More on Stewardship

More on Stewardship

Here are some more thoughts on Stewardship as a model for leadership.

1 Peter 4:10 Like good stewards of the manifold grace of God, serve one another with whatever gift each of you has received. ¹¹ Whoever speaks must do so as one speaking the very words of God; whoever serves must do so with the strength that God supplies, so that God may be glorified in all things through Jesus Christ. To him belong the glory and the power forever and ever. Amen.

The associations here are Grace, Steward, and Serve. Unusual associations. Let’s look first at the word Grace.

When we look at grace in the New Testament, we are looking at the first century world in which Paul lived, and was based on reciprocity. Reciprocity was basic to all forms of social interaction in ancient Mediterranean society. Cicero, for example, tells us that if obligations are incurred between two parties, an adequate response is required, for no duty is more imperative than that of proving one's gratitude. Seneca does not hesitate to point out reciprocal interchange was the chief bond that holds people together in society. Within the Graeco-Roman world the exchange of services were never voluntary, but always reciprocal.

In this context was the benefactor, who was someone who could provide you with access to goods, advancement, resources, assistance, and so forth. There were variations on this theme, but the main characteristics seem to be:

• There was a difference in status between the benefactor and the beneficiary, the one who received assistance;
• It was a voluntary relationship;
• It was based on trust, loyalty, and obligation
• It was the role of the superior (benefactor) to provide protection for the beneficiary.

The motivation that moved the benefactor to give assistance to the beneficiary was the free and good will of the benefactor. It was solely the choice of the benefactor to help the potential beneficiary or not, but accepting the gift meant accepting an obligation of loyalty and service to the benefactor.

In the New Testament it became know as Grace. God was the Benefactor for his people. Like the Roman-Greek world that Paul moved and lived, God was not compelled or required to respond to those who came to him for a benefit (indeed, we can make the case that God acted unmoved and unasked to bestow benefits on his people).

Grace then is the foundational understanding of how God related to his people. Unasked and unmoved, he bestowed benefits on his people, and expected a reciprocal relationship of loyalty and service in response to his grace. This is the motivation for the New Covenant and the sending of Jesus Christ to become a human being (If you want to understand this a little better, I suggest a few hours of reading Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics).

The second idea that comes into play is that of the steward. Peter applies the concept to God’s grace and the relationship between Christians. Each Christian receives Grace from God, which manifests itself in various ways. Each of us is called to be stewards of that grace, to act as brokers in a way. This means we are responsible to see that God’s grace is extended to every person, and that they experience that grace in real and meaningful way.

As we receive this grace from our benefactor, we are called upon to show loyalty and service to him, and to use that grace and as well as carry it to others.

The final result is that this will all amount to the glory of the benefactor. He will be honored and recognized for his generosity to his beneficiaries.

Finally, as brokers of his grace, we are to serve each other. The concept of the steward as it is used here is that I have been given a trust and a commission to use God’s grace in my life to minister to others. When we speak, we speak the very words of God; when we serve, we do so with the strength that God supplies.

And I must give accountability for all this someday.

This is why I like the concept of the steward better than leadership. For me, leadership moves the focus from God to me and what I can do for God, and how I can be used by God. Stewardship says that what I have is not my own, it has been given to me, and I have to respond to God’s gift of grace by my loyalty and service to him. When I do that, others benefit from his grace. If I do it as a leader, I have a great program as the result. I think lives count more.

Theologien

Stewardship vs Leadership

Stewardship vs Leadership

I have some issues with the idea of leadership as used in a Christian context. It is less about leading than how to manage power. Much of it seems to be concerned with justifying current business practice and theory and how it is used in the church. Most of the people that I know in a business context tend toward a "High D" personality. This is fairly important for succeeding in the world of money and power. But I’m not always comfortable with the way it is translated into practice in the church. That is why I find this passage in Matt. 20 interesting. What is the real issue concerning power? Read on, and I try to explain what I mean.

Matt. 20:24 When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

A. We find a lot of kingdom language this passage. If you are familiar with George Eldon Ladd, you know what I'm talking about. (If not, check out this link: The Gospel of the Kingdom.)

