For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God - 1 Cor 1:18
There is an alarming trend present today in the North American Evangelical church. This trend of which I speak is the growing divide between what we will refer to politely as "faith" and "reason". On the one side of the spectrum, there are those in the "faith" category who are proponents for taking the Bible at face value, never questioning God or the Bible because, in the words of the great prophet Isaiah, "“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.“As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts" (Isa 55:8-9). It is out of this camp where the saying "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" comes. For this camp, the Christian faith is based on faith alone.
Swinging far to the other side of the spectrum, one would find those propelled by reason alone. For those in this camp, the Bible must be critiqued and understood only through the Cartesian lens of understanding where reason alone rules. It is out of this camp where we find the historical-critical debates, the demythologizing project, etc. For this camp, faith is only necessary if it is proceeded first by reason.
While I have referred to these camps initially as "faith" and "reason", you may know them by another name, which they were given in the late 19th-early 20th centuries: Fundamentalism and Liberalism. Both were strongly at war with each other in the early 20th century, accusing each other of too narrow a view of Scripture. For the Liberals,
Fundamentalists were irrational, for they felt no need to employ reason in their interpretation of Scripture. For the Fundamentalists, the Liberals clearly could not be Christians for, they argued, the liberals did not take the text seriously as the Word of God. Neither of these branches of Christianity have died out over the last century, and both would still be considered "theological swear words" in each other's congregations.
It was out of this context which the Evangelical church showed up on the scene. Led predominantly by Billy Graham, Evangelicals appeared as a middle ground between Fundamentalism and Liberalism. On the one hand, they recognized value in the text of the Bible, arguing that it was, at least in some sense, a revelation of God to humanity. But on the other hand, they recognized that reason (along with science, philosophy, etc.) does, in fact, have a place in Christian circles and should not be entirely thrown out. It was the occupation of this theological middle-ground that made Evangelicalism so popular in the mid-20th century.
The problem with middle-ground, however, is that it can be a very large space. While it can be quite comfortable to sit at the differing poles of a debate (in this case, either the Fundamentalist or Liberal camps), occupying middle-ground can be very hard. One always has to be alert and aware of their surroundings. In the case of Christianity, they must be willing to listen to both Fundamentalists and Liberals, and work towards bridging the gap between the two of them. The danger in this, however, is that the boundaries to this middle-ground are quite blurry, and before long people began to feel quite comfortable on the fringes of Evangelicalism, flirting either with Fundamentalists or Liberals.
What I mean by this statement is that it became quite comfortable for a lot of Evangelicals to associate more with one "pole" than the other. It can get quite tiring journeying between the two poles, and quite often people found themselves needing a break and sitting down in the company of either pole. The result is that now there are "Fundamentalist-Evangelicals" as well as "Liberal-Evangelicals" which has led to a rudimentary shattering of Evangelicalism, to the point where many Christians today are quite unsure of what it actually means to be an Evangelical.
Part of this shattering began when Evangelicals began to define themselves by what they were not rather than by what they were. The root word of Evangelical is euangellion, the Greek word which can be translated as "good news". Evangelicals came onto the scene as proclaimers of good news. However, rather than defining themselves as proclaimers of good news, many Evangelicals began to define themselves as being "not-Fundamentalists" or "not-Liberals". The outcome of this was that in defining themselves as "not-blank", they put themselves dangerously closer to the opposing polar camp than they initially realized.
Another consequence of this Fundamentalist-Liberal divide was the rise of Christian apologetics. While apologetics in itself is nothing new (see Justin Martyr, Augustine, Origen, even the Apostle Paul), this new group of apologists arose intent on fighting the Liberal assumption that one could not reason their way to God. Apologists such as Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, and William Lane Craig have been wildly successful in writing to Evangelical circles, but one could argue whether or not they have been able to win over those who did not actually believe in the first place. Now, as we can see in William Lane Craig's debate against Christopher Hitchens, this is not the fault of the rationality of the apologist. Craig is an excellent logician, and one could argue that based on his logic alone, he actually wins the debate. Yet, Hitchens remains unconvinced.
