In speaking of knowledge given by God, Peter sets up a dichotomy when he compares it to the corruption of the world. This knowledge (epignosis) is freely bestowed upon all by God's grace -- it is even possessed by the apostate, as Peter explains in 2 Peter 2:21. In essence, I see this as a choice. We are connected to the power source, this knowledge that gives us all we need for life and godliness. We are able to partake in the divine nature through God's promises, promises that were fulfilled in Christ. However, we can choose to isolate ourselves from the source of power. We can cut off the life support, so to speak. If we do so, we become controlled by pursuit of our own lusts, beginning a process of destruction that eventually leads to perdition.

Peter was speaking to the Gnostic ideas that faced the church in his time. He is assuring believers that they do not need to try to obtain some type of "esoteric knowledge" of the type that the Gnostics proposed. This knowledge is already given freely by God. Utilizing this knowledge will lead to an experiential knowledge (gnosis), that will continue to develop until the fullness of knowledge is finally realized. The eschatological tension is present and perennial. In both of Peter's epistles, I have noticed a strong thread of hope for glory, perhaps the most positive aspect of eschatological tension -- and one that is missing from a lot of teaching in the church today. Glorification is a doctrine that tends to be misplaced and overrealized (perhaps in the case of much-publicized "eschatomania"), or ignored to the point of fostering a type of "Christian nihilism" (see Jacques Ellul). I have not explored these ideas very heavily and they are not the point of this particular post, but perhaps I will develop them more in the future.

The bottom line? Well, one can see that the increasing secularization of our culture is a reality. I am beginning to wonder how effective the church will be if it remains married to the world, instead of realizing the inherent tension between being hooked up to the power source and living according to worldly wisdom. We cannot depend on our social institutions to save us. At the same time, it is foolish to assume that enforcing Christian morality (which results from epignosis rather than causes it) will cause the empty secular culture to neatly fall in line. How we ourselves are living becomes the primary concern to set the precedent. I believe this is why Peter does not leave the subject of knowledge with simple assurance that allows complacency. Knowing that we have been given all, we strive through discipline to add godly characteristics to our lives. These are not means to an end, these are manifestations of what we have been given. Such a reaction can be the only feasible one, for the same knowledge that makes us free demands action and will ultimately hold us accountable.

So tomorrow begins the new semester -- I'll probably have a lot of things to write about, between working on papers. BTW all my loyal readers, I am not moving to SF right now, I'm going to stick it out in the Northwest for a while. I am blessed to attend a campus that has an extraordinary group of people (both students and professors), and I know that God has more to show me while I'm here. So there's no occasion to sing "Goin Back to Cali" for the time being.
I have had an interesting time lately looking at a few passages in Scripture. The ones that I have paid particular attention to are Colossians 2:2-3 and 2 Peter 1:3-4. Why these verses? Well, I have found an interesting contrast in these verses between terms. Both of these passages deal with the idea of "knowledge". Of course, both of these letters were written to address some type of Gnostic issues in a particular congregation. But I found it particularly interesting that there are marked differences in the Greek words that are translated as "knowledge". Here I will address some of my findings, observations and questions.

In the 2 Peter passage, Peter speaks of knowledge that has been given to us. Christ's divine power has given us all we need for life and godliness, through the "knowledge" (epignosis) of him who called us. This knowledge allows us to become partakers in the divine nature, and avoid the destructive lust of the world.

In the Colossians passage, Paul states that he desires his readers to be assured in "understanding" (suneseos), unto the knowledge of the mystery of God, which is Christ (in the better manuscripts), in whom are "hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (gnosis)."
Gnosis and suneseos suggest a type of knowledge that is either obtained by experience, or a pure critical intellect. Epignosis a superlative type of knowledge - one that assumes a certain responsibility on the part of the subject. Peter goes on to exhort his readers to add knowledge (gnosis) to their faith (among other traits), in that they will not be unfruitful in their "knowledge" (epignosis).

It is also interesting that later in 2 Peter, he speaks of false teachers who possess epignosis, but turn away, and are worse off than if they had never known.

One aspect of postmodernism that I consider positive is the focus on experiential truth as opposed to propositional truth. These passages seem to suggest, to me, that epignosis is the product of knowing Christ experientially. It is a free gift of grace that is offered to all, and can give us all we need for life and godliness. Perhaps this knowledge is inherent in all, so that all are without excuse (Rom.1:20). But is propositional truth a by-product of this knowledge? How can we be assured in our understanding if there is nothing that can be understood? However, epignosis also refers to a clear, specific knowledge, while gnosis is more temporary and situational. Surely clear knowledge of God could be obtained only through an act of divine power. This power allows us an alternative to a type of "knowledge" present in the world - a knowledge based on lust that inevitably leads to destruction. I believe that epignosis may be the knowledge that drives our worldview, and resultingly drives our actions.

I will continue working on this and keep updating...very interesting stuff. Look for aspects of this in discussion on the Tough Questions forum. Bye for now.

My interest in politics has always been somewhat limited. Like most people, I tend to only get interested in the political arena when issues that concern me directly are at stake. For example, when I was in the military, defense issues certainly held my attention. They still have a place in my heart, but I can honestly say I don't pay as much attention to them as I used to.

I have voted in just about every election I could since I turned 18. However, I believe that my choices were pretty arbitrary. Many of us just follow the apparent choice of the crowd we believe ourselves to be a part of. My "informed voting procedure" usually consisted of deciding which candidate's ads appealed to me more. Unfortunately, there are probably a whole lot of people that vote in just this manner.

