El Dia ha llegado: The Day has arrived!

(Part of the role of a short-term missionary is to serve the full-time missionaries any way we can. This is me with two of the Gudemans' 60-lb. bags. I'm strong!)

The big day is finally here. Today at 4:30pm we'll leave for the Denver International Airport to fly through London to Málaga. Then one week later, we're off to Madrid for 7 weeks. Obviously, we're having a lot of emotions: excitement, impatience, nervousness, etc. Over the past few days, I (Meggan) have felt the Holy Spirit reminding me of God's abiding presence and his promise to never leave me or forsake me.

I was talking to my parents last night and told my dad a little memory that has been on my mind lately. When I was pretty young (maybe 7 or 8), my parents told me that they thought my brother might have a call to missions on his life. Indignant that John should be called to something that I was not, I replied that perhaps I, too, had that call. Somewhere along the line, I conveniently forgot that incident and the idea of being a missionary flew from my mind. More than just flew - it became something that I thought I'd never do. Maybe I'd marry a pastor or work myself in the church, but my love for family would always keep me close to home.

Yet, God was preparing me all my life for this, as I see now, looking back on what has been a beautiful, though difficult and often painful journey. I fell in love with Spanish from the first day of class in middle school. I have always been fascinated with other cultures, loving books and movies about other countries. And my love for the Lord and the Lord's love have colored and influenced every decision of my life. To many of my high school classmates who doubtless saw me as a crazy Christian girl, the fact that I might be a vocational missionary probably isn't that surprising.

But, it certainly was to me! Ben and I had very different views of our future life during our engagement and the first six months of marriage: Ben saw us as lifetime missionaries, while I saw us spending a maximum of 3 years overseas and then becoming occasional summer-mission-trip people. We have recently come to the conclusion that God may have intentionally hid these differences from us because we couldn't have handled the truth. Perhaps if we'd realized all this during our engagement, we wouldn't have gotten married! But, by God's grace, here we are, despite the painful first year of marriage in which these differences came to light.

I, in particular, walked through what I have come to call a "Dark night of the soul," though that term actually designates a slightly different process of spiritual formation. I was ruled by fear, tormented by horrific dreams that depicted violence and death. I came to the conclusion that God was asking me to die for him; and how could I refuse - he had died for me! I was angry at God. I remember thinking to myself, "After all I've done for you, now you're going to kill me?!" Of course, how foolish that thought was on many levels. What had I done for God? And never would my Father kill me. His gift is eternal life which has destroyed death's power.

I could not see these truths at that time, however. I was blinded by fear and mistrust. I was tormented by my imagination and the possible scenarios of death I might have to endure. I was literally at a crossroads: would I remain faithful or turn my back on God? While I will not delve into the theological issue of perseverance of the saints here, I will say that I now know 100% that the Holy Spirit living in me as a deposit simply would not allow me to turn away. I felt completely alone, misunderstood by my friends and even my family. I believe that these people in my life were blinded from the reality of the struggle I faced so that I would have no other reliance but God alone.

Somehow, that time ended. I have been on the road of healing ever since. While the struggle was a time of solitude between God and me, the healing has been wrought slowly and surely by many figures in my life. My parents and members of Faith Bible Church in Waupun have prayed for me through minor recurrences of these fears, clearly recognizing their demonic origin. Again, they were kept unaware for a time, but now saw clearly. My mentors at Denver Seminary, Nancy and Joyce, have played huge roles in the redemption of the imagination (a phrase of Nancy's) and the journey and joy of serving God overseas. And it is always a journey of trust.

It is so fitting that today of all days I reminisce about the faithfulness of God to bring me from a place of total fear into a place of baby steps of trust. Though, this trip hardly seems like a baby step. It is a baby step as I am a child walking in step with the Father, following where he leads.

Thank you for your continual love, prayers, and support.
all our love,
Meggan and Ben

T-minus seven days, and counting...

We leave for Spain in exactly one week! We've got lots of odds and ends to take care of before we head out, but overall, we're pretty excited. Nervous, too, but excited.

Yesterday was our fourth anniversary! I am loved, and I love my wife. Somehow, thinking of where we'll be four years from now is more reassuring than thinking of where we'll be four days, weeks, or months from now! So, anyhow, we slept in, went to brunch at The Original Pancake House (sooooo delicious!), and then saw an early matinee of Prince Caspian (good flick; worth seeing).

Here we are four years ago...

Why I am not theologically liberal

The semester is over - yippee!!! There is always a sense of accomplishment that accompanies this time of the year. How does one celebrate such an occasion? In my case... with a blog posting of the theological variety. (What a party animal I am.)

Recently I heard a friend of a friend describe themselves as "theologically liberal." They referred to this website as a concise summary of their beliefs. I've read it, and I'd like to respond in this space, even if nobody cares but me and my mom. (If you genuinely feel like reading on, you will probably want to read that page first.) (Is my self-deprecating humor getting old, or is it a nice touch?) I would not describe myself as theologically liberal - I am an Evangelical (though perhaps a moderate liberal within that camp).