I think we do Christianity a disservice when we narrow it down to reason alone. I really don't think the Christian Gospel is all that reasonable, at least not from a worldly perspective. It is much easier to simply live one's life than to be confounded by a religion with a set of rules and practices (I really don't buy in to that argument that "Christianity isn't a religion, it's a relationship." It's a religion, end of story).
However, I also don't think that we can expect people to simply jump into the Christian faith with both feet simply by giving them a four-step plan to salvation (I'm looking at you, Mr. Graham). In our age of modernity, where rational thinking reigns supreme, this is simply an unrealistic expectation of any believer.
So if people remain unconvinced of Christianity by reason alone, and they remain unconvinced by faith alone, how can one be brought into the Kingdom of God?
As quoted at the beginning of this article, the Apostle Paul writes "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18). Paul's assumption is that Christianity will not make sense to those who do not believe, despite there being power that has come through Christ's life, death, and resurrection. He goes on to say that the Christ crucified is not simply foolishness, but a stumbling block (cf. 1 Cor 1:23). So how does one go from viewing the cross as something foolish, or even a stumbling block, to believing that it is a thing of power? Is it by reason alone? Is it by faith alone?
I think the answer lies in the idea of theosis. I realize for those of your reading this, theosis is probably a completely new idea, so let me explain. Dr. Carl Mosser defines theosis as "he (Jesus) became what we are so that we may become like him." The goal of Christianity should be to raise up people who become more like Christ. It is not enough to simply raise up people to get to the place where they say a prayer of salvation to inherit eternal life. Rather, discipleship demands transformation, which is synonymous with the idea of theosis.
So how does one experience theosis? Or, perhaps a more pressing question, how do we order our churches so that those who engage regularly experience theosis? I think the biggest thing that our churches need to stop doing is trying to make themselves intelligible to the outsider. I don't think we do any good trying to make the Gospel intelligible to a non-believer every Sunday because, as Paul argues, it is foolishness to those who do not believe. Rather, our churches need to focus on the nurturing and growth of those who already profess Christ crucified. This is done by regular engagement in the Sacraments (namely, the Eucharist), practice of spiritual disciplines, regular gathering of community, etc. The main goal of the church, after proclaiming Christ crucified, should be structuring the liturgy of the service to engage those who attend with the life of Christ and experience of the Godhead.
So where does this leave us in terms of outreach ministry? How does the church grow and affect positive change in the world around us? I think it's pretty simple if we look to the words of Christ. All throughout the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) Jesus calls people to follow him. He doesn't call people to consider their state as sinners, ask for repentance, pray a prayer of salvation and then come follow him, but rather succinctly states that one is to drop all that they do and follow him. Once they begin following him, then he can work out the rest of the details, but it begins with the action of following.
At this point in my life, I have to say that I believe that Jesus is really onto something here. When we first concern ourselves with following Christ, people will notice. When they ask questions, we don't have to provide all the answers, but rather can invite them along with us to experience the journey of following Christ. Because in reality, no human person other than Christ is capable of giving someone eternal life. I can't. My pastor can't. The pope can't. God alone is the sole giver of eternal life.
I find this approach firmly Evangelical in belief, for it is a great proclamation of good news. It is an invitation to come experience Christ, not by faith alone, nor reason alone, but by journeying with him and engaging in his life, death, and resurrection through the Sacraments, prayer, and worship. For it is only in experiencing the crucified and risen Christ that we are able to be given the gift of life to its fullest.
So, I ask you this question, who wants to come along on this journey?
Julian informs her reader in her second chapter that in the year 1373, on May 13, she asked God for "three graces", recollection of the Passion, bodily sickness, and to have, of God's gift, three wounds: true contrition, loving compassion, and longing with her will for God (Ch. 2). As an answer to this prayer, Julian became deathly ill, and it is at this time where she experienced these divine revelations, which she pens the words of Christ to her, "know it well, it was no hallucination which you saw today, but accept and believe it and hold firmly to it, and comfort yourself with it and trust in it, and you will not be overcome" (Ch. 68).