The current presidential race has opened my eyes quite a bit. It has forced me to rethink the way I look a politics. In particular, it has caused me to question the importance of voting, and the political process in general, for the American Christian. The views on either side of the argument abound. There are Christians out there who would equate voting for the "right" candidate with proper worship of God. You are at risk for being labeled a heretic if you vote for the non-Christian candidate. On the other side of the spectrum, some Christians find involvement in the political process decidedly non-Christian in nature. As a critical thinker I strive to explore both poles and the middle ground as well.

This is an emotionally charged issue for a lot of people. I did not realize this until I posted a discussion thread on this very topic. There are a lot of fundamental issues that come into play when discussing Christianity and politics: the role of law, morality, separation of church and state, etc. I believe that many people choose their stand on the bigger issue without looking into the implication their choice has on the smaller issues. For example, do I believe that government should be a moral agent, and enforce a collective moral standard on its citizens? Remember that the means government possesses is legislative power. Can law make morality? I think if we look at the Biblical stance, we would say no. The law does not serve to justify us, only to condemn us. The laws given by God were in place to protect and serve humanity. Moral actions should not have to depend on the law to justify them -- they are good in and of themselves. (I realize this is a dangerous statement epistemologically. Perhaps I will retract it after later thought. Please realize this is a work in progress!) Laws, then, are more descriptive of the collective morality.

So is this the case in the political process? The laws proposed by liberals seem to define their collective morality, ditto for conservatives. So where do Christians fall in the continuum? I would suggest, perhaps, that our morality is a result and not a precondition. We do not define what a Christian is, through moral imperatives, and then try to live accordingly. If our actions have any moral worth, it is only through the equipping of the Holy Spirit. It is only a reflection of Christ's death in us.

This article is waxing a bit long... I think I will be content to publish it at this point, maybe think a little more, and revist the issue later. Bye!

Some words to ponder from sayings of the Desert Fathers.

Do not seek the perfection of the law in human virtues, for it is
not found perfect in them. Its perfection is hidden in the Cross
of Christ.

St. Mark the Ascetic

We believe that the divine presence is everywhere and that "the
eyes of the Lord are looking on the good and the evil in every
place." But we should believe this especially without any doubt
when we are assisting at the Work of God. To that end let us be
mindful always of the Prophet's words, "Serve the Lord in fear"
and again, "Sing praises wisely" and "In the sight of the Angels I
will sing praise to Thee." Let us therefore consider how we ought
to conduct ourselves in the sight of the Godhead and of His
Angels, and let us take part in the psalmody in such a way that
our mind may be in harmony with our voice.

St. Benedict

In a quest to realize the presence of God at all times, it would seem that the easiest would be in the context of "minstry" or "worship." However, I find that I am often so distracted at times like these -- perhaps it's the curse of being a former worship leader, that I am often caught up in the event itself.

I would feel very inappropriate calling myself a "casualty" of the institutional church. There are many issues that cause some bitterness toward the Ic for me. At the same time, I'm not sure that I would be aware of the needs of the church had I not been exposed to them for so long. I was also challenged recently by a professor after voicing my opinion. I had expressed a great deal of frustration with the fact that the church seems primarily concerned with evangelism and numerical growth, subsequently leaving believers to fend for themselves with little or no equipping for the extreme challenges of the Christian life. My professor tended to agree with my observations, but asked me what I would do to change it.
That's certainly a wake-up call for a whining dissenter like myself. Well, it's very easy to sit back and criticize institutions. It is a whole other matter to actually suggest and try to implement change. Like it or not, revolutions need to be started from inside the "machine."
So what is my primary selling point here? If I want to act as if I have something profound to say, what is it? Like our proverbial dad says, don't criticize unless you have a way to do it better. And just to make the game a bit more challenging, let's suppose that you wanted to create a true spiritual awakening...at a megachurch. Gasp. It's theoretically pretty simple to get together a house church and raise them up to be New Testament believers. You can observe and walk alongside a small group of people with ease. You can personally mentor them and craft a program of spiritual formation, in accordance with the leading of the Spirit, that fits the individuals perfectly. But how can the pastor of a megachurch accomplish such a task?
One answer, from the extreme anarchists, would be to abolish the megachurch altogether. In their opinions, the megachurch is an amalgamation of Western consumerism and Christianity taken to its absurd conclusion. It is the mutant bastard child of a desire for material gain coupled with outmoded modernist epistemology, creating a beast that manipulates the unsuspecting masses in a quest for the bottom line. I suggest that this picture is a bit paranoid and extreme. Does it contain warnings that the prudent should heed? Certainly.
Let me step into utilitarian/pragmatic shoes for just a moment and suggest that the megachurch, good or bad as it is, is here to stay, at least for the time being. Since the day of salvation is today, I would be a fool to just wait until the megachurch dissolves and crumbles upon its sand-sculpted foundations. Emergent church activist types have no right to act like self-righteous uber-liberals and sit on their laurels laughing while the world crumbles around them. The megachurch evangelical is my brother, my cousin, my father in a very real since (not a literal sense).
My bottom line, my foundational statement, my creed is spiritual formation. I am going to be thinking in great detail, with the megachurch in mind, of ways to bring about a paradigm shift that can and will work in the megachurch. Is it wishful thinking? Perhaps it is, but I don't think God wants his children falling by the wayside. This area is going to be a big area of focus in my doctoral research, and hopefully I will be able to flesh it out and narrow it down in the next year and a half. If you are reading this, please feel free to contact me and offer suggestions, or better yet offer dialog via any number of sites that I post on. I am no prophet or wise man, I just have gotten a taste of God that is so much more than I have ever been offered in the IC...and my heart burns to share that with those both inside and outside of the church.