First, a few brief caveats. In this space I will be using "liberal" as a theological category, not a political category. Also, it should be said that I am generally quite fond of my liberal Christian friends and family members, and I am in no way trying to say that they are all "unsaved." Finally, just as my thoughts do not reflect the thoughts of all Evangelicals, I'm responding to one person's picture of liberal Christianity. (Really, most of what I say won't make much sense apart from the context of that article, so if you've made it this far and haven't read that page yet, go ahead & do it, then come back to me. I promise it won't take long.) (FYI, Vegas odds on me having no parenthetical comments for the rest of the post are about 10,000:1, which, as Kevin from "The Office" would say, are such great odds that you've gotta take 'em...)

So, let's get started. I can affirm a lot of liberal thought, including:
--the freedom to think.
--the importance of diversity.
--the equality of men and women - in society, marriage, and ministry roles. Contrary to what some would say, this viewpoint is entirely consistent with an Evangelical view of the Bible.
--not necessarily a thoroughly non-literal view of Scripture, but definitely a literary view of Scripture - when the intent of a passage is figurative and theological, I interpret it as such (against, say, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins & the Left Behind series); when the intent of a passage is both theological and historical (for example, Exodus and the gospels), I consider it to be both theologically and historically accurate. For instance, if someone were to write a historically-accurate biography of Martin Luther King, Jr., they might say, "he was a prophetic figure sent by God for the correction of a sinful nation." Does this value judgment mean they cannot present the truth about the man? I don't think so; consider Luke 1:1-4. Also, yes, the Bible is a thoroughly human book in addition to being a divine book; it was not, as Muslims claim of the Qur'an, dictated by God, but was written through the full exercise of human personalities. I believe higher criticism - literary criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, historical criticism, canon criticism - are tools that can be used profitably for understanding the text. (They can also be abused, but that's beside the point here.)
--the importance and coherence of Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience (though I would not put them on equal footing - Scripture has a one-up on the rest when adjudication is needed).
--the consistency of evolution with Christian faith. I think it's possible to hold an Evangelical view of the Bible and affirm evolution. As a non-biologist, I consider myself ill-equipped to judge the arguments, but I am open to the input of both ID proponents and proponents of evolution. Contrary to the majority of secular scientists today, I think more open dialogue and debate in this arena would be good for the scientific community.
--the immanence of God (in addition to his transcendence).
--social justice as absolutely essential in the kingdom of God.
--the essential value of Christian community, too - our faith is not just about individualistic quiet times.

However, I must reject many liberal conclusions. Here are some challenges I would raise:
--You can't say, "perhaps more so than evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians, liberal Christians see the teachings of Jesus as having a central place," and then, just a few paragraphs later, talk about universal salvation. Jesus teaches more about hell than any other figure in the Bible; you can't take it out of his teaching and still call it the teaching of the "historical Jesus." I'm not saying I particularly like the idea of hell (though I think we like justice very much and are slow to recognize the role hell plays in assuring final justice for the oppressed); I'm saying a follower of Jesus' teaching believes in hell.
--Sure, there are everyday "miracles" in the world, but we shouldn't discount truly miraculous occurrences (not just statistical anomalies) merely because we haven't experienced them ourselves. They're called miracles for a reason - they are abnormal. They also happen to be more common in churches that actively believe they're possible (as in Africa, Latin America, Asia, and many charismatic churches in the West).
--Jesus' bodily resurrection was a historical event. It is the most defensible miracle of human history. There is no alternative theory that stands up to scrutiny.
--We need both social justice and personal transformation; they MUST go hand in hand - you can't have one without the other.
--Liberal Christianity values global diversity, but global Christians do not value liberal theology. As many scholars have said of Liberationist thought in Latin America, "Liberation theology opted for the poor, and the poor opted for Pentecostalism." Liberal Christianity is in many ways elitist, and it robs the gospel of much of its power to help the downtrodden make it through everyday life.
--Homosexual behavior - indeed, any sexual behavior outside of heterosexual marriage - is one form of diversity the Christian faith cannot be bent to affirm. That doesn't give anyone the license to be a jerk to a practicing homosexual; it just means we can't endorse homosexual expression as another healthy alternative to celibacy and heterosexual marriage.
--To put it crassly, panentheism sucks; a non-transcendent god is useless.
--Liberal Christianity Oprah-fies Jesus. It takes those aspects of Christianity which are non-palatable to the Western conscience and tosses them out the window. That's not an improvement; that's individualism - a pick-and-choose approach to the Bible. Imagine that - the very things liberal theology downplays or rejects (hell, personal transformation, personal responsibility, sexual restraint, even miracles in a way) are the things that are most unpopular about Christianity in our country.

Bottom line, I find both liberal and Fundamentalist faith to be intellectually and existentially unsatisfying.

