has chosen to divide itself from God. Marriage is a secondary order that is helpful in pursuing unity within differentiation for supporting the call of humanity in ruling over the created order. While positive relationships within a differentiated humanity is important, these relationships will be temporal as the eschatological implications of eternity seem to point towards a future with no differentiation between male and female as the Kingdom is fully ushered in.


ENDNOTES

I think that the TNIV version of Genesis 1:26,27 is better suited in the English language than a version such as the King James. Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. (KJV) One can easily grasp how women have been subject to such disrespect by men in the church through scriptures such as these. TNIV brings about a better understanding of reality through its translation.

Mlx can also mean “something cut out”. This is a vivid picture to in teaching this text to give a picture of what it means to be made in the image of God. In a world where cut and paste are so prominent, the idea of being cut out of God will be very tangible for those who are involved in the 21st century. Accordance Bible Software Version 7.1. Copyright 2006, Oaktree Software Incorporated. www.accordancebible.com.

Anderson gives the three key texts for the imago Dei. He includes Genesis 1:26 and 27, Genesis 5:1, and Genesis 9:6. On page 217 he then goes on to explain Genesis 1:26 and 27 by distinguishing from image and likeness. Anderson writes that the image of God represents the ontic imprint of God on the human character, typically reason or conscience. Likeness, he then contends, is the original state of God likeness that was lost in the fall. Thus Adam could not lose the image of God, but only the likeness. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p. 216, 217.)

Baker Commentary 12, this is not much of a jump. The Baker Commentary notes that “man is animal, but is more than animal. Man is godlike, but he is less than God.” The commentary then continues to say than man is to rule over the remainder of the created order. The commentary also notes than this is not a “license to rape” and destroy everything in the environment. “Even here he who would be lord of all must be servant of all.” While I don’t like Hamilton’s comment on being animal but being more than animal, I feel that he finished strong with his comments on servant ruling. Commentary on the Bible: Based on the NIV (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1989 p. 12.)

Matthew 20:28 and Mark 10:45 both touch on the importance of Jesus as the God who came to serve. The natural end of his serving was a reality of ransom. Louw and Nida define ransom as “the means or instrument by which release or deliverance is made possible”. I love the thought that we are to be instruments by which release or deliverance is made possible for creation! Accordance Bible Software Version 7.1. Copyright 2006, Oaktree Software Incorporated. www.accordancebible.com.

This differentiation can be more easily seen as we view both males and females being “cut out” of the image of God. Personally, it is almost a geographical picture of males being cut out of this portion of God and females being cut out of that portion of God. While the theological implications may not be perfect in this instance, I think that this picture will help the learners of the study to get a bigger and better picture of differentiation and imago Dei. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p. 105.)

Barth would disagree. For instance, Anderson quotes Barth, “For humans, sexual determination as male and female is the only differentiation.” Through the rest of this essay, one will encounter that I feel as if differentiation goes beyond the sexual On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p.53.)

Anderson does a lovely job of explaining the effect of sin on the differentiation of humanity. He writes that the result of sin is to pursue the individual ego, rather than the corporate ego. This individual ego also seems to encompass the individual sex, rather than the balanced uniting of both sexes to purse a servant ruling of creation. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p. 108.)

While this idea may seem to be too academic for this setting, I think that it is a necessary conclusion to the argument that I am making. This point is the glue that holds this whole argument together. Also, the title of this series that I am introducing is called Relationships of Men and Women in the Bible. People are probably going to be attending that want to hear more about the marriage relationship. Most importantly, my neighbors need to be thinking more about the male and female relationship in light of their current struggles. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p. 52.)

Anderson writes that the relationships of husband and wife and of mother and father as we know them are temporal and provisional in light of the eschatological order. Thus, while being responsible in these relationships, we must be mindful that a deeper level of reality is on its way. On Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Pasadena, California: Fuller Seminary Press, 1982 p. 118.)

A Tribute

This is a tribute to a certain man, who is an elder at a certain church that supports a certain intern from a certain seminary in a certain town in Southern California who certainly doesn't like to beat around the bush. This certain Cuban writes...

