“If we are ever to attain a planetary consensus on the reasonableness of certain moral principles--such as that to which the Western tradition of natural law and nearly all other cultures once aspired--we will need to interact far more deeply than anyone as yet has done with the Indian tradition of karma, the Chinese tradition of the Rule of Heaven, and the Islamic tradition of the will of Allah.”
--Cardinal Ratzinger in 2004 in a debate with Philosopher Jürgen Habermas.
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theology. Show all posts
Monday, May 21, 2007
Sunday, May 20, 2007
THE USES AND MISUSES OF KARMA
Hi Mike, that was an intriguing statement. Would you care to expand on that?
Hey John, you are probably right. In learning how to swim in the secular pluralistic sea-change, I fumble a lot. It reminds me of when I was attempting to learn Spanish. After two years of study, and six months of living in Colombia, I got up to make announcements about a picnic in Spanish. What I intended to say, was “I want everyone to BRING extra drinks and food so that we can all have a good time.” I mispronounced the Spanish word for “bring,” (traer) and instead I used “get drunk” (tragar). What everyone heard was “I want you all to GET DRUNK and pig out so that we can have a good time!” oops.
Anytime we set out to learn a new language, worldview or culture, we must be willing to make lots of mistakes. There is no other way to learn to talk in Spanish or French, but to start out blabbing nonsense like a toddler…perfectionists never learn foreign languages, or if they do, they never use them.
I tend to be an extremist and to go overboard when I am ‘on the chase’, especially when it involves crossing cultural barriers. When I was learning Spanish, I read a Spanish bible, I watched Spanish movies, I listened cassette tapes of the Psalms in Spanish as I was going to sleep, I went to Mexican restaurants and eat tacos, I worshiped with Spanish worship music, and even read comic books in Spanish.
Now I feel that God has pointed me toward secular postmoderns. My method for learning to comprehend and speak in secular postmodern is basically the same. So, please bear with me while I learn to talk all over again like a two-year-old.
Having said that, there are a couple of points you raised that I would like to probe. In both of your emails, you used the word “unbiblical.” In my mind, unbiblical and biblical are tricky words, especially if we use them in black and white categories. A large portion of evangelical Christianity believes that speaking in tongues is unbiblical. A couple of centuries ago, slavery was largely considered biblical by the general public, and established churches. I would consider house churches as biblical, but not all my friends would agree with me.
I am not an expert on Eastern religions, so there are probably all kinds of theological implications of karma that I don’t know about, depending on which branch or school of Hinduism defines it (a little like Christianity don’t you think?). However, most of my secular postmodern friends don’t know anything about the actual theology of Hinduism either, they just use “karma” as “what goes around, comes around.” The law of reciprocity. Sowing and reaping.
I’m not sure that it helps to try to explain theological points about the work of Christ to secular postmoderns until there a communicative relationship is established. In fact, as soon as I wrote the previous sentence, I became quite sure that it does not help to explain theological points about Christ or his work in erasing bad karma without establishing a bridge of communication. Besides, right there, at that time and place in the Tampa airport, I had only one shot to establish rapport with that girl. After using the positive energy and karma metaphor, she gave me her email address and wrote a couple of times. She would not have done that if I had tried to go ‘theological’ or ‘Christian’ with her.
Sometimes in our attempts to “get out of the box” we just end up in a bigger box. In our attempts to get of an ‘evangelical’ box or a ‘church’ box, we can end up in the ‘Christian’ or “biblical’ box (here is where I might get myself in trouble). I don’t think we are called to be Christians, or to be ‘biblical’ … we are called to follow Jesus, even when he leads us into the middle of a bunch of new age Hindus or a bunch of radical _______ (like G. H.). I came across a great quote the other day, of all people by Garrison Keiller, of the Prairie Home Companion. He said, “Give up your good Christian life and come and follow Jesus.”
I heard Charles Simpson back in the late 1980s teach on the epochal change we are now in the middle of. He compared it to the dispersion of national Israel and the exile to Babylon. Daniel had to live, study and work with magicians, sorcerers, warlocks, and soothsayers. He had to learn to practice his faith without being adversarial in the pluralistic environment he was in. Some of the Jews were bitter (weeping by the river). They might have accused him of being unbiblical and un-Jewish.
We are in a similar situation today. We are surrounded by new agers, postmoderns, and secular people living in a spiritual void with a confusing hodgepodge of quasi-magical and mystical beliefs drawn from a half dozen world religions. We can try to correct their unbiblical use of spiritual terminology or we can try to understand the meanings behind the terms and use them to establish a relational communication process that may ultimately lead them to Jesus. Or, we can retreat into Christian ghettos and avoid having to learn their language.
I hope that helps clarify my intentions. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Hey John, you are probably right. In learning how to swim in the secular pluralistic sea-change, I fumble a lot. It reminds me of when I was attempting to learn Spanish. After two years of study, and six months of living in Colombia, I got up to make announcements about a picnic in Spanish. What I intended to say, was “I want everyone to BRING extra drinks and food so that we can all have a good time.” I mispronounced the Spanish word for “bring,” (traer) and instead I used “get drunk” (tragar). What everyone heard was “I want you all to GET DRUNK and pig out so that we can have a good time!” oops.
Anytime we set out to learn a new language, worldview or culture, we must be willing to make lots of mistakes. There is no other way to learn to talk in Spanish or French, but to start out blabbing nonsense like a toddler…perfectionists never learn foreign languages, or if they do, they never use them.
I tend to be an extremist and to go overboard when I am ‘on the chase’, especially when it involves crossing cultural barriers. When I was learning Spanish, I read a Spanish bible, I watched Spanish movies, I listened cassette tapes of the Psalms in Spanish as I was going to sleep, I went to Mexican restaurants and eat tacos, I worshiped with Spanish worship music, and even read comic books in Spanish.
Now I feel that God has pointed me toward secular postmoderns. My method for learning to comprehend and speak in secular postmodern is basically the same. So, please bear with me while I learn to talk all over again like a two-year-old.
Having said that, there are a couple of points you raised that I would like to probe. In both of your emails, you used the word “unbiblical.” In my mind, unbiblical and biblical are tricky words, especially if we use them in black and white categories. A large portion of evangelical Christianity believes that speaking in tongues is unbiblical. A couple of centuries ago, slavery was largely considered biblical by the general public, and established churches. I would consider house churches as biblical, but not all my friends would agree with me.
I am not an expert on Eastern religions, so there are probably all kinds of theological implications of karma that I don’t know about, depending on which branch or school of Hinduism defines it (a little like Christianity don’t you think?). However, most of my secular postmodern friends don’t know anything about the actual theology of Hinduism either, they just use “karma” as “what goes around, comes around.” The law of reciprocity. Sowing and reaping.
I’m not sure that it helps to try to explain theological points about the work of Christ to secular postmoderns until there a communicative relationship is established. In fact, as soon as I wrote the previous sentence, I became quite sure that it does not help to explain theological points about Christ or his work in erasing bad karma without establishing a bridge of communication. Besides, right there, at that time and place in the Tampa airport, I had only one shot to establish rapport with that girl. After using the positive energy and karma metaphor, she gave me her email address and wrote a couple of times. She would not have done that if I had tried to go ‘theological’ or ‘Christian’ with her.
Sometimes in our attempts to “get out of the box” we just end up in a bigger box. In our attempts to get of an ‘evangelical’ box or a ‘church’ box, we can end up in the ‘Christian’ or “biblical’ box (here is where I might get myself in trouble). I don’t think we are called to be Christians, or to be ‘biblical’ … we are called to follow Jesus, even when he leads us into the middle of a bunch of new age Hindus or a bunch of radical _______ (like G. H.). I came across a great quote the other day, of all people by Garrison Keiller, of the Prairie Home Companion. He said, “Give up your good Christian life and come and follow Jesus.”
I heard Charles Simpson back in the late 1980s teach on the epochal change we are now in the middle of. He compared it to the dispersion of national Israel and the exile to Babylon. Daniel had to live, study and work with magicians, sorcerers, warlocks, and soothsayers. He had to learn to practice his faith without being adversarial in the pluralistic environment he was in. Some of the Jews were bitter (weeping by the river). They might have accused him of being unbiblical and un-Jewish.
We are in a similar situation today. We are surrounded by new agers, postmoderns, and secular people living in a spiritual void with a confusing hodgepodge of quasi-magical and mystical beliefs drawn from a half dozen world religions. We can try to correct their unbiblical use of spiritual terminology or we can try to understand the meanings behind the terms and use them to establish a relational communication process that may ultimately lead them to Jesus. Or, we can retreat into Christian ghettos and avoid having to learn their language.