The kingdom, if course, is all about power. Stated quite simply, it is about the rule of God. It is the ultimate example of power. We think that the kingdom of God is about the place where God rules, and not about that actual rule. It is interesting to note that up until about the 13th century of this Christian era the focus of a king's power was on the people. They gave their allegiance and fealty to the king, no matter where they were in the world. Land was incidental to his rule for the resources that any good king needed to show that he was wealthy, powerful, and whatever else. It was about the time of the 13th century that French kings began to see themselves as rulers of a geographical area, and the people who lived there were their subjects. The rest is history.

Maybe this is why Jesus was a threat to the Romans, and why they bought into the accusations of the Jewish leaders. Jesus was seen as a king claiming the loyalty of the Jewish people in the midst of Rome's area of sovereignty. Rome didn’t like competition.

Having said all this, let us take a look as what Jesus says about power.

24 When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers.

This is a great scene. It occurs after the story of the mother of James and John asking Jesus for special consideration for her two sons when he comes into his kingdom. The other ten were really put off by what she had done. Why? Maybe because they hadn't thought of this first?

So, what's wrong with this? Any good business person wants to secure their future and keep their options open. And how could a good Jewish boy ignore a mother's plea? (This is not a slam, but a very admirable trait that I've seen countless times with Jewish mothers). The text says that they were really angry with James and John. The word "angry" describes the irritation and vexation that someone feels toward an object or person. In the scene in Phaedo where Socrates is committing suicide by drinking hemlock, he expresses a vexation about what lies after death. He says:

And therefore, so far as that is concerned, I not only do not grieve, but I have great hopes that there is something in store for the dead, and, as has been said of old, something better for the good than for the wicked. Socrates, Phaedo

Socrates is grieved that he knows nothing anything about the afterlife; we can feel the vexation and anxiety surging through his veins; Socrates feels a real sense of powerlessness in his position. The ten disciples felt the same kind of vexation when they thought they were going to lose out on their place in the kingdom.

How does Jesus respond to this attitude in the ten disciples? Basically, he calls a huddle, saying “come here and pay attention.” Jesus is calling them to a sense of accountability.

B. Who has the juice?

²⁵ But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them.

Jesus then begins a discourse on power and authority. The first issue is how power is wielded in this world. He uses the “…lord it over them”, which means to become lord, subjugate, or to rule. This is a power word. This is what rulers do. But Jesus goes deeper. Implicit in this phrase is the idea of this kind of lordship that personifies a sphere of power opposed to God. Jesus is focusing on the grasping for power that occurs by coercion.

Following this word is another power word: Tyrant. In the New Testament it is when one uses their power against someone or something. It is used mostly of rulers who misuse their power against the people. Here I found that the German word Herrschaft is a pretty good way to define this concept.

Herrschaft is a term that refers to a relationship that exists between two or more people in a relationship, one who is dominant and the one who is subordinate. The power of the dominant person is seen as legitimate, which functions as an institution. Here we have to understand that Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation which govern the behavior of two or more individuals. So, an institution refers to a recognized form of social control, not just an organization or group. Herrschaft focuses on the behavior of the subordinate party, with an emphasis on obedience and influence.

The idea that Jesus was trying to explain to his disciples that to “exercise lordship/dominion” was a trade mark of the gentile rulers and authorities. They need to control and influence their subjects to support the throne, and to give themselves wholly to it

I am reminded of Karl Marx, who said that power involves both constraint and enablement (cf. Michel Foucault) Power is the ability to make choices or influence outcomes, either by influence or by coercion.

(I should note here the difference between power and authority. Power refers to the ability to achieve certain ends; authority refers to legitimacy, the justification and right to exercise that power.)

26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave;

Jesus addresses the attitude of the twelve disciples and their desire for power and position in the kingdom, and how to attain it. However, he sets their expectations upside down. They could look around them and see all kinds of examples of power, but it was power that was abused, and it started with Augustus and Tiberius, the Roman emperors, and went all the way down to the Herod and his ilk.

Jesus tells them that this was not to be their way. Mainly, because this way just uses people as grist for the mill and then spits them out. Power is institutionalized. It is always the same, the only difference if that different faces wielded it. No, the way of Jesus was different.

Jesus starts out with a big word: If.