As our seminary's chancellor and co-founder, Dr. Vernon Grounds, has said:
Here is no unanchored liberalism,
freedom to think without commitment.
Here is no encrusted dogmatism,
commitment without freedom to think.
Here is a vibrant evangelicalism, commitment with freedom to think
within the limits laid down in Scripture.Having done my undergraduate studies in Madison, I think being associated with anything that could carry the label "liberal" has often seemed sexy to me - or, at the very least, I associated "liberal" with "open-minded." Much to my dismay, I have been surprised multiple times here in Denver to investigate an intellectual issue seriously - to open my mind, as it were - only to discover that the more "conservative" option better fits the evidence. How un-sexy. I guess the pursuit of truth is no respecter of one person's perception of what would be more exciting.

Two books to recommend for further reading:
--The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, by Craig Blomberg. What the title says it is. Craig is one of our professors, our boss (we grade papers and exams for his classes), and our friend... and a world-class New Testament scholar. (He also subscribes to Google updates that tell him anytime a new website is published with his name on it, so he'll be reading this eventually. Hi, Craig! Thanks for visiting.)
--Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals, by William Webb. Argues biblically for gender equality along with the enduring censure of homosexual behavior.

I apologize if I have used any technical vocabulary that is unfamiliar to anyone. Please don't be shy to leave a comment asking for clarification about some word or concept you're not sure about; you're probably not the only one with that question.

Denominations

Folks don't like denominations too much these days. They read the Bible & hear Jesus praying for the unity of his followers, and on the surface, the reality of thousands of denominations and church associations in our world today seems contradictory to this ideal. The idea of being Episcopal or Pentecostal appears to be a concept that should die to the idea of being "just plain Christian." As a result, many churches are taking the denominational label off their marquee and shying away from certain practices that would identify them as distinctively Baptist or Presbyterian. There are even those who avoid the labels "Christian" and "church" because of the baggage associated with such words.

I sympathize with this sentiment. There is a great deal of truth in what such people are saying - the body of believers around the globe are truly one body in Christ, and we should see ourselves as brothers and sisters, even across denominational lines. It can also be valuable to keep the denominational label off the marquee in situations (like ours in the U.S. today) where outsiders would be turned off from considering Christ and the church if they saw "Methodist" on the sign. (It can even be appropriate to avoid the personal label "Christian" in certain global contexts, like the Middle East, but that's a separate issue.) In addition, in our growing understanding of contextualization for our different localities, it is no longer accepted as a given that one should be able to enter a Lutheran church in New Jersey or Kansas and experience basically the same worship service; as a result, it may now be at least partially inappropriate to "brand" a particular church according to denomination in order to court those who move to town from another church of the same type (sorry, Mom).

At the same time, I believe denominations and/or church associations are healthy and necessary structures for the global Church today. Why, you say? (Humor me; pretend you're interested.) I'm glad you asked!

First, there are well-reasoned, well-intentioned believers who genuinely disagree in areas that are significant enough to make it unreasonable for them to join together under one ecclesiastical umbrella. For instance, take my friend Tony and me. We're both intelligent, educated, generally God-centered gentlemen. I believe in the relative autonomy of the local church and believer's baptism; he is committed to episcopal church government and infant baptism. As much as we might love to work together in a church, there would be some clear roadblocks. I also happen to believe that women can serve in the pastorate, whereas many friends I respect and love interpret certain biblical passages to say they should not. On the other end of the spectrum, there are Christians who hold to a lesser view of the Bible's authority than I do. There are circumstances in a local church where such differences as these can be too great to be overcome, and folks should feel the freedom to disagree agreeably through affiliation with churches in different denominations.

Another reaction I have against post-denominational churches is that they tend (not universally, but generally) to be ignorant of church history. We CANNOT be ignorant of church history. The way we choose to practice our faith, read the Bible, relate to our culture, and more finds the vast majority of its roots in historical development. The very fact that we are having this conversation about being for or against denominations means we are probably neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox, and we need to know why. When a church identifies itself denominationally on some level, people are more likely to ask historical questions: "What does it mean that we're Congregational? Where did the UCC come from? What do we have in common with the Disciples of Christ church across town? What are our differences? Why do we believe the things we do?" Churches that know their place in history will more responsibly practice their distinctive incarnation of Christianity and more responsibly relate to the other churches in their area.

Speaking of lessons from history, denominations are a natural consequence of the separation of church and state. From the time of Constantine up until the Enlightenment, the Western world lived in a state of Christendom, where every citizen was supposed to be a Christian and each state (or, after the Reformation, each fiefdom) was aligned with a particular church. This mutual alignment came with certain conveniences for both organizations, but it also had its drawbacks, particularly for the church and especially for those Christians whose convictions varied from official church positions. The breakdown of this Christendom mindset gave way to denominationalism, giving churches the freedom to govern themselves apart from the interference of the state and giving believers the freedom to dissent from the church when it discerned a need for correction.

So even if there are imperfections in the denominational concept, it is better than any alternative the years have offered.

To conclude:
--a church should major on the majors (love God, love people) and minor in its distinctives
--it's okay to keep the label off the door
--but the denomination or association should be a vital component of the church's DNA, and we should embrace rather than apologize for those distinctives
--and we need to teach church history in our churches!

For a more eloquent exposition of these things and the historical rise of the denominational concept of the church, see Bruce Shelley's Church History in Plain Language, pp. 306-308.