I hope that helps clarify my intentions. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
THE BORDERS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD
A major issue in our society since 9/11 is the border issue. How do we control our borders? What does it mean to be a nation if we allow open borders and allow anyone to enter our society who chooses to do so? Do we build a fence and keep out the poor Mexican who wants to work as a brick layer in order to feed his family as well as the Al Queda terrorist?
I have been reading a recent book by Brian McLaren, called The Secret Message Of Jesus. Just to give away a little of the plot, the Secret Message is the kingdom of God and Brian is exploring all the metaphoric quasi-hidden ways that Jesus described the kingdom without actually defining it. The title sounds like a good marketing ploy in the age of Dan Brown, but actually McLaren has a good point…by hinting at the kingdom, and allowing people to glimpse certain aspects of it, he was awakening interest and desire in people to pursue it, to engage it, and to think about it, rather than trying to shove it down their throats with 3 points and an invitation.
In one of this chapters, McLaren deals with how people cross over into the kingdom of God from the domain of darkness, and how we in the kingdom should guard our borders. He effectively shows that there are two possible errors: hostile exclusion and naïve inclusion. Here, McLaren is actually some significant theology about who can be saved and how they are saved. I am a complete novice in this issue but I promise I will read up on it and get back to better set of definitions. There are also some intermediate views.
Basically, the two errors that McLaren focuses on are those who attempt to close the borders and patrol the boundaries of the kingdom in order to keep out any but the most pure, the truly saved (according to the view of the kingdom sheriffs). On the other side are those who want to throw open the borders and let everyone in. This leads to a problem of identity: if everyone comes in, how will the kingdom be any different than the world? McLaren asks, “Can any meaningful kingdom, including the kingdom of God, exist with no boundaries, no outside?” (McLaren:163).
He finally comes down to an intermediate position: the kingdom invites marginal people—“It begins with the least—the sinners, the sick, the poor, the meek, and the children. Entry isn’t on the basis of merit, achievement, or superiority, but rather it requires humility to think again, to become teachable (like a child) and to receive God’s forgiveness and reconciling grace” (165). Nevertheless, the key requirement to cross the border and to become legal immigrant in the kingdom of God is a genuine change of heart. “a requirement that those who wish to enter the kingdom actually have a change of heart—that they don’t sneak in to accomplish their own agenda.”
This is in accordance with the example of Jesus’ tradition of “gathering in an inclusive community” (166). McLaren calls this “purposeful inclusion” and adds that “God seeks to include all who want to participate in and contribute to its purpose, but it cannot include those who oppose its purpose” (167).
McLaren concludes that it is clear that Jesus does not want us “judging, out-grouping, trying to shift between wheat and chaff, or holding people at arms distance” (168). But at the same time his challenge “to repent, to follow him and to learn from his humility and meekness” makes clear that the citizens of the kingdom must want to learn a new way of life and if they don’t pay the full cost, they will remain outside.
Years ago I did a careful inductive study of Jesus’ method of evangelism in the four gospels, for a paper I was writing for Dr. Robinson. It was an eye opener for me as a life-long evangelical. I was unable to find a single example of a mourner’s bench, an altar call, a requirement to assent to a set of theological propositions or the sinner’s prayer. Instead I found a series of encounters between Jesus and lost and hurting people that never twice repeated the same formula but in every case changed their lives (I would imagine that encounter between the rich young ruler and Jesus eventually changed the rich young ruler’s life, even if it made him miserable).
I began to see that salvation was much more of a process or a journey with a series of decisions, rather than normatively a dramatic, one-time life changing even like Saul of Tarsus experienced on the road to Damascus. I saw that there was an element of mystery in the process of regeneration and conversion and that it was above all an entrance into a relationship.
A meaningful passage for me in my attempts to relate redemptively to those around me has been: "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me (Matthew 10:40).
I have noticed that when secular people find out that I am a “spiritual” person, they either retreat or draw nearer in friendship. I am assuming that those who “receive me” are getting a “bug” uploaded to them: love for God and a desire to follow Jesus. IF they receive me (and if he has sent me), they are actually, in real time, receiving him. (Christ in you, the hope of glory).
How do I know when they have legitimately crossed the border into the kingdom? I can’t go on the sinner’s prayer any more….nor even always water baptism. And only God can see the inner change of their heart…so I suppose (and I actually processing this as I write) I must patiently wait to see the fruit in their lives that will indicate the condition of the heart.
In the mean time, it is not my job to stop them at the border or expel them from the kingdom. My job is too continue to be friends, to continue to feed them from the bread of life until they include or exclude themselves from the kingdom by revealing the condition of their hearts.
Any thoughts?
I have been reading a recent book by Brian McLaren, called The Secret Message Of Jesus. Just to give away a little of the plot, the Secret Message is the kingdom of God and Brian is exploring all the metaphoric quasi-hidden ways that Jesus described the kingdom without actually defining it. The title sounds like a good marketing ploy in the age of Dan Brown, but actually McLaren has a good point…by hinting at the kingdom, and allowing people to glimpse certain aspects of it, he was awakening interest and desire in people to pursue it, to engage it, and to think about it, rather than trying to shove it down their throats with 3 points and an invitation.
In one of this chapters, McLaren deals with how people cross over into the kingdom of God from the domain of darkness, and how we in the kingdom should guard our borders. He effectively shows that there are two possible errors: hostile exclusion and naïve inclusion. Here, McLaren is actually some significant theology about who can be saved and how they are saved. I am a complete novice in this issue but I promise I will read up on it and get back to better set of definitions. There are also some intermediate views.
Basically, the two errors that McLaren focuses on are those who attempt to close the borders and patrol the boundaries of the kingdom in order to keep out any but the most pure, the truly saved (according to the view of the kingdom sheriffs). On the other side are those who want to throw open the borders and let everyone in. This leads to a problem of identity: if everyone comes in, how will the kingdom be any different than the world? McLaren asks, “Can any meaningful kingdom, including the kingdom of God, exist with no boundaries, no outside?” (McLaren:163).
He finally comes down to an intermediate position: the kingdom invites marginal people—“It begins with the least—the sinners, the sick, the poor, the meek, and the children. Entry isn’t on the basis of merit, achievement, or superiority, but rather it requires humility to think again, to become teachable (like a child) and to receive God’s forgiveness and reconciling grace” (165). Nevertheless, the key requirement to cross the border and to become legal immigrant in the kingdom of God is a genuine change of heart. “a requirement that those who wish to enter the kingdom actually have a change of heart—that they don’t sneak in to accomplish their own agenda.”
This is in accordance with the example of Jesus’ tradition of “gathering in an inclusive community” (166). McLaren calls this “purposeful inclusion” and adds that “God seeks to include all who want to participate in and contribute to its purpose, but it cannot include those who oppose its purpose” (167).
McLaren concludes that it is clear that Jesus does not want us “judging, out-grouping, trying to shift between wheat and chaff, or holding people at arms distance” (168). But at the same time his challenge “to repent, to follow him and to learn from his humility and meekness” makes clear that the citizens of the kingdom must want to learn a new way of life and if they don’t pay the full cost, they will remain outside.
Years ago I did a careful inductive study of Jesus’ method of evangelism in the four gospels, for a paper I was writing for Dr. Robinson. It was an eye opener for me as a life-long evangelical. I was unable to find a single example of a mourner’s bench, an altar call, a requirement to assent to a set of theological propositions or the sinner’s prayer. Instead I found a series of encounters between Jesus and lost and hurting people that never twice repeated the same formula but in every case changed their lives (I would imagine that encounter between the rich young ruler and Jesus eventually changed the rich young ruler’s life, even if it made him miserable).
I began to see that salvation was much more of a process or a journey with a series of decisions, rather than normatively a dramatic, one-time life changing even like Saul of Tarsus experienced on the road to Damascus. I saw that there was an element of mystery in the process of regeneration and conversion and that it was above all an entrance into a relationship.
A meaningful passage for me in my attempts to relate redemptively to those around me has been: "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me (Matthew 10:40).
I have noticed that when secular people find out that I am a “spiritual” person, they either retreat or draw nearer in friendship. I am assuming that those who “receive me” are getting a “bug” uploaded to them: love for God and a desire to follow Jesus. IF they receive me (and if he has sent me), they are actually, in real time, receiving him. (Christ in you, the hope of glory).