If, a little word used in conditional sentences to designate what is expected to occur under certain circumstances: “if, as is to be expected …”

This is not how you will acquire power, and it is not how you will exercise power in your lives. Note the dialectic about power that Jesus sets up in this passage:

• “The great ones” (οἱ μεγάλοι) vs. 25, vs. “To be great” (μέγας); what is the measure of greatness? οἱ μεγάλοι was a title that a ruler took upon himself. This is the opposite of the phrase μέγας γενέσθαι, to be great. If you wanted to be great, it was not conferred by a title. For Jesus, greatness comes about by a change is one's very existence.
• Serving (διάκονος) vs. 26, vs. Serving (δοῦλος), vs. 27. The first word has the idea of serving, as in waiting on tables, etc. (cf. deacon), while the second word is usually translated as slave. Jesus says that if you really want to serve someone, you have to sell out to them, let them “own you” lock, stock, and barrel.
• To be served, vs. 27 (διακονηθῆναι) vs. to serve (διακονῆσαι) vs. 28. The first word means that we receive the action of the verb, the second is that we initiate the action. Jesus did not come to have people serve him. Instead, he came to do the serving.

Pretty radical. What kind of power do we want?

Do I serve someone as long as it serves my interests, and I can get something out of it, or am I sold out to serving someone else totally, putting aside my own needs, desires, and even my identity.

Do I assume positions of power so that I can get my needs taken care of, or do I assume the role of taking care of others despite the cost to me.

The word Ransom (λύτρον) means that a price or ransom has been paid to redeem a person out of the servitude of which they can't get free. Someone from the outside has to liberate a person in this situation.

This is exactly what Jesus meant. He is the picture of what it means to serve others. By setting aside all his prerogatives, he accomplished what everyone since Adam has tried to do --have power.

There are a couple of phrases that I often come across, CW and CCW. CW refers to conventional wisdom; CCW is counter conventional wisdom. Jesus is definitely CCW.

I think that years later Peter had this story in the back of his mind when he wrote to the churches in Asia Minor:

1 Peter 5 Now as an elder myself and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as one who shares in the glory to be revealed, I exhort the elders among you ² to tend the flock of God that is in your charge, exercising the oversight, not under compulsion but willingly, as God would have you do it--not for sordid gain but eagerly. ³ Do not lord it over those in your charge, but be examples to the flock.

And thus the title, Stewardship vs Leadership. I don’t think can understand what power and authority in the using current management and leadership theories. The model given to us by Peter of Christ in the scriptures is radically different. Christ is the model, the poster child, if you will, of what is expected of us. Stewardship may still not be the most useful term but it implies that we have been given a trust, and we are responsible for that which has been entrusted to us.

That’s a topic for another post.

Being Missional?

Missional: from the latin theological term Missio dei, that can be translated as "Mission of God". It refers to the work of the church as being part of God's work. So the church's mission is a subset of a larger whole mission that is it is both part of God's mission to the world and not the entirety of God's work in the world.God created the church to be a sign of His coming Kingdom. Leslie Newbigin says, “The church is a sign of the kingdom, pointing people to the reality which is beyond what we can see.”
In light of those conversations, let me share something I found by JR Woodward at Dream Awakener (www.jrwoodward.net/jrwoodward/). His post "A Working Definition of Success" provides a working definition of what missional might look like.

1. Not simply how many people come to our church services, but how many people our church serves.
2. Not simply how many people attend our ministry, but how many people have we equipped for ministry.
3. Not simply how many people minister inside the church, but how many minister outside the church.
4. Not simply helping people become more whole themselves, but helping people bring more wholeness to their world. (ie. justice, healing, relief)
5. Not simply how many ministries we start, but how many ministries we help.
6. Not simply how many unbelievers we bring into the community of faith, but how many “believers” we help experience healthy community.
7. Not simply working through our past hurts, but working alongside the Spirit toward wholeness.
8. Not simply counting the resources that God gives us to steward, but counting how many good stewards are we developing for the sake of the world.
9. Not simply how we are connecting with ou culture but how we are engaging our culture.
10. Not simply how much peace we bring to individuals, but how much peace we bring to our world.
11. Not simply how effective we are with our mission, but how faithful we are to our God.
12. Not simply how unified our local church is, but how unified is “the church” in our neighborhood, city and world?
13. Not simply how much we immerse ourselves in the text, but how faithfully we live in the story of God.
14. Not simply being concerned about how our country is doing, but being concern for the welfare of other countries.
15. Not simply how many people we bring into the kingdom, but how much of the kingdom we bring to the earth.

Some thoughts after two days

It's the culture, stupid! That's what I usually think when I don't do something I should do, do something I shouldn't, or just don't get it.