Any Jackass can learn. Only leaders can lead.

Some Tigers in the OC

I took the day off yesterday and it was marvelous! Ben Dykhouse and went down to the south side of LA and took in the Tigers/Angels baseball game. We arrived early to watch batting practice and then enjoyed an ugly, but fun baseball game. Here is a picture of Pudge, another one of batting practice, and a video of Magglio's homerun in the 9th. The home run was to give the tigers a lead after a huge 7 run comeback. (It was a blast cheering in front of all the Angels fans!) Unfortunately, Todd Jones couldn't hold the lead in the 9th, and then he lost the game in the tenth.

Bolger on Missional Church

Justin Beck turned me to the presbemergent blog a couple of days ago that included a link to this website. http://www.allelon.org/resources/netcasts/wimc_rbolger.cfm... This link includes an interview with Ryan Bolger regarding his reflections on the missional church.

Continuing With Spiritual Abuse

We continued with our discussion surrounding spiritual abuse in Dr. Dale Ryan's class and I wanted to post some of the notes that I took. This section introduced some characteristics of spiritually abusive communities.


Characteristics of Spiritually Abusive Communities (From Johnson and VanVonderen, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.)

-Power Posturing
Leaders spend a lot of time focusing on their own authority and reminding others of it as well.
-Performance Preoccupation
Individual worth contingent on compliance with authority.
-Unspoken Rules
You don’t find out the rules until you have broken them.
-Lack of Balance
Extreme subjectivism or objectivism.
-Paranoia
Others will not understand what we’re all about, so let’s not let them know—that way they won’t be able to ridicule or persecute us.
-Misplaced Loyalty
Loyalty to leadership justified by uniqueness of leaders. Intimidation, humiliation and/or threats to the disloyal
-Secretive
One reason spiritually abusive people are so secret bc they are so image conscious. They can’t live up to their own performance standards, so they have to hide what is real.





A common effect of spiritual abuse is spiritual anorexia... THe following are some characteristic of spiritual anorexia. Dr. Ryan used metaphors that paralleled anorexia as an eating disorder.


-Characteristics of Spiritual Anorexia

-Resistance to spiritual nurture.
Food is the enemy or the problem.
It can be intellectualized as atheism or agnostic.
People who have been giving all their life and therefore unable to receive.
-Distorted self-concept
Just like someone who is anorexic, this person thinks that he or she is worse that he or she really is.
We are beautiful people.
-Control issues
Who controls what goes into my body?
Who controls what my spiritual life is like?






As I have been processing all of this information from this class I have been coming to realize that many of the authors that were the strongest voices in my life prior to coming to California (Brian McLaren, Donald Miller, Rob Bell, Leonard Sweet) all were very senstive to people that had been spiritually abused. All of these authors seem to be advocates for those that have experienced this type of abuse and want the spiritually abused to encounter the reality of God. Also involved in the encounter of God seems to be the process of unlearning the toxic content of the god that was associated with the spiritual abuse that they recieved. MUCH OF THE MINISTRY THAT WILL BE DONE OVER THE NEXT GENERATIONS WITH BE ENCOURAGING THE CIRCULAR PROCESS OF UNLEARNING god AND LEARNING God.

Spiritual Abuse

While attending Dr. Dale Ryan's class regarding abuse this morning, we came across an interesting subject... Spiritual Abuse. This subject fires me up in some unusual ways and I will be working through trying to articulate why I get so fired up about spiritual abuse. It really is amazing to me when I begin to contemplate so many of the things that followers of Christ naturally do without considering the implications of the possibility of abuse. The following is just a brief seven-point paradigm from my notes designed to begin the conversation on how spiritual abuse can manifest within systems of people...

-7 types of Spiritual abuse
-Any kind of abuse can be linked to spiritual abuse.
-Some abuse is spiritual abuse bc it takes place in a spiritual place or done by someone who has spiritual authority.
-The use of spiritual truths or practices to do harm rather than good.
-Some abuse is spiritual abuse because the victim is perceived to be in a position of spiritual authority.
-Coercive spirituality can be spiritual abuse.
-Some abuse is spiritual abuse because it invokes divine authority in order to manipulate people into performing behaviors which meet the needs of the abuser.
-Some abuse is spiritual abuse because it holds our relationship with God hostage to some kind of performance.