How do I know when they have legitimately crossed the border into the kingdom? I can’t go on the sinner’s prayer any more….nor even always water baptism. And only God can see the inner change of their heart…so I suppose (and I actually processing this as I write) I must patiently wait to see the fruit in their lives that will indicate the condition of the heart.
In the mean time, it is not my job to stop them at the border or expel them from the kingdom. My job is too continue to be friends, to continue to feed them from the bread of life until they include or exclude themselves from the kingdom by revealing the condition of their hearts.
Any thoughts?
Sunday, May 13, 2007
TRANSLATING THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Since I have been spending time on a university campus, in a crash course on cross-cultural incarnational mission to secular postmodern young adults, I have been learning the language. The first step in understanding a culture is learning the language. The language is more than just words: it conveys the richness of meanings and symbols, values and worldview.
We did the same thing when God sent us to South America. I spent two years studying Spanish at Ohio State University, and another two years in Bogotá, Colombia, learning how to ‘think’ in Spanish and view the world through the cultural eyes of Colombians. It changed our lives—there are still some phrases that we can only express in Spanish because no English equivalent exists: words like inquietud, or like 15 different ways to say ‘hello” and almost as many to say “goodbye.”
Learning how to talk to secular young adults has almost been harder than learning Spanish (note: I am talking about secular young people, not ‘church’ kids – big difference). I am only now finding myself relaxing and able to connect fluently in my communications.
Along the way I have been looking for ways to translate biblical concepts into their vernacular. This is not as simple as it sounds, because it requires a good translation of the concept, not just the word. For example, I have found the best way to translate what we used to say in evangelicalism as “getting saved” into something like, “learning how to love God with all of your heart,” or “developing an interactive friendship with Jesus.” Having the “grace of God resting on your life” can be translated (you might not like this one--sorry), “having positive energy in your karma.” The nuanced explanations about the source of “positive energy” and “good karma” may have to come later.
One of the most important terms that I have been looking to translate is "the kingdom of God". The biblical concept of the kingdom of God is so central to the Old and New Covenant scriptures, even more so than the concept of ecclesia, at least in the gospels.
Even with evangelical baby boomers, “the kingdom of God” lost something in translation. We don’t have kings anymore, and almost all associations of Jesus with the kingdom of God lose the edgy, electric energy that must have been in that phrase in the time and place that he lived, with the Jews under the political dominion of the Romans, and looking for the coming liberator who would lead them to victory over the gentiles and restore the throne of David.
My friend, Dr. Dow Robinson faced this dilemma in translating the concept for Aztec Indians. They had no word for “king” or “kingdom” …only chiefs and tribes. He finally settled on “Father’s loving rule” in Nahuatl. Not a bad translation for us.
Out of the four gospel writers, John is the one who uses “the kingdom of God” the least. He only uses the phrase twice: both times in chapter 3. So how does he communicate the truth of God’s active and present leadership in our lives? He often uses the term “eternal life,” not in the sense of going to heaven and living a long time, but in the sense of a radically different kind or quality of life that is available to us now through Jesus. For John, eternal life = the kingdom of God.
Although the book of Acts makes it clear that St. Paul taught incessantly about the kingdom of God (see Acts 14:22; 19:8; 28:23; 28:31) he did not use the phrase very often in his letters. I only counted 9 times in all of his letters that the phrase is used, compared to nearly 50 times in the four gospels. Paul uses the concept of “life in the Spirit” or some variation such as “walk in the Spirit”, “mind set on the Spirit”, etc. to express the active idea of God’s rule or present leadership in our lives leading to healing, wholeness and liberation. In Paul’s letters alone, he uses the word “spirit” in some variation of life in the Spirit 126 times.
I have even looked at some of the other major world religions to see if there is any equivalent to the Judeo-Christian concept of the “Kingdom of God”. According to my nephew who is fluent in Arabic, istislaam lillah means submission to God and the closet phrase to our “kingdom of God” is hakayaat allah – the sayings or stories of God (referring of course to the Koran), which are equivalent to the rule of God for a muslim. How many of you know that the symbolic meaning of hakayaat allah might not be something we would find desirable, especially depending on which group of Muslims uses the term. But then of course, I don’t think I would want to live under “the kingdom of God” as defined by some portions of the religious right either.
I had started using the unwieldy phrase “moment-by-moment surrender to God’s leading” as my current translation based on my own recent experiences. My friend Michael Cook sometimes uses the phrase, “the eternal purpose” (Eph. 3:11) to describe God’s master plan for the universe. Another possibility was suggested to me recently in a conversation with Bob Mumford: “The Agape government of God”. Even better might be the “Agape Conspiracy”, or Bob's own phrase, the "Agape Road". Scot McKnight, in The Jesus Creed, suggests the “movement for good.”
Brian McLaren, in his recent book, The Secret Message of Jesus (2006), devotes an entire chapter to this issue of how to contextualize the concepts of the kingdom of God for the current generation. I really liked several of his suggestions, and I am going to summarize them for you below.
The dream of God. The Lord’s prayer: “May all your dreams for your creation come true.” I can invite my young grad-school friends to change their way of thinking and enter into God’s grand dream for the cosmos.
The revolution of God. When I was young, for a short time I belonged to the Socialist Workers Party and my hero was Che Guevara (please don’t tell anyone in Miami – especially my Cuban friends!). McLaren suggests that the concept needs a qualifier like: “the peace revolution of God,” “the spiritual revolution of God,” “the love revolution of God,” or the “reconciling revolution of God.” He also mentions favorably Dallas Willard’s term, the “divine conspiracy.”
The mission of God. This is probably my least favorite because of the tendency to view it as non-relational or task oriented. Of course, that is not how God views it. McLaren believes that it is of great value as a metaphor as long as we complement it with relational imagery. It might be a good antidote to the inward, self-referential focus of the attractional church.
The party of God. McLaren’s re-tells Tony Campolo’s story about throwing a birthday part for a 38-year-old prostitute who had never had a birthday party. When the owner of the donut shop asked him what kind of church he went to, Tony answered, “I belong to a church that throws birthday parties for prostitutes at 3:30 in the morning.” The owner said, “If such a church existed, I would go to it”. Think of the father in Luke 15 when the prodigal comes home.
The network of God. This plays off of the idea of communication, interconnectedness and living systems in ecology: the metaphor of an ecosystem. God’s truth is in everything and holds all things together by the word of his power. Governing principle of God keeps the universe working.
The dance of God. There is a rich tradition in the early church fathers of comparing the relationships within the Trinity to a holy dance of creation and love. “The universe was created to be an expression of and extension of the dance of God—so that all creatures share in the dynamic joy of movement, love, vitality, harmony, and celebration” (McLaren:147). This metaphor for the kingdom of God is probably the one that would work the best with most of my new friends….they love to dance and to party and to experience the joy of life.
The Agape revolution/dance of God is here, now and is within us. We enter the agape revolution/dance of God with great tribulation, but we find righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Three cheers for the agape revolution/dance of God!!!
Apparently even Jesus felt that the depth and substance of the meaning behind the kingdom of God defied easy, linear definitions. Jesus said: "How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it?” (Mark 4:30). And then he proceeded to describe the kingdom of God (rather than define it) with parables comparing it to sowing good seed in a field (Matthew 13), a mustard seed, leaven hidden in three pecks of meal, a treasure hidden in the field, a merchant seeking fine pearls, a dragnet cast into the sea, and a little child (Matt. 18). Jesus never tried to define it, he just described it (in a dozen different ways), demonstrated it and invited people into it.
Perhaps the kingdom of God just simply cannot be defined. Perhaps that is why Jesus sent us out to announce its nearness (Matt. 10:7) and to show how it works (Matt. 10:8) rather than to explain it. I dreamed last night that I had finally learned how to dance.
We did the same thing when God sent us to South America. I spent two years studying Spanish at Ohio State University, and another two years in Bogotá, Colombia, learning how to ‘think’ in Spanish and view the world through the cultural eyes of Colombians. It changed our lives—there are still some phrases that we can only express in Spanish because no English equivalent exists: words like inquietud, or like 15 different ways to say ‘hello” and almost as many to say “goodbye.”
Learning how to talk to secular young adults has almost been harder than learning Spanish (note: I am talking about secular young people, not ‘church’ kids – big difference). I am only now finding myself relaxing and able to connect fluently in my communications.