For example. I drove for the first time today in France. Not much more anxiety than driving in parts of Chicago. However, when you make a left turn in France, there is a large white circle in the middle of the road that you are supposed to go around on the right, not cut across it. This circle is meant to keep two large moving pieces of metal from contacting each other, especially when I'm in one of them. Makes sense, it you know what the white dot is for.

We did our first load of laundry tonight. No problem, except... everything is in French, and even then, the words written on the machine don't alway match what is in a french dictionary. So it might make sense or it might not. Then we could not figure out where to put the soap (it's in a pull out tray at the top left), how much to use (still don't know), and which of the five slots to put it (ditto). Our country director happen to call at an opportune moment, so most of the problems were solved.

Then, we couldn't get the door open on the washing machine. No matter how hard I tried, it wouldn't open. Finally, I noticed that it hadn't finished it's cycle, and the drum wasn't turning. I finagled the knobs and got it to short cycle to a finish, and then got the door open, behind which was our soaking wet laundry. The problem turned out to be nothing more benign than simple overloading of the machine.

Another problem: who do you kiss on the cheeks? Everyone kisses on the cheek (actually they launch the kiss in the air several inches from your skin and assume it will drift down to make contact). I saw quite a few people greet each other that way, but I saw no rhyme or rational for it, so I kept moving and shaking hands. Finally one very nice woman caught up with my wife, and then before I could react, we were both "bised" (kissed). The next thing you know I'll be buying a beret.

An interesting bit of culture shock is buying four pieces of ham in a plastic bag that cost as much as the entire pig in the U.S. Or paying for a liter (approximately a quart) of gasoline that costs almost as much as a gallon of gas in the states.

Of course, the problem isn't the culture, it is us --we are the people who are out of sync.

All of this is to say that as bad as it sounds, I've enjoyed every minute of it. Basically, I've had to deconstruct my own culture to discover why I do certain things a particular way, and come to the conclusion that it really isn't that important unless comfort and familiarity is really important to you.

I don't say that to be specious or sarcastic. All this is opening my eyes to how to do ministry here in France. I have no doubt that God can and will use the giftedness that he's given me to share and touch the lives of people here, but it means that I need to really think beyond the box and look carefully at my cultural baggage, and how it puts a spin on how to reach out to others.

But, as Paul writes, there is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, neither is there male or female, the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. I think that means that God is in culture as well as above it, and if so, there is hope for us whom he has called to serve France.

We've Moved

Well, here we are in France. Grenoble, to be exact. We got here on Friday about 1600H (4:00 PM local time, 9:00 AM Chicago time), got situated, and finally crashed after being awake for 40 hours.

We did sleep on the plane, but it was like the Pharaoh who had his legs broken in order to fit in his sarcophagus. But, it did get us through.

It is really a beautiful area, and we have a great view from our flat, half way up the side of a mountain.

This picture is looking to the south-east out of our sitting room window. It was cloudy and hazy when I took the shot, but I like the effect. I almost can see Frodo and Sam making their way along the side of the mountains on the way to Mordor.

It's been a grand adventure, although most missiologists tell you never to think of working in another culture as an adventure. Maybe it is because an adventure is about the thrills and challenges that you have to face on your own, relying on your own resources. Most of that is true except the part about being on your own and relying on your own resources. There is always a certain confidence that I seem to enjoy when I know I'm following God where he is leading.

Our first Sunday was kind of a red-banner day, attending two english language church services, and partaking communion with both congregations. Everyone was absolutely marvelous. We have several invitations to lunch and such, and there is already much in the queue as well.

As I sat doing devotions this morning, a thought struck me as I read through Psalm 1. It was the word "Torah," or Law, as it is commonly (though mistakenly) translated. Torah is more like instruction or guidance. It resembles a road map for a journey that shows us landmarks and places of interest along the way. It is not a series of laws and pronouncements, restrictions or lists of "do's" and "don'ts" given to us.

Paul points out that the word of God (i.e., the Law) is for equipping the saints for every good work. If you read 2 Tim. 3:16f, you have more the idea of a journey than a set of guide lines and regulations: scripture shows us the path we should walk, let's us know when we get off the path, shows us how to get back on the path, and then how to stay on that path.