Teaching Portfolio

If you are interested in checking out the teaching that I did at Calvin Christian High School during their Spiritual Emphasis week back in March, all teachings are now posted online... See www.nickwarnesteaching.blogspot.com (an online teaching portfolio) for the four part series. I have posted one of the four teachings here as well. Thank you for the support...

The Balance of Words

The Center

I just finished one of four "papers" or letters that I have to write for an Individualized Distance Learning class at Fuller Seminary. The class is called Theological Anthropology and the Revelation of God, which is basically a fancy name for Practical Systematic Theology. I have not proofed the paper yet and would appreciate any feedback that you might be able to give. The first section is the assignement that I was given and the second section is the letter and the third section is the end notes. I would recommend all of the books found in the endnotes. Thanks for reading!!!


3. You teach an adult class in a large church as part of your intern assignment while completing your seminary degree. On one particular Sunday the class discussion focused on the implications of Paul’s statement in Romans 8:28, “ We know that in everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according to his purpose.” You explained the verse in terms of our confidence in God’s providence, so that we know that God is always in control even over the power of evil. The following Sunday, Sara Smith, a member of the class handed you a note in which she wrote, “As you know, my husband and I had a child who was born with a severe microcephalic condition, and died 18 months later, after much suffering. I tried to understand this as part of God’s plan and purpose, but have given up. I no longer believe that God is allpowerful and controls every event which takes place. I have found Rabbi Harold Kushner’s book When Bad Things Happen to Good People, to be more helpful. I think that he is right when he says, ‘I can worship a God who hates suffering but cannot eliminate it more than I can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die.’” You decide to write a letter to her in response giving her what you consider to be the biblical teaching of God’s sovereignty and the problem of human suffering.