Along the way I have been looking for ways to translate biblical concepts into their vernacular. This is not as simple as it sounds, because it requires a good translation of the concept, not just the word. For example, I have found the best way to translate what we used to say in evangelicalism as “getting saved” into something like, “learning how to love God with all of your heart,” or “developing an interactive friendship with Jesus.” Having the “grace of God resting on your life” can be translated (you might not like this one--sorry), “having positive energy in your karma.” The nuanced explanations about the source of “positive energy” and “good karma” may have to come later.
One of the most important terms that I have been looking to translate is "the kingdom of God". The biblical concept of the kingdom of God is so central to the Old and New Covenant scriptures, even more so than the concept of ecclesia, at least in the gospels.
Even with evangelical baby boomers, “the kingdom of God” lost something in translation. We don’t have kings anymore, and almost all associations of Jesus with the kingdom of God lose the edgy, electric energy that must have been in that phrase in the time and place that he lived, with the Jews under the political dominion of the Romans, and looking for the coming liberator who would lead them to victory over the gentiles and restore the throne of David.
My friend, Dr. Dow Robinson faced this dilemma in translating the concept for Aztec Indians. They had no word for “king” or “kingdom” …only chiefs and tribes. He finally settled on “Father’s loving rule” in Nahuatl. Not a bad translation for us.
Out of the four gospel writers, John is the one who uses “the kingdom of God” the least. He only uses the phrase twice: both times in chapter 3. So how does he communicate the truth of God’s active and present leadership in our lives? He often uses the term “eternal life,” not in the sense of going to heaven and living a long time, but in the sense of a radically different kind or quality of life that is available to us now through Jesus. For John, eternal life = the kingdom of God.
Although the book of Acts makes it clear that St. Paul taught incessantly about the kingdom of God (see Acts 14:22; 19:8; 28:23; 28:31) he did not use the phrase very often in his letters. I only counted 9 times in all of his letters that the phrase is used, compared to nearly 50 times in the four gospels. Paul uses the concept of “life in the Spirit” or some variation such as “walk in the Spirit”, “mind set on the Spirit”, etc. to express the active idea of God’s rule or present leadership in our lives leading to healing, wholeness and liberation. In Paul’s letters alone, he uses the word “spirit” in some variation of life in the Spirit 126 times.
I have even looked at some of the other major world religions to see if there is any equivalent to the Judeo-Christian concept of the “Kingdom of God”. According to my nephew who is fluent in Arabic, istislaam lillah means submission to God and the closet phrase to our “kingdom of God” is hakayaat allah – the sayings or stories of God (referring of course to the Koran), which are equivalent to the rule of God for a muslim. How many of you know that the symbolic meaning of hakayaat allah might not be something we would find desirable, especially depending on which group of Muslims uses the term. But then of course, I don’t think I would want to live under “the kingdom of God” as defined by some portions of the religious right either.
I had started using the unwieldy phrase “moment-by-moment surrender to God’s leading” as my current translation based on my own recent experiences. My friend Michael Cook sometimes uses the phrase, “the eternal purpose” (Eph. 3:11) to describe God’s master plan for the universe. Another possibility was suggested to me recently in a conversation with Bob Mumford: “The Agape government of God”. Even better might be the “Agape Conspiracy”, or Bob's own phrase, the "Agape Road". Scot McKnight, in The Jesus Creed, suggests the “movement for good.”
Brian McLaren, in his recent book, The Secret Message of Jesus (2006), devotes an entire chapter to this issue of how to contextualize the concepts of the kingdom of God for the current generation. I really liked several of his suggestions, and I am going to summarize them for you below.
The dream of God. The Lord’s prayer: “May all your dreams for your creation come true.” I can invite my young grad-school friends to change their way of thinking and enter into God’s grand dream for the cosmos.
The revolution of God. When I was young, for a short time I belonged to the Socialist Workers Party and my hero was Che Guevara (please don’t tell anyone in Miami – especially my Cuban friends!). McLaren suggests that the concept needs a qualifier like: “the peace revolution of God,” “the spiritual revolution of God,” “the love revolution of God,” or the “reconciling revolution of God.” He also mentions favorably Dallas Willard’s term, the “divine conspiracy.”
The mission of God. This is probably my least favorite because of the tendency to view it as non-relational or task oriented. Of course, that is not how God views it. McLaren believes that it is of great value as a metaphor as long as we complement it with relational imagery. It might be a good antidote to the inward, self-referential focus of the attractional church.
The party of God. McLaren’s re-tells Tony Campolo’s story about throwing a birthday part for a 38-year-old prostitute who had never had a birthday party. When the owner of the donut shop asked him what kind of church he went to, Tony answered, “I belong to a church that throws birthday parties for prostitutes at 3:30 in the morning.” The owner said, “If such a church existed, I would go to it”. Think of the father in Luke 15 when the prodigal comes home.
The network of God. This plays off of the idea of communication, interconnectedness and living systems in ecology: the metaphor of an ecosystem. God’s truth is in everything and holds all things together by the word of his power. Governing principle of God keeps the universe working.
The dance of God. There is a rich tradition in the early church fathers of comparing the relationships within the Trinity to a holy dance of creation and love. “The universe was created to be an expression of and extension of the dance of God—so that all creatures share in the dynamic joy of movement, love, vitality, harmony, and celebration” (McLaren:147). This metaphor for the kingdom of God is probably the one that would work the best with most of my new friends….they love to dance and to party and to experience the joy of life.
The Agape revolution/dance of God is here, now and is within us. We enter the agape revolution/dance of God with great tribulation, but we find righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Three cheers for the agape revolution/dance of God!!!
Apparently even Jesus felt that the depth and substance of the meaning behind the kingdom of God defied easy, linear definitions. Jesus said: "How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it?” (Mark 4:30). And then he proceeded to describe the kingdom of God (rather than define it) with parables comparing it to sowing good seed in a field (Matthew 13), a mustard seed, leaven hidden in three pecks of meal, a treasure hidden in the field, a merchant seeking fine pearls, a dragnet cast into the sea, and a little child (Matt. 18). Jesus never tried to define it, he just described it (in a dozen different ways), demonstrated it and invited people into it.
Perhaps the kingdom of God just simply cannot be defined. Perhaps that is why Jesus sent us out to announce its nearness (Matt. 10:7) and to show how it works (Matt. 10:8) rather than to explain it. I dreamed last night that I had finally learned how to dance.
Friday, May 11, 2007
NON-LINEAR POSTMODERN RAMBLINGS
I am no expert on postmodernism, although my adult children have been trying to get me up-to-speed for several years. I have read a smattering of Jacque Derrida and Michel Foucault and a lot of commentary about them. Lately, I have been buying books faster than I can put them on the shelves, let along read them, in my efforts to keep up with what is being written about postmodernism and the emerging church movement.
My young friend Patrick Currie wrote some excellent thoughts about postmodernism on his blog recently, LINK: Learning: a Modern Post, so I combed through my posts in some on-line discussions and pasted together the following non-linear thoughts on the subject. I promise I will come back to this with greater insight in the months and years to come. We have time. It is not going away.
Modernity is basically co-existent with the Protestant Reformation. Most of what we have inherited from the Reformation can also be viewed as part of modernity. The emphasis on the book, reading, individual interpretation, rationality and pulpit preaching are all "modern" and at the same time "Protestant." Professionalization of organizational structures is also both modern and Protestant (although the clergy as a religious profession apart from the people of God goes back at least to Constantine).
Alan Hirsch points out in his excellent book, The Forgotten Ways, that in the process of modernity, the over-arching religious worldview known as Christendom, gave way in the public sphere to primarily three institutions as the final arbiters of truth: the secular state, science and the financial markets (Hirsch:60-61). The church has been forced to retreat into the private sphere, although it did not go willingly or quietly. Postmodernism is critical of modernism (validly, in my view) but is not yet "for" anything. Another way of saying "postmodern" is to say "not modern any more". The church fought modernism, but finally gave in and began to adapt to modernism, especially among Protestants. Modernism began around the fourteen hundreds, and the Protestant fundamentalists were still fighting it in 1920. The Catholic Church did not make peace with modernism up until 1962 (Vatican II). Now many ‘modern’ Christian leaders are calling for a holy war on postmodernism. We don't have to do the same thing with postmodernity. We are neither pre-modern (Christendom), modern or postmodern, we are Jesus-followers, seeking the kingdom--a city not made with hands, swimming in the currents of modernity and postmodernity. If we ‘react’ to postmodernity, we will form a ‘negative focus’ and reproduce what we focus on, as the fundamentalists and Catholics did. Postmodernity can help us with our old enemy modernity but will not become our friend either. It is simply a cultural sea that we must learn to swim in (or sail if you have a boat). Learn the currents and the wind patterns, don’t fight them!
In response to a question Brian asked me about postmodernity and authority, I don't think postmodernism has anything to say about any kind of authority...at least nothing positive to say.
Postmodernism, as I understand it, it not FOR anything... it is against a quasi-religious faith in rationalism. It debunks the grand story of continuous human progress towards higher civilization through education and rationality. Post-modernism does not attempt to offer any solutions—only critiques. Postmodernism does a good job of pointing out hypocrisy, agendas, human pride and lust for power in modernism…but it does not offer any alternatives.
Postmodernism does a good job of delivering the ‘bad news’ and makes no pretense of offering any good news. That’s why it’s called POSTmodernism rather than PRO or PRE-something else. We don’t know what comes after modernism…(pre-Agape-kingdom maybe?) although we, as followers of Jesus, can be sure that God is guiding the world towards his loving rule and drawing it to himself. Postmodernism is just the disenchantment with what is… not the preview of what will be. That’s why I don’t think postmodernism is capable of saying anything positive to us about proper biblical or spiritual authority, although it has a lot to say to us negatively. However, make no mistake, postmodernism will let us know in a hurry if we try to work an agenda, build a tower, make a name for ourselves, pull a fast one, or impose our own authority for the wrong motivation. Postmodernism has a great B.S. meter. The only source of any true authority is Jesus. The only way to have authority is to submit fully to him. The more we submit our egos to Jesus and serve, the more authority will oscillate from him through us to others.
I want to throw out one more thought. I have not made up my mind entirely about postmodernism yet (heck, I don’t even understand it yet!), but one aspect of it that I can willingly endorse, is the desconstruction to expose the wrong use of coercive power and domination. Deconstruction can almost be viewed as a ‘prophetic’ function “There is an appointed time for everything …A time to tear down, a time to build up” (ECC 3:1-3). It seems to me that a constant lurking thread throughout church history, since Simon Magus, has been the issue of coercive power and political domination, the very opposite of the Spirit of Christ.
Despite the wonderful example of many dedicated servant leaders throughout the history of the church, there have been as many or more that have used church offices for positions of power, or even wealth. So…in our modern age, (or postmodern), if men are motivated by ambition for power and the desire for personal gain, why shouldn’t the women want to get a slice of the action? Why would a woman want that kind of authority over men? Easy… for the same reasons that most of men want authority or position….power, ambition, pride, money. If we are going to ask our sisters, wives and female friends to humble themselves, submit and serve, why shouldn’t we men lead the way by our own example?
Personally, I think the most important verse in chapter 5 of the letter to the Ephsians is verse 21: “…and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”
My young friend Patrick Currie wrote some excellent thoughts about postmodernism on his blog recently, LINK: Learning: a Modern Post, so I combed through my posts in some on-line discussions and pasted together the following non-linear thoughts on the subject. I promise I will come back to this with greater insight in the months and years to come. We have time. It is not going away.
Modernity is basically co-existent with the Protestant Reformation. Most of what we have inherited from the Reformation can also be viewed as part of modernity. The emphasis on the book, reading, individual interpretation, rationality and pulpit preaching are all "modern" and at the same time "Protestant." Professionalization of organizational structures is also both modern and Protestant (although the clergy as a religious profession apart from the people of God goes back at least to Constantine).
Alan Hirsch points out in his excellent book, The Forgotten Ways, that in the process of modernity, the over-arching religious worldview known as Christendom, gave way in the public sphere to primarily three institutions as the final arbiters of truth: the secular state, science and the financial markets (Hirsch:60-61). The church has been forced to retreat into the private sphere, although it did not go willingly or quietly. Postmodernism is critical of modernism (validly, in my view) but is not yet "for" anything. Another way of saying "postmodern" is to say "not modern any more". The church fought modernism, but finally gave in and began to adapt to modernism, especially among Protestants. Modernism began around the fourteen hundreds, and the Protestant fundamentalists were still fighting it in 1920. The Catholic Church did not make peace with modernism up until 1962 (Vatican II). Now many ‘modern’ Christian leaders are calling for a holy war on postmodernism. We don't have to do the same thing with postmodernity. We are neither pre-modern (Christendom), modern or postmodern, we are Jesus-followers, seeking the kingdom--a city not made with hands, swimming in the currents of modernity and postmodernity. If we ‘react’ to postmodernity, we will form a ‘negative focus’ and reproduce what we focus on, as the fundamentalists and Catholics did. Postmodernity can help us with our old enemy modernity but will not become our friend either. It is simply a cultural sea that we must learn to swim in (or sail if you have a boat). Learn the currents and the wind patterns, don’t fight them!
In response to a question Brian asked me about postmodernity and authority, I don't think postmodernism has anything to say about any kind of authority...at least nothing positive to say.
Postmodernism, as I understand it, it not FOR anything... it is against a quasi-religious faith in rationalism. It debunks the grand story of continuous human progress towards higher civilization through education and rationality. Post-modernism does not attempt to offer any solutions—only critiques. Postmodernism does a good job of pointing out hypocrisy, agendas, human pride and lust for power in modernism…but it does not offer any alternatives.
Postmodernism does a good job of delivering the ‘bad news’ and makes no pretense of offering any good news. That’s why it’s called POSTmodernism rather than PRO or PRE-something else. We don’t know what comes after modernism…(pre-Agape-kingdom maybe?) although we, as followers of Jesus, can be sure that God is guiding the world towards his loving rule and drawing it to himself. Postmodernism is just the disenchantment with what is… not the preview of what will be. That’s why I don’t think postmodernism is capable of saying anything positive to us about proper biblical or spiritual authority, although it has a lot to say to us negatively. However, make no mistake, postmodernism will let us know in a hurry if we try to work an agenda, build a tower, make a name for ourselves, pull a fast one, or impose our own authority for the wrong motivation. Postmodernism has a great B.S. meter. The only source of any true authority is Jesus. The only way to have authority is to submit fully to him. The more we submit our egos to Jesus and serve, the more authority will oscillate from him through us to others.
I want to throw out one more thought. I have not made up my mind entirely about postmodernism yet (heck, I don’t even understand it yet!), but one aspect of it that I can willingly endorse, is the desconstruction to expose the wrong use of coercive power and domination. Deconstruction can almost be viewed as a ‘prophetic’ function “There is an appointed time for everything …A time to tear down, a time to build up” (ECC 3:1-3). It seems to me that a constant lurking thread throughout church history, since Simon Magus, has been the issue of coercive power and political domination, the very opposite of the Spirit of Christ.
Despite the wonderful example of many dedicated servant leaders throughout the history of the church, there have been as many or more that have used church offices for positions of power, or even wealth. So…in our modern age, (or postmodern), if men are motivated by ambition for power and the desire for personal gain, why shouldn’t the women want to get a slice of the action? Why would a woman want that kind of authority over men? Easy… for the same reasons that most of men want authority or position….power, ambition, pride, money. If we are going to ask our sisters, wives and female friends to humble themselves, submit and serve, why shouldn’t we men lead the way by our own example?
Personally, I think the most important verse in chapter 5 of the letter to the Ephsians is verse 21: “…and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.”
Sunday, May 6, 2007
DECONSTRUCTING THE CHURCH
I want to share with you what we are doing in our little community, and why the scenario of deciding who should teach from the pulpit would never come up for us. I don't present this as a "better way" nor as more biblical. I don't have an agenda to get good solid churches like yours to change in our direction. I just want to make the point of how these gender issues are affected by our church structure and recent traditions.
What we have been attempting to do for about four years I will call "deconstructing" the church.... not sure if it is consistent with the postmodern use of the term deconstructing... but basically we have been attempting to digitize the church...that is, reduce it down to its most basic and irreducible form, where, if we remove one more thing, it will no longer be the church. There are a lot of reasons for this, one being that the replication of DNA takes place at the cellular level, rather than the most developed, complex level... another is that I am too tired to do the big church thing.... another was the influence of a book by Lamar Boshman on "Future Worship” that traced the locus of emphasis in church life from the sacraments in the middle ages.... to the pulpit in the reformation to the platform in the electronic church.... and he predicted that in the digital age the locus of God's presence would be "in the midst of his people"....
From a missional point of view, I have wanted to develop a model of church life that can easily be replicated in any social group or context with minimal scaffolding...Like catching or uploading a virus. My specific motivation was that I was starting to lose my kids out of church life about 6 or 7 years ago...particularly the two younger ones.... in additional to a lot of their friends in the youth group of our congregation-size church.
So, we started “deconstructing” layers of church life. The building was the first to go…then Sunday School, worship team…centralized giving and a joint financial account, then the leadership structure: the senior pastor, elders and staff. Not surprisingly, one of the hardest things to get rid of was a weekly “meeting” for structured worship (worship meaning music and singing). There is still some rumbling and grumbling about that among the older members of our community. We now allow the smaller committed groups (house churches? Discipleship or accountability groups? Triads? We don’t know what to call them) to decide for themselves how often, when and where to meet. We suggest Acts 2:42 as a guideline for their gathering.
I am more interested in “learning” than teaching and came to the conclusion a long time ago, that my pulpit expositions were rather ineffective tools for learning for the saints. The people that really did listen were the ones who did not need to…the ones that I was aiming at, were the ones who tuned me out. I found that one-on-one conversations with probing questions and challenging exhortations were far more powerful for changing behavior and character and for sparking spiritual growth. Basically, the method Jesus (and Socrates) used. Several years ago, I remember hearing Dr. Dow Robinson trace the modern church ‘meeting’ back to Greek Theater. That scared me.
So… we developed a model in our community where a small group of peers meet for prayer, fellowship and discussion (Acts 2:42). The “apostle’s teaching” for us, is reading a portion of scripture and then discussing it. The facilitator function is usually rotated among the various participants with the facilitator asking questions for discussion (like one might do in a blog) rather than giving opinions. Occasionally, someone will be inspired to give a more lengthy exhortation, or “teaching.” Sometimes someone will prophesy. These teachings, exhortations and prophesies are just as likely to come from a woman as a man. We encourage everyone to give, but we do not ‘direct’ their giving.
Behind the scenes…the heads of household are meeting once or twice a month to discuss issues in the community, such as the frequency and format of the meetings, pastoral needs, possible problems, financial needs, conflicts, etc. They operate as a team, with minimal interference from me or the other older guys, although they know that we are here for them if they need us.
Deb and I meet with the older group. I try to stay as absent as possible (at the university campus) to keep them from developing a dependence on my initiative or leadership gifts, and I leave the functioning of the group up to them and their initiative. Our basic meeting format is the same as I outlined above. There is no agenda or even necessarily a program for discussion. We get together, eat a meal…hang out and talk…and occasionally someone has a question or a scripture, or a song, or even a teaching. Often it is my wife. I have no doubt that she has as much or more influence with the group than me. When she talks, people listen. There is no pulpit. Everyone has a seat at the table. We operate very much on 1Cor. 14:26:
“What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.”
Notice it says each one has a teaching…the only way it is possible to have every member contributions is to keep the group small, and to not program or choreograph it.
In such a scenario…the issue of whether to exclude women from teaching or to cautiously invite a few of the mature women to teach is never an issue. Of course, you could still have wounded women trying to dominate or hijack a meeting just as you might have dysfunctional men doing that. That is where the “bottom-up, ‘unordered’ servant leaders” come in to gently steer things away from one or two people dominating.
I’m not holding this up as a superior model…and it is nothing new. Basically, it is the same approach that the Quakers used, and later the Plymouth Brethren. It is not too far away from Wesley’s class method.
But the point that I am obsessively trying to make is that the more institutional layers with offices and leadership functions there are in the church…the more obligated the church will be to include women in these offices or be seen as excluding them. Those who continue to hold to the church ‘as an institution’ of society will have a rocky road ahead…and as many conservative Christians are fond of saying… “sound the battle cry”. I personally hate to spill blood or fight over institutional accretions that are not even part of the New Testament church.
However, if we continue to “deconstruct” the church institutions back to the most basic forms (family-cell) as many started to in the mid-70s, we can eliminate or avoid most of the head-on conflict (be wise as serpents) and keep the focus on marriage relationships and family structure itself, rather than on church offices. I don’t believe women should be bishops… neither do I believe men should be bishops. I am not in favor of men or women being senior pastors, because I don’t see the role in scripture. I am not really in favor of men or women preaching in the pulpit… mostly because I see it as ineffective.
I hope this sheds some light on the vital connection I see between gender issues and church structure. Feel free to critique my argument.
What we have been attempting to do for about four years I will call "deconstructing" the church.... not sure if it is consistent with the postmodern use of the term deconstructing... but basically we have been attempting to digitize the church...that is, reduce it down to its most basic and irreducible form, where, if we remove one more thing, it will no longer be the church. There are a lot of reasons for this, one being that the replication of DNA takes place at the cellular level, rather than the most developed, complex level... another is that I am too tired to do the big church thing.... another was the influence of a book by Lamar Boshman on "Future Worship” that traced the locus of emphasis in church life from the sacraments in the middle ages.... to the pulpit in the reformation to the platform in the electronic church.... and he predicted that in the digital age the locus of God's presence would be "in the midst of his people"....
From a missional point of view, I have wanted to develop a model of church life that can easily be replicated in any social group or context with minimal scaffolding...Like catching or uploading a virus. My specific motivation was that I was starting to lose my kids out of church life about 6 or 7 years ago...particularly the two younger ones.... in additional to a lot of their friends in the youth group of our congregation-size church.
So, we started “deconstructing” layers of church life. The building was the first to go…then Sunday School, worship team…centralized giving and a joint financial account, then the leadership structure: the senior pastor, elders and staff. Not surprisingly, one of the hardest things to get rid of was a weekly “meeting” for structured worship (worship meaning music and singing). There is still some rumbling and grumbling about that among the older members of our community. We now allow the smaller committed groups (house churches? Discipleship or accountability groups? Triads? We don’t know what to call them) to decide for themselves how often, when and where to meet. We suggest Acts 2:42 as a guideline for their gathering.
I am more interested in “learning” than teaching and came to the conclusion a long time ago, that my pulpit expositions were rather ineffective tools for learning for the saints. The people that really did listen were the ones who did not need to…the ones that I was aiming at, were the ones who tuned me out. I found that one-on-one conversations with probing questions and challenging exhortations were far more powerful for changing behavior and character and for sparking spiritual growth. Basically, the method Jesus (and Socrates) used. Several years ago, I remember hearing Dr. Dow Robinson trace the modern church ‘meeting’ back to Greek Theater. That scared me.
So… we developed a model in our community where a small group of peers meet for prayer, fellowship and discussion (Acts 2:42). The “apostle’s teaching” for us, is reading a portion of scripture and then discussing it. The facilitator function is usually rotated among the various participants with the facilitator asking questions for discussion (like one might do in a blog) rather than giving opinions. Occasionally, someone will be inspired to give a more lengthy exhortation, or “teaching.” Sometimes someone will prophesy. These teachings, exhortations and prophesies are just as likely to come from a woman as a man. We encourage everyone to give, but we do not ‘direct’ their giving.
Behind the scenes…the heads of household are meeting once or twice a month to discuss issues in the community, such as the frequency and format of the meetings, pastoral needs, possible problems, financial needs, conflicts, etc. They operate as a team, with minimal interference from me or the other older guys, although they know that we are here for them if they need us.
Deb and I meet with the older group. I try to stay as absent as possible (at the university campus) to keep them from developing a dependence on my initiative or leadership gifts, and I leave the functioning of the group up to them and their initiative. Our basic meeting format is the same as I outlined above. There is no agenda or even necessarily a program for discussion. We get together, eat a meal…hang out and talk…and occasionally someone has a question or a scripture, or a song, or even a teaching. Often it is my wife. I have no doubt that she has as much or more influence with the group than me. When she talks, people listen. There is no pulpit. Everyone has a seat at the table. We operate very much on 1Cor. 14:26:
“What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification.”
Notice it says each one has a teaching…the only way it is possible to have every member contributions is to keep the group small, and to not program or choreograph it.
In such a scenario…the issue of whether to exclude women from teaching or to cautiously invite a few of the mature women to teach is never an issue. Of course, you could still have wounded women trying to dominate or hijack a meeting just as you might have dysfunctional men doing that. That is where the “bottom-up, ‘unordered’ servant leaders” come in to gently steer things away from one or two people dominating.
I’m not holding this up as a superior model…and it is nothing new. Basically, it is the same approach that the Quakers used, and later the Plymouth Brethren. It is not too far away from Wesley’s class method.
But the point that I am obsessively trying to make is that the more institutional layers with offices and leadership functions there are in the church…the more obligated the church will be to include women in these offices or be seen as excluding them. Those who continue to hold to the church ‘as an institution’ of society will have a rocky road ahead…and as many conservative Christians are fond of saying… “sound the battle cry”. I personally hate to spill blood or fight over institutional accretions that are not even part of the New Testament church.
However, if we continue to “deconstruct” the church institutions back to the most basic forms (family-cell) as many started to in the mid-70s, we can eliminate or avoid most of the head-on conflict (be wise as serpents) and keep the focus on marriage relationships and family structure itself, rather than on church offices. I don’t believe women should be bishops… neither do I believe men should be bishops. I am not in favor of men or women being senior pastors, because I don’t see the role in scripture. I am not really in favor of men or women preaching in the pulpit… mostly because I see it as ineffective.
I hope this sheds some light on the vital connection I see between gender issues and church structure. Feel free to critique my argument.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
THE DEMISE OF CHRISTENDOM
Covenant Thinklings: You just don't get it!
"Christendom" is a specific historical term that refers to the post-Constantine alliance between the church and the state that helped create the medieval period and Western Civilization.
This actually my focus of study, both in the masters in Latin American Studies, and now in my research in the History department. All of Europe was part of Christendom, but since the reformation, the Protestant wing has moved away from Christendom more rapidly than Catholicism and has been more susceptible to secularization. My study of Spanish “counter-reformation” Catholicism in Latin America is basically the study of the last desperate battle against modernity by medieval Christendom, resulting in bloody violence, especially in Colombia, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, right up to Vatican II in 1962.
Alan Hirsch, in The Forgotten Ways, is using “Christendom” in a slightly different way than we do in the field of Latin American history. He is defining Christendom as a “Christian” civilization where the Church is at the heart of the public sphere and is all encompassing. In such a paradigm, the attractional model of “going” to church makes more sense. In a post-Christendom, post-modern paradigm, incarnatonal mission is essential. That’s what I am attempting to do at the university campus…they don’t come to us (the church) so I am going to them and living the kingdom in their midst, in the hopes that they will be persuaded to surrender their lives to Jesus and commit to follow him with one another.
While a valid argument can be made that Christendom saved the Roman Empire, and ultimately created Western civilization, secular history, especially of the post-modern deconstructive kind, is not very kind to the excesses of the Christendom model. Despite glowing examples of Christ breaking in throughout the medieval period in the monastic orders and the rich mystic tradition, for the most part, Christendom was about elite force and domination. I don’t need to review the history of the crusades, the popes, and colonialism here.
Hirsch views Christendom at best as a “systems story” at the core of the ‘modern’ church that has outlived its usefulness. At worst, it is a sort of viral cancer that constantly pulls us back into Greek dualism, paternal hierarchies, and the Cathedral-attractional model of post-Constantine Roman Christianity.
Ok…now I have gone on too long. Has any one in here read any of the books by James Thwaite?
"Christendom" is a specific historical term that refers to the post-Constantine alliance between the church and the state that helped create the medieval period and Western Civilization.
This actually my focus of study, both in the masters in Latin American Studies, and now in my research in the History department. All of Europe was part of Christendom, but since the reformation, the Protestant wing has moved away from Christendom more rapidly than Catholicism and has been more susceptible to secularization. My study of Spanish “counter-reformation” Catholicism in Latin America is basically the study of the last desperate battle against modernity by medieval Christendom, resulting in bloody violence, especially in Colombia, throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, right up to Vatican II in 1962.
Alan Hirsch, in The Forgotten Ways, is using “Christendom” in a slightly different way than we do in the field of Latin American history. He is defining Christendom as a “Christian” civilization where the Church is at the heart of the public sphere and is all encompassing. In such a paradigm, the attractional model of “going” to church makes more sense. In a post-Christendom, post-modern paradigm, incarnatonal mission is essential. That’s what I am attempting to do at the university campus…they don’t come to us (the church) so I am going to them and living the kingdom in their midst, in the hopes that they will be persuaded to surrender their lives to Jesus and commit to follow him with one another.
While a valid argument can be made that Christendom saved the Roman Empire, and ultimately created Western civilization, secular history, especially of the post-modern deconstructive kind, is not very kind to the excesses of the Christendom model. Despite glowing examples of Christ breaking in throughout the medieval period in the monastic orders and the rich mystic tradition, for the most part, Christendom was about elite force and domination. I don’t need to review the history of the crusades, the popes, and colonialism here.
Hirsch views Christendom at best as a “systems story” at the core of the ‘modern’ church that has outlived its usefulness. At worst, it is a sort of viral cancer that constantly pulls us back into Greek dualism, paternal hierarchies, and the Cathedral-attractional model of post-Constantine Roman Christianity.
Ok…now I have gone on too long. Has any one in here read any of the books by James Thwaite?
Friday, May 4, 2007
REVIEW OF "THE JESUS CREED"
McKnight, Scot. The Jesus Creed: Loving God, Loving Others. Brewster, MA: Paraclete Publisher, 2004.
Ibidem KW: Christian; theology; mission; church renewal; emerging; Christology
I recently started visiting a blog, http://www.jesuscreed.org/ which is administrated by a religion professor named Scot McKnight. I really like McKnight’s blog and I like his “spirit” as well as his intellect. He brings together a variety of people and points of view, and helps them discuss divergent theologies in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount: humbly and respectfully. McKnight got his PhD at the University of Nottingham, and left a good position in a theological seminary, to teach religion to undergraduates at a more secular university where he could be engaged in mission to college kids (see why I like him?).
So…since I was visiting his blog, I decided to order his book, The Jesus Creed, and read it. I am glad I did.
On his blog, McKnight has advocated a theology that is Jesus first, but not Jesus only, in contrast to some of the more radical emerging church and 'historical Jesus' types. In The Jesus Creed, McKnight attempts to distill the essence or core of Jesus’ message of good news with a primary focus on Matthew 22:37-39. Using his knowledge of Hebrew and the Jewish culture of Jesus’ time, McKnight’s points out that Jesus would have grown up, praying the shema yisrael, the creed or liturgy of Israel, several times a day. According to McKnight, Jesus’ response to the lawyer in Matthew 22 was revolutionary: a major change in paradigm from the Jewish creed, or as Alan Hirsch would say, a new core “systems story.”
The Jewish creed, the shema, found in Deu. 6:4,5 was the “systems story” or core paradigm at the heart of Jewish religion. It was totally focused on God, entirely vertical.
In Jesus’ response to the lawyer, he took the shema and altered it adding an amendment from Lev. 19:18, “… but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.” This changed the shema by adding the horizontal, social element to the love of God.
McKnight goes on to show that Jesus often gave out a short form of the Jesus Creed…kind of like an abbreviation: “follow me.” In the author’s words, Jesus said that we were to love God with all of our hearts, minds and strength, by following Jesus, and by loving others.
This, then, is the core of the gospel according to Jesus: We are to love God by following Jesus and loving others (McKnight:237). Needless to say, this is a formulation of the gospel that I can readily use on the university campus.
McKnight studies the Lord’s Prayer and compares it to a similar Jewish prayer and shows the same alteration: it goes from being a strictly vertical concern with God’s will and rule, to being both vertical and horizontal with the addition of “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” As McKnight affirms, it is the Jesus Creed in prayer form. He quotes Tertullian who said that “In the Lord’s Prayer is comprised an epitome of the whole gospel” (McKnight:19).
He defines the kingdom of God as “the society of people in which the Jesus Creed transforms life” (McKnight:127).
He describes a spiritually formed person by the following statement:
A spiritually formed person loves God by
following Jesus and loving others.
A spiritually formed person embraces the stories
of others who love Jesus.
A spiritually formed person lives out kingdom values.
A spiritually formed person loves Jesus personally,
and participates in the life of Jesus (McKnight:237).
The book is organized into sections. The first 50 pages is focused on the Jesus Creed with its Jewish antecedents, the prayer of the Jesus Creed, the Abba of the Jesus Creed, and the Table and the Sacred Love of the Jesus Creed. McKnight often uses terms in the original Hebrew in order to draw out the Hebrew conceptual worldview behind the terms and provides a glossary at the end of the book.
In the second section, McKnight tells a variety of “Stories of the Jesus Creed” using John the Baptist, Joseph, Mary, Peter and women to illustrate Jesus’ intent with the Jesus Creed worked out in the lives of people. I especially like the one on Peter, in which McKnight’s asks us to identify the moment that Peter was converted to Christ. He effectively shows that it was not a one-time event, but rather a series of steps or decisions—a process.
McKnight addresses the concept of what we call the ecclesia in the third section titled “The Society of the Jesus Creed” in chapters about the society of transformation, mustard seeds, justice, restoration and joy. The fourth section is “Living the Jesus Creed” which deals with believing, abiding, surrendering to, restoring, forgiving and reaching out in Jesus.
The last section is “Jesus and the Jesus Creed” which has a series of reflections on Jesus at the Jordan, in the wilderness, on the mountain, at the last supper, at the cross, and at the tomb, and the significance of each of these moments for us as followers of Jesus.
In addition to Tertullian, McKnight draws stories and quotes from people like Alec Guiness (37), Anglican theologian Tom Wright (85), Henri Nouwen (112), Chesterton (131), Alexander Schmemann, Thomas Merton, Richard Foster (177), Michael Green (234), Alexis de Toqueville (243), John Bunyon (291), Federica Matthews-Green, Dorothy Sayers, Flannery O’Conner and frequently from C.S. Lewis and many, many others.
Despite the obvious scholarship and erudition that McKnight brings to his research, he consciously avoids an academic writing style, and makes his work easily readable at the undergraduate level. This is a book that one could give to any literate new believer to help them study the life of Jesus and the practical significance of his teachings for their lives. Although the book introduces a comprehensive Christology, it is not presented in a linear, systematic theology style. It is presented as a narrative, a series of stories about Jesus that invite us to his table of fellowship.
The only criticism I might make of the book was that I found it to drag a little about two-thirds of the way through. Perhaps this was because of the book’s focus on being accessible to the uninitiated. Some of the chapters in Living the Jesus Creed were already familiar ground to me, although McKnight often surprised me with a new, or fresh insight about believing, abiding and forgiving in Jesus.
Alan Hirsch, in The Forgotten Ways, in his detailed and comprehensive study of Jesus movements in history, from the early church to the Chinese church, states unequivocally that a common characteristic of every fresh missional move of God is a renewed focus on the person and teachings of Jesus (Hirsch:85).
In my opinion, Scot McKnight has opened the way for a new, emerging Christology that is fresh and culturally relevant, while at the same time congruent with classical, historic Christian faith. He has given us a core narrative for a 21st century message that is truly good news for post-modern seekers. I highly recommend the book, and even more highly recommend his on-line blog as a portal into the current reformation/revolution/renewal of Christianity. You can access Scot McKnight's excellent blog at www.jesuscreed.org.
Ibidem KW: Christian; theology; mission; church renewal; emerging; Christology
I recently started visiting a blog, http://www.jesuscreed.org/ which is administrated by a religion professor named Scot McKnight. I really like McKnight’s blog and I like his “spirit” as well as his intellect. He brings together a variety of people and points of view, and helps them discuss divergent theologies in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount: humbly and respectfully. McKnight got his PhD at the University of Nottingham, and left a good position in a theological seminary, to teach religion to undergraduates at a more secular university where he could be engaged in mission to college kids (see why I like him?).
So…since I was visiting his blog, I decided to order his book, The Jesus Creed, and read it. I am glad I did.
On his blog, McKnight has advocated a theology that is Jesus first, but not Jesus only, in contrast to some of the more radical emerging church and 'historical Jesus' types. In The Jesus Creed, McKnight attempts to distill the essence or core of Jesus’ message of good news with a primary focus on Matthew 22:37-39. Using his knowledge of Hebrew and the Jewish culture of Jesus’ time, McKnight’s points out that Jesus would have grown up, praying the shema yisrael, the creed or liturgy of Israel, several times a day. According to McKnight, Jesus’ response to the lawyer in Matthew 22 was revolutionary: a major change in paradigm from the Jewish creed, or as Alan Hirsch would say, a new core “systems story.”
The Jewish creed, the shema, found in Deu. 6:4,5 was the “systems story” or core paradigm at the heart of Jewish religion. It was totally focused on God, entirely vertical.
In Jesus’ response to the lawyer, he took the shema and altered it adding an amendment from Lev. 19:18, “… but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.” This changed the shema by adding the horizontal, social element to the love of God.
McKnight goes on to show that Jesus often gave out a short form of the Jesus Creed…kind of like an abbreviation: “follow me.” In the author’s words, Jesus said that we were to love God with all of our hearts, minds and strength, by following Jesus, and by loving others.
This, then, is the core of the gospel according to Jesus: We are to love God by following Jesus and loving others (McKnight:237). Needless to say, this is a formulation of the gospel that I can readily use on the university campus.
McKnight studies the Lord’s Prayer and compares it to a similar Jewish prayer and shows the same alteration: it goes from being a strictly vertical concern with God’s will and rule, to being both vertical and horizontal with the addition of “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” As McKnight affirms, it is the Jesus Creed in prayer form. He quotes Tertullian who said that “In the Lord’s Prayer is comprised an epitome of the whole gospel” (McKnight:19).
He defines the kingdom of God as “the society of people in which the Jesus Creed transforms life” (McKnight:127).
He describes a spiritually formed person by the following statement:
A spiritually formed person loves God by
following Jesus and loving others.
A spiritually formed person embraces the stories
of others who love Jesus.
A spiritually formed person lives out kingdom values.
A spiritually formed person loves Jesus personally,
and participates in the life of Jesus (McKnight:237).
The book is organized into sections. The first 50 pages is focused on the Jesus Creed with its Jewish antecedents, the prayer of the Jesus Creed, the Abba of the Jesus Creed, and the Table and the Sacred Love of the Jesus Creed. McKnight often uses terms in the original Hebrew in order to draw out the Hebrew conceptual worldview behind the terms and provides a glossary at the end of the book.
In the second section, McKnight tells a variety of “Stories of the Jesus Creed” using John the Baptist, Joseph, Mary, Peter and women to illustrate Jesus’ intent with the Jesus Creed worked out in the lives of people. I especially like the one on Peter, in which McKnight’s asks us to identify the moment that Peter was converted to Christ. He effectively shows that it was not a one-time event, but rather a series of steps or decisions—a process.
McKnight addresses the concept of what we call the ecclesia in the third section titled “The Society of the Jesus Creed” in chapters about the society of transformation, mustard seeds, justice, restoration and joy. The fourth section is “Living the Jesus Creed” which deals with believing, abiding, surrendering to, restoring, forgiving and reaching out in Jesus.
The last section is “Jesus and the Jesus Creed” which has a series of reflections on Jesus at the Jordan, in the wilderness, on the mountain, at the last supper, at the cross, and at the tomb, and the significance of each of these moments for us as followers of Jesus.
In addition to Tertullian, McKnight draws stories and quotes from people like Alec Guiness (37), Anglican theologian Tom Wright (85), Henri Nouwen (112), Chesterton (131), Alexander Schmemann, Thomas Merton, Richard Foster (177), Michael Green (234), Alexis de Toqueville (243), John Bunyon (291), Federica Matthews-Green, Dorothy Sayers, Flannery O’Conner and frequently from C.S. Lewis and many, many others.
Despite the obvious scholarship and erudition that McKnight brings to his research, he consciously avoids an academic writing style, and makes his work easily readable at the undergraduate level. This is a book that one could give to any literate new believer to help them study the life of Jesus and the practical significance of his teachings for their lives. Although the book introduces a comprehensive Christology, it is not presented in a linear, systematic theology style. It is presented as a narrative, a series of stories about Jesus that invite us to his table of fellowship.
The only criticism I might make of the book was that I found it to drag a little about two-thirds of the way through. Perhaps this was because of the book’s focus on being accessible to the uninitiated. Some of the chapters in Living the Jesus Creed were already familiar ground to me, although McKnight often surprised me with a new, or fresh insight about believing, abiding and forgiving in Jesus.
Alan Hirsch, in The Forgotten Ways, in his detailed and comprehensive study of Jesus movements in history, from the early church to the Chinese church, states unequivocally that a common characteristic of every fresh missional move of God is a renewed focus on the person and teachings of Jesus (Hirsch:85).
In my opinion, Scot McKnight has opened the way for a new, emerging Christology that is fresh and culturally relevant, while at the same time congruent with classical, historic Christian faith. He has given us a core narrative for a 21st century message that is truly good news for post-modern seekers. I highly recommend the book, and even more highly recommend his on-line blog as a portal into the current reformation/revolution/renewal of Christianity. You can access Scot McKnight's excellent blog at www.jesuscreed.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