I think this understanding of the Law comes from a bad reading of both Paul and Luther. Luther said in his sermon on the gospel of Matthew:

The Law is that word by which God teaches what we shall do, as for instance, the Ten Commandments. Now, if human nature is not aided by God's grace, it is impossible to keep the law, for the reason that man since the fall of Adam in Paradise is depraved and full of sinful desires, so that he cannot from his heart's desire find pleasure in the law, which fact we all experience in ourselves.

We get it right when we say, as with Luther, that God gives us his commands, which is Law. But where we get it wrong is that we think that this is all there is to it. Always with God's command there is also grace that transforms and changes human nature so that it is possible to keep the law and make us righteous before God. God never gives us a demand without giving us the ability to understand it and obey him. This is grace, or more properly, gospel.

The attempt to fulfill the demand of the Law outside the realm of grace is what we commonly think Luther refers to as Legalism (as does Paul, since he must of read Luther). But this is not legalism. Legalism is an overemphasis on the peripheries. The misunderstanding of both Paul and Luther (although Martin does blur the distinction from time to time) comes because we fail to see that the Pharisees tried to put a hedge around the Law, then kept books on everyone to make sure that they kept their sin and transgressions on the periphery of the hedge, and away from the Law.

As time went on, the breaking down of the hedges on the periphery was seen as heinous as breaking the Law itself. This is also why the Pharisees had long, drawn out discussions on what was work and what wasn't.

All of this to say that that Torah (law) refers to the way that God shapes the human soul. And as far as that path, verse six states the situation very clearly:

for the Lord watches over the way of the righteous, but the way of the wicked will perish.

The path desired by God is one where he watches over those who desire to follow him in their journey of faith, while an alternative is introduced with the word "but."

As always, it our choices that lead to our destiny.

And as such, Psalm one reads more like a love letter than a rule book.

The times they are a-changin'

The countdown is on, we are getting closer everyday. We leave for France 9/21/06 at 1803h (6:03 PM). Just spent the day packing boxes, get books ready for "M Bags" that my daughter can ship to us in France. I also loaded my truck with a dryer, two books shelves, and a Macintosh G4 computer for my grandson (he's not getting the dryer or bookshelves...). And I still got in a nap!

Had a real interesting talk with my neighbor. He shared a discussion he had with some friends who challenged him about his part in advancing the kingdom. The gist of the conversation was that God advances the kingdom, but we are his hands and feet. We are the body that Christ uses to minister. I guess it is just one of those things we look at everyday and never see.

The three cartons we are shipping to France are setting in the garage, waiting for the forwarding company to pick up on Tuesday. If everything goes well, we will get there about a week or so before the boxes.

Postmodernism: What do we know and when do we know we don't know?

This is part of an email conversation I've been having with my friend Nate. He asks some very penetrating questions that keep me on my toes, theologically and philosophically, but he is acutely aware of the issues involved in the whole post-modern environment and the story of the emerging church.

I'm including it in this blog because I think the correspondence is an interesting topic.

Howard:

I've been reading over that round of essays between Merold Westphal and Douglas Groothius to try and get a better understanding of the opposing views (www.christiancadre.org/topics/postmodern.html). Here's what I'm grappling with: At the root, the debate between the two is epistemological. How do we know anything? And Westphal, if I'm reading him correctly, says we can only "know" our Christian truth by faith (perhaps I'm phrasing this carelessly).
Groothius says:
"..if Christian apologetics does its job, one may believe with justification absolute theological truths, such as 'Jesus is the Son of God.'"

I want to be charitable to Mr. Groothius point of view here, but it seems rather ridiculous to me to assert that we believe doctrines because of the scaffolding of logical syllogisms holding them up.

Rather, I hear Westphal saying that the basis of our certainty is the Word, which makes no attempt to justify His Authority. I'm reminded of Moses' question, asking the burning bush to identify itself. And the response he got was, "I am that I am." As a kid, it always seemed to me that that was a cop-out answer, but now I realize that God does not need to (indeed, cannot)
identify himself contingent with any other thing.

Humbling.

So where does that leave us? I'm fully able to comprehend the folly of Enlightianity, whoops, I mean modern epistemological structures, but how should we then live? I understand now that I stand on the Rock and nothing else (not even propositions), but how do I resist that becoming a private piety that does not affect my surroundings?

Nate

Nate:

Let me throw some thoughts at you. I want to use as my text the phrase:
Groothius says:
"..if Christian apologetics does its job, one may believe with justification absolute theological truths, such as 'Jesus is the Son of God.'"