Dear Sara,
I wanted to infrom you that I have finished reading the note that you wrote to me and wanted to thank you for the honesty with which you spoke. Most importantly, I appreciated the honesty with which you shared the difficult circumstances that you and your husband have recently endured with the loss of your child. Please let me know if there is anything that my wife or I could do to help you in your journey through the loss of your child. I also appreciated the honesty with which you wrote regarding your new beliefs and your respect for Harold Kushner and his work. I have heard that his work is encouraging many people and I am also encouraged in hearing that his book has been helpful in your life.
The quote that you included in your letter from Kushner’s work, “I can worship a God who hates suffering but cannot eliminate it more than I can worship a God who chooses to make children suffer and die.” also deeply resonates in my life. I grew up in a church that used the King James Version of the Bible and subsequently had a Christian perspective that ultimately centered incorrectly around Romans 8:28. The TNIV translates Romans 8:28 as…And we know that in all things God works for the food of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. The KJV reads as following… And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose. I recognize that the difference in language is minute, but the practical difference between the two is colossal. As I read Romans 8:28 in the KJV as a young man, I didn’t understand how “all things work together as good”, especially in light of contexts similar to you and your husbands with the loss of your child. I especially had trouble wrapping my mind and my heart around Romans 8:28 when looking just a few chapters ahead to Romans 9:12 and Paul’s remarks on hating what is evil. Basically I did not understand how anything could be evil if “all things work together for good”. Yet the tension remained of clearly evil things happening around my life. However, as I looked closer at the original Greek language, I learned that the TNIV is much more correctly translated. This minute difference in translation has been essential to my personal understanding of the sovereignty of God.
Whenever pondering the sovereignty of God I like to remind myself to begin with the central Truth that God is love. As we often ponder God, and neglect to put love at the center, I feel that we miss the deepest reality of the character of God. Never in the Bible does a writer include the fact that control is what it means to be God, or that sovereignty is what it means to be God. Rather 1 John 4:8 says that God is love. John reminds us that love is what it means to be God. Thus, the question now turns into what the sovereignty of God means with the love of God at the center of the reality of God’s character.
I believe that the central and most important expression of God’s love and sovereignty is found in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus was fully God and fully human and therefore gives us the most tangible way to intertwine our lives into the very character of God. I also believe that the primary way that we interact with Jesus is through relationship. Just as the Father and the Son were relationally connected, so we are to be relationally connected with the Father, through the Son. I feel as if many people live as if God was distant, rather than near. Jesus is the way that we know that God is near and the way that we know that we are called into relationship with God.
I also believe that the central portion of the life of Jesus was the cross. While many have found the resurrection of the cross to be central in their view on the love and sovereignty of God, I have often found it helpful to put the “hanging Jesus” as central to the love and sovereignty of God. Since Jesus is the essence that reminds us of the nearness of God, the cross then becomes a place where God’s nearness intertwines within the most difficult of contexts of our lives in a sovereign manner. Mark highlights this thought in Mark 10:45. “For even the Son of Man did not come to serve, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark seemed to pick up on this idea that the central mission of Jesus and the central act of the sovereignty of God, may have included God’s passion to immanently interact with an often suffering humanity through a “suffering servant” in Christ.
There seems to be a balance between the transcendence and the immanence of God within the reality of what it means to be living as a human. Basically, in recent years, I feel as if this balance has fallen too far in the direction of focusing solely on the transcendence of God and has left us with a distorted view on the sovereignty of God. More of balanced view of the immanence and transcendence of God may remind us that God is near, in both good and bad times, entering into the beauty of both with us.
What if God was so powerful that God chose to take on the very nature of a servant in Christ? What if within the beauty of the control of God, God chose to team with humanity in determining the spread of the love of God to the ends of the earth? What if God’s sovereignty includes sharing power, with the very creatures that God created in God’s image, in restoring, redeeming and determining the world? The idea behind these questions seem to leave more room for not only understanding the manifestation of evil within our world but also leaves more room for the immanence of God to suffer with us in the most difficult of times. Recently a quote from one of my favorite authors, Clark Pinnock, has been resonating in my life, especially in light of the letter that you wrote to me. Pinnock writes, “It requires more power to rule over an undetermined world than it would over a determined one.” Essentially, I feel as if more of a healthy balance between the transcendence and the immanence of God within the world will lead to more of a balanced view of the sovereignty of God and will lead to better responses to both beauty and evil with the church.
I never finished remarking on the whole verse of Romans 8:28. The verse finishes with Paul reminding us that God works “the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” Your love for God has been very clear to me Sara. Thus, I am encouraged that you have been called according to his purpose. I believe that God’s purpose is to sovereignly bring God’s Kingdom more fully into this world, and I believe that God wants to do this in community with the church. So often, as American followers of Jesus, we try to figure out the big questions and live the difficult times as individuals. I think that this is wrong and that we are purposefully called to live these difficult questions out with one another. Thus, I am excited to continue in conversation with you over the next weeks over these most difficult questions. Let’s be sure to get together for a double date with our spouses over the next couple of weeks to reflect over some of these thoughts. You pick the location and we’ll buy!
Grace and Peace,
Nick Warnes




Endnotes

Craig Blomberg points out the essential differences between the KJV and the NIV. He writes that there are things that are wicked and contrary to God’s purpose but also recognizes that God nevertheless works in them. I felt this was important for me to connect my story to Sara’s story to let her know that I feel where she is coming from. From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts Through Revelation (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman and Homan Publishers, 2006 p.251)

Richard Rice reminds us that central to the character of God is love. Soon after his work on page 19, he continues by quoting Emil Brunner. “God is love is the most daring statement that had ever been made in the human language.” Rice continues on page 21 by saying that God is not a center of infinite power, who happens to be loving, and that he is loving beyond all else. Overall, I feel that this paragraph is important in light of our mechanical, individualistic, Western influenced biases on who God is and led me to centralize the love of God in this letter. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1994 p. 19-21)

Richard Rice introduces reflections on the openness of God on pages 15 and16. This portion of the letter begins to highlight a different approach regarding the understanding of the sovereignty of God and was influenced by Rice’s introductory thoughts on the openness of God. Basically I feel like Rice is pointing us in the direction of putting the love of God at the center of our understanding of whom God is rather than the sovereignty of God as the central component of God’s being. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1994 p. 15,16)

