Sermon #3 in Deconstructing Theology Series

Here's Sunday's sermon from our deconstruction series . . .

Deconstructing Theology #3
Alum Creek – Jan. 17, 2010 – Alum Creek

The Grain of Salt: Learning to Ask Questions

Every once in awhile, a line is uttered in a movie that jumps off the silver screen and is forever etched in the psyche of popular culture. Often times one or two lines of dialogue from a movie forever represent an entire film. Before we get into the lesson this morning, I want to hear from you some of the greatest movie lines of all times. Some of my favorite:
· “I see dead people.” - The Sixth Sense
· “Nobody puts baby in the corner.” - Dirty Dancing
· “I feel the need, the need for speed.” - Top Gun
Who remembers this line? “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
That line, obviously, comes from the Wizard of Oz, one of the many famous quotes from this movie. As we move into our third lesson in our series on deconstructing theology, this scene becomes a very good starting point for our discussion. We began two weeks ago by asking some questions about the way we think. We acknowledged that our knowledge, our perspective, is circumstantial. There’s not getting around that. We think the way we think because our environment, our training, our personality, our tradition, our teachers, and an infinite number of other things affect what we know in addition to affecting the way we know what we know. In acknowledging this reality we came face to face with the fact that we could be wrong – about a lot of really important things, and thus, should always ask the question, “What if we are wrong?”
We looked to Paul and saw that his call for transformation of the mind in Romans 12 was really a call to acknowledge that we have been wrong. Paul states that transformation happens by the renewing of your minds . . . and the renewing of your mind is an ongoing process of stating, “Well, I’m wrong about this,” and then subsequent growth from righting the wrong.
Last Sunday we pressed on further by calling for some cognitive humility – confessing to others that we don’t have all the answers. We saw that Job was completely undone by not just the undoing of his life, but by the undoing of his mind. What happened to Job didn’t fit in his box – his understanding of things, of God. We will never be able to grow until we are readily able to admit, “I don’t know.”
But . . . is that allowed? Aren’t some things just given? Aren’t some areas just the way they are because they are?
David Dark begins his book The Sacredness of Questioning Everything by telling the story of a small tight-knit community. The community is close and they watch each other and take care of each other. Anyone visiting from the outside would quickly notice their blatant and constant affinity to “Uncle Ben.” It was very common to hear members of the community say, “Isn’t Uncle Ben awesome?” Even in tragedy, the locals acknowledge, “It just goes to show you how much we need Uncle Ben.”
At the beginning of each week there’s a meeting at the largest house in the town where the people get together and talk about the events of the community and each family. They talk about Uncle Ben until a bell rings and all the people get up from their seats and moves to a staircase that goes to the basement. The entire community descends the staircase where they see an enormous, rumbling furnace. There is a man in black overalls with his back to them. They wait in silence until the man turns around.
He turns and his face is slightly contorted with anger and he yells at the people, “Am I good?”
They respond to him in unison, “Yes, Uncle Ben, you are good.”
“Am I worthy of praise?”
“You alone are worthy of his praise.”
“Do you love me more than anything?”
“We love you and you alone, Uncle Ben.”
“You better love me, or I’m going to put you . . . in here” – he opens the furnace door to reveal a gaping darkness – “forever.”
Out of the darkness can be heard sounds of anguish and lament. Then he closes the furnace door and turns his back to them. They sit in silence.
Finally, feeling reasonably assured that Uncle Ben has finished saying what he has to say, they leave. They live their lives as best they can. They try to think and speak truthfully and do well by one another. They resume their talk of the wonders of Uncle Ben’s love in anticipation of the next week’s meeting.”
The Uncle Ben in this story shares a striking resemblance to the God that so many have directed their worship. They live their lives the best they can. They do good to others. They acknowledge their shortcomings. They pray, read their Bibles, and attend church services. And all along the way . . . they are completely paralyzed by fear. The God that they serve is Uncle Ben . . . the who threatens fire and damnation to the one who looks behind the curtain . . .
If your image of God resonates with the Uncle Ben portrait there is no place for questioning. Fear stymies questions. It extinguishes all hope of growth. It does not allow for transformation. It forces us to walk on eggshells hoping not to get anything wrong. It creates an environment of insecurity and unease – far from the peace that God promises His people.
There’s a great parable in another movie that I want to show you, it’s a very brief clip from the movie Bridge to Terabithia. The movie tells the story of two 10-year-olds, Jess and Leslie, who find a magical land in woods surrounding the homes. One day as their play date was rained out, Jess bemoaned the fact that he wouldn’t be able to return soon since he had to do chores the next day, and the following day was Sunday and he would have to go to church. Leslie asks to come along to church, but Jess is sure she won’t like it – after all, she’ll have to wear a dress. Listen to this amazing exchange the two of them have (with Jess’ little sister) on the way home from church.
[Play Bridge to Terabithia clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swcEExbjVMQ).]
“You have to believe it, and you hate it. I don’t have to believe it, and I think it’s beautiful.” What an incredible quote! If you have an Uncle Ben picture of who God is, then you have to believe. You can’t take a chance. It must have been what the philosopher Blaise Pascal had in mind when thought through what is now known as Pascal’s wager. Basically, he asserted that the existence of God cannot be determined, but if there is a God and he can condemn you to hell forever, it’s better safe than sorry. If you work your whole life believing there is a God and turns out there’s not, you’re not out nearly as much if the opposite proves to be true.
At this point I have to ask you the question, “Is this the God of Scripture?” Does the Bible portray a God who demands dogmatic precision and theological perfection? Is He the kind of God who will zap you if you miss too many answers on the final exam? Is our God really a “better safe than sorry” God? Is there really no room for error? Does it really have to be either/or when eternal torment is at stake?
Obviously, if our God is like that of Uncle Ben in the story we just read, the answers are always going to have to be pretty straightforward. But . . . what if God isn’t like that? What are the implications of a God who is different than Uncle Ben?
The Bible is full of stories of men and women who were forced to ask some very difficult questions . . . questions that called into question all that they have ever believed. This morning, quickly, I want us to consider two especially relevant stories from the Book of Acts.
As chapter 7 comes to a conclusions in the Book of Acts, we are told that, as Stephen was lying dead on the ground at the hands of Jewish leaders who had stoned him, a man named Saul stood giving his approval. Saul was an up-and-coming Jewish leader who was working his best to eradicate a Jewish sect of false teachers who were followers of a man named Jesus. He knew all the answers to religious questions. He had been trained in theology. He knew who God was. He knew who he was.
Then . . . Acts 9: 1 – 9.
What do you think those three days were like? What do you think he was thinking about? I bet a lot of the same questions we’ve been asking: What if I’m wrong? How could I have been so wrong?
The story of Saul is one we have grown up hearing. We talk about it all the time to the point where it nearly becomes dull to us. But we must not allow that to happen to us. Listen to the story. Saul is standing there watching some of his friends throw stones at a man who is tied up so that he wouldn’t run away. And they threw stones until he died. He watched every gory detail. And then he and his friends went back to the place where they were staying and had dinner and joked and went on their merry way.
And then . . . in just the matter of weeks, days, this same man is out promoting the very Gospel that he had been out to kill with force. He had been completely and totally wrong. Now, he was left with the ominous task of convincing others in the Christian movement that he wasn’t attempting to simply infiltrate the group and turn on them all.
And if the story of Paul doesn’t make the point well enough, another chapter over and we learn of the great Apostle Peter and his strange vision.
Read Acts 10: 9 – 23.
Something major was about to change for Peter as well. He knew that the Jews were the exclusive people of God. This was still their understanding after Christ was resurrected. The Christian movement was a Jewish one. Peter knew this. They all knew it. But now the vision . . . Cornelius . . . read verses 34 – 38.
And then what happens . . . challenges you a bit, too, doesn’t it? Read verses 44 – 48. This is a problem for those of us who have grown up in the Churches of Christ. We all know that the Holy Spirit comes on us at baptism – as it does to those who are baptized on Pentecost in Acts 2: 38 and at other places in Acts. But here, this is not what happens. They receive the Holy Spirit . . . then they are baptized.
But this is another time, a unique time, with the apostles and all that you may wish to argue . . . and maybe so, but in moving away from the Uncle Ben image of God . . . it becomes less important to argue the case for the proper practice of baptism and defining who is in and who is out and more important to simply revel in the glory of God’s goodness revealed to us. To rejoice in all that God has done and is doing.
Last week we spoke of the difference between putting up fences to bound our practices and define the boundaries of our pastures versus digging a deep well for all to come and drink from, knowing that no one will venture too far away from the spring and well of life. With fences up all around the property, some questions are off limits. In that kind of atmosphere, there are some things you just can’t ask. They are too threatening to the man behind the curtain. But with the God of Scripture, no questions are off limit. Yahweh is no deceiver hiding behind some great production. “Come and seek me,” he asks us, “I have nothing to hide.”
Paul was forced to ask incredibly penetrating questions. “How could I have been so wrong?” Peter is left with the far-reaching implications of his visions, “This changes everything!” And both men leave their ‘Aha’ moment changed forever. Forever. There was no going back. It’s as if the boundaries that they were so focused on maintaining kept them from standing back and seeing that outside of the boundaries were acres and acres of more property in the fold of God, but they couldn’t see them because their attention was so myopic.
What are we afraid of? When changes come? When new beliefs take hold? When new ideas prevail? What are we afraid of? If, indeed, Uncle Ben is our God, there is much to fear. But if our God is too complex to box in, if He’s too diverse to be defined, if He’s too deep to fathom, then we are left with nothing but questions. David Dark’s words are helpful again here:
God is not made angry and insecure by an archaeological dig, a scientific discovery, an ancient manuscript, or a good film about homosexual cowboys. Nor would I imagine God to be made angry or insecure by people with honest doubts concerning his existence. God is not counting on us to keep ourselves stupid, closed off from the complexity of the world we’re in . . .
Leaning on our own understanding of God in this way is idolatry, an inappropriate and unfaithful dependence on our pictures, concepts, and broken ideas that can’t hold life-giving water. Nothing we claim to know or have hold of or pretend to believe as children or as adults places us on the winning side of God’s affections . . . Standing firm in our beliefs will often take precedence over seeing what’s in front of us.
If we never ask questions, we allow ourselves to stand before the great Wizard of Oz and never realize that the one we’ve cast as God is nothing more than a fraud. Our questions force us to delve deeper. Our questions tell us that we don’t have to be afraid any more. God isn’t afraid of our questions. God likes our questions. God wants our questions.
Read Psalm 100