Of course, he is saying nothing more here than we can make a propositional statement and believe them. I'm reminded of Barth and his dislike of apologetics (which is, ultimately, epistemological). Barth had a pretty low opinion of apologetics, as seen in this quote:
"Anxiety concerning the victory of the Gospel—that is, Christian Apologetics--is meaningless, because the Gospel is the victory by which the world is overcome. ... It [the Gospel] does not require representatives with a sense of responsibility, for it is as responsible for those who proclaim it as it is for those to whom it is proclaimed. It is the advocate of both. ... God does not need us."

Part of the quote speaks to the purpose of "evangelical apologetics," i.e., why do we do it?
Simply to win a debate and have someone make a decision to follow Christ? No need for revelation, eh? We can figure it out on our own.

Second, it also points to their view of scripture, which again Barth also takes to task: " "Holy Scripture as such is not the revelation. And yet Holy Scripture is the revelation, if and as far as Jesus Christ speaks to us through the witness of His prophets and apostles. Holy Scripture is a token of revelation... But there has never yet been a faith in the revelation which has passed by this token, a faith which was not rather awakened, nourished and controlled precisely through the instrumentality of this token."

As a writer has pointed out, by this paradox Barth maintains that the text of scripture cannot be equated/identified with revelation (since revelation is the person of God in Christ), but its witness to Christ can be used by Christ to reveal himself. The Bible finds its authority because of its content, because it is a witness to God in Christ who gives it such authority (I really like this!).

What Mr. Groothuis fails to reckon with is two issues. Again borrowing from Barth's thought: "His (Barth's)theological account of rationality called into question the legitimacy of any

(1) general view of rationality that does not take seriously the sinful perspectives of our knowing,

(2) account of knowing that imagines God as an ‘object’ perceivable through human striving."

What this means is that Groothuis assumes that apologetics "gets it right" and therefore we can trust these objective truths as much as we can scripture, and second, we can somehow share this "truth" with others and they will get it without the help of divine revelation or the presence of the HS. Since God is not an ‘object’ in the way other things are, God cannot be known in the same way as other objects.

And as someone else has pointed out, "how secure is a faith that is based on any kind of intellectual argument?"

I like what Cardinal Avery Dulles says: "Faith, therefore, is not a simple achievement of reason. It is the work of reason submitting to the word of God, which comes by way of revelation. God, as the infinite source of all that is or can be, lies immeasurably beyond all that we can infer from the created order.

His inner essence and intentions are known only to Himself unless He chooses to reveal them. For our sakes He has revealed something of Himself and His saving plans so that we may love and serve Him better.

God’s great and unsurpassable revelation of Himself is His Son, His eternal Word, who has become flesh in Jesus Christ. The Christian clings to that living and incarnate Word, in whom salvation is to be found."

Too often we claim to demonstrate by cogent arguments not only the credibility but the truth of Christian revelation. Barth, on the other hand, judged that apologetics by its very nature leads to compromise with unbelief. Apologists, he charged, seeking to make the gospel credible, marched onto the field carrying a white flag, and ended by surrendering essentials of the faith.

And we haven't got to postmodernism yet...

And now, just to muddy the waters even more, a lot of what passes as epistemology is actually metaphysics. For Heidegger, metaphysics is about existence, and when we move outside of existence, we tend to atomize existence into spirit, truth, being, matter, power, will, substance, subject and so on, thus we lose the truth of the thing and what existence is all about.

But to even do this assumes that there is a place in the world where we can stand (absolute truth?) in order to step out beyond this. What happens intellectually that we are at the edge of a cliff, so we stick a board out over the edge and anchor the other end into the ground. Then we tack another board on the end of that and move a little further forward, and do the same thing again (this is what is usually referred to as foundationalism).

So hopefully you can see the problem. It's one thing to stand on solid ground in one place and say something, but does that make our entire metaphysical journey as valid? Not only Heidegger, but Nietzsche (where Heidegger learned his metaphysics), Husserl, Levinas, Derrida, Foucault and most other Pomo philosophers battled this and tried to find a way around it. This metaphysics was Kant and Hume and Descartes at their best.

So, to put is simply, most metaphysics is saying that I have a ground or place to stand to say these things, and they are true. Heidegger (et al) said, oh, really?

So the battle is not only epistemological, but ontological and metaphysical as well, but you won't find Groothuis working in those categories.

Your comment about Moses' question to the bush is right on target, and intuitively hits at the heart of the issue. I doubt anyone else from your group could get what you mean, so be prepared to get clobbered.

Finally, your question below asks:

“I understand now that I stand on the Rock and nothing else (not even propositions), but how do I resist that becoming a private piety that does not affect my surroundings? “

I again refer you to N.T. Wright and his work, especially the big three volumes I mentioned in my last email. I've been there and I've been through the wilderness, and made my way back (I think I see some suburbs in the distance...), but it is a journey ultimately you will have to work out for yourself.

However, you don't need to walk it alone, you just need to find community and some good books by Brian McLaren, Don Miller (blue like Jazz), and Eric Sandras (Buck naked faith). You may like this quote from a blog of his:

Transitions

1:58 PM PST, February 28, 2006
“A couple weeks ago I was invited to speak at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. Of course, having failed my geography classes miserably in high school, I didn’t realize that visiting Duluth in mid February can be a frightfully chilling experience.

Being a window seat kinda guy, my view of my descent to Duluth positioned me right next to the landing wheels of our turbo propped United Express plane. As the snow covered tarmac approached I suddenly felt a bit uneasy. Staring at the tires, I realized that they where noticeably absent of any snow tread or even those cool little spiking things that half of Port Angeles puts on their tires at the first sign of snow.

So I’m thinking, “Traction is important on vehicles trying to stop on the snow. My 4-Runner has great snow tires and still slides sometimes. This plane is a lot heavier and moving a lot faster than my 4-Runner. Geez, where are those Les Schwab tire guys when I need ‘em?...”

Of course, the freakiest part of landing an airplane is that transition point. You know, that place when you haven’t quite landed, but aren’t really in the air? Or when you are taking off—you can feel the lift, but the plane is still on the ground. I stared at my bald tire friends out the window and realized that, during this transition time, my life was in their hands. I realized that there wasn’t a thing I could do to make that plane land safely. I couldn’t press done in my seat harder to make the plane heavier. I couldn’t flap my arms really, really fast in order to keep it aloft. Nope.

All I could do is have faith. Faith in those tires… faith in that plane… and most importantly faith in the pilot. The fact that you are reading this column is evidence enough that I made it through that snowy transition and landed safely.

Still the whole experience got me thinking about transitions in our lives. They seem to be some of the most awkward and nerve-racking experiences we as human have to endure. We like the status quo. We like things predictable and tidy. But life is not that gracious. It demands flexibility and change. Our kids grow up, our parent’s grow old, and our bellies grow wide. We move to different houses, different cities, and even into different lifestyles. Transitions occur in our lives at varying degrees and speeds. So the key to success is not avoiding awkward transitions, but learning how to handle them. Let me offer three things to keep in mind to help you land safely on the other side of change.

Focus: Keep in mind that every transition has a beginning, middle, and an end. Knowing where you are in the process and where you desire to be when it is over can help you make healthy and life giving decisions in the midst of it. This is especially important when transition surprises us. Without focus, the death of a loved one or a unexpected career change can cause us to make poor decisions that actually compound the problem instead of navigating it.

Friends: I see too many people in transition pull away and isolate themselves from others. Likewise the awkwardness of not knowing what to do, causes many of us to avoid those we know who are in transition. My advice, regardless of what side of the coin you are on—walk in the opposite spirit. Where your natural inclination may be to run and hide, or avoid and deny,
turn to pursue and love. Friends are gifts from above that add stability and sanity to our lives.

Faith: If I’m flying the plane myself, then the weight of success or failure depends on me. If I’ve entrusted my life to someone who knows it better than I even know myself, then faith dictates that I trust.

Jesus said that he was the Master of Life. By that very statement, I believe he means that he knows a lot about life. Not just church or offerings, but life. He knows a lot about marriage and parenting, about careers and callings, about love and loss, and a lot about the present and future. To let him be the master of my life means I get to be his apprentice and learn from him how to live this life—and live it abundantly.

So may your Faith, Friends, and Focus help you land safely through the next transition in your life. And if you happen to be on an airplane sometime in the future and see some guy flapping his arms trying to keep the plane in the air, just come remind me to listen to my own advice and trust the pilot. “

This will probably bounce because of the length or bandwidth, but hopefully I've made some sense.

howard