Clark Pinnock uses the relational aspects of the trinity to describe God’s relational perfection. The context of the trinity did not fit well in this space, but I did highlight the relationship of the Father and the Son in this portion of the letter. Pinnock goes deeper in saying that this is the opposite of self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency, especially within the context of the American culture, is something that I address at the end of the letter. The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1994 p. 108)

Anderson tells the provocative story of the nominally Catholic women who gains hope through learning of a Christological approach to the providence of God via Anderson when he went to visit her on her death bed. Anderson put the dying Jesus at the center of his theology rather than the resurrected Jesus and then pointed towards the piece of art the symbolized the same thing on the women’s wall. This story was in lecture 9 of the lecture series entitled the Providence of God.

George Eldon Ladd Expands on Mark 10:45 extensively and claims Jesus’ death as the messianic mission of the Son of Man in his section called the Suffering Servant. He also goes on to explain the differences and confusions found in the death of Jesus as Son of Man and Jesus as messiah. A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eeerdmans Publishing Company, 1974 p. 154, 155)

In Clark Pinnock’s wonderful section on systematic theology he goes into a long discourse regarding the balance of the imminence and the transcendence of God and the intimate relationship that these two ideas play on one’s understanding of the sovereignty of God. I love how Pinnock does not take one side or another regarding this issue but focuses on a balance of both. It seems that in Sara’s context, the thought of an imminent God is going to be more powerful, so I pushed this side of the balance a little bit harder.

Philippians 2:7

Stanley J. Grenz goes on to say that God creates our experiences within community and not on an individual level. I feel that a context as complex as Sara’s will need to happen within community in order to be processed well. The leadership of the community also should have some sort of a similar understanding of the sovereignty of God that will empower Sara and her husband, rather than hand cuff them. Revisioning Evangelical Theology: A Fresh Agenda for the 21st Century (Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993 p. 73)

Growing Horizontally

We continue to be blessed with visitors that come from different lands. These past 10 days have been filled with the presence of our friends from Hudsonville, Scott and Allie, and our favorite shaved head person in the world, Caleb. The theme of the week for Scott and Allie was to experience different cultures while here in Los Angeles. The kids did a great job as they ate sushi and Korean BBQ, watched indie films, hung out in Hollywood, an Angels game and all over Pasadena, and still had time for a good ol American burger from IN and Out. Caleb arrived here last Wednesday and just left this afternoon. We golfed 33 holes, drank some nice wine and many conversations in catching up. Here are some pics from the trip...
It will be nice to move back into the rythem of being a student and working at GPC. I have some fun writing and reading to do over the next couple weeks and I will be sure to post some of it.

The Reign Continues

My most recent memories of watching a baseball game include equally cold feet and pilsner, mobs of fans, a promise of future world series tickets for three, the final out in the Tigers only world series win, and a meditative flight home to Los Angeles after a last minute trip to Michigan. And with the first pitch of this season we celebrate not only a new season, filled with high expectations, but we also celebrate the continuing of the movement of life since the last pitch of 2006.

Life has changed since last October.

Things continue to happen. Tears have fallen. Laughs have communicated. Opportunities over the past months have arisen for all. Some have been realized and some have not. Wine has been swallowed. As has water. Love has become more tangible, more real. Love has never felt so far away. The Kingdom has continued to extend through a complex network of communities that vigorously represent the transcendent desire to engage the "priestly" calling of election. Some have been hurt. Some have been healed. Leaders have risen. Leaders have fallen. Relationships have grown deeper and relationships have grown shallow. Friends are coming, friends are going, friends are staying, and friends are leaving. Life has birthed not only out of the womb, but also out of death and death has come only in leading to a deeper sense of the finest realities of life. Decisions have been made. Prayers have risen. Conversations have happened. Words have been read. Words have been heard. Words have been spoken. The process of redemption has moved forward with an ever growing potential and momentum. And finally, "the reign" continues.

The first pitch came today, and I am thankful for the paradigm that baseball gives us to express the beauty of the connection through the past, the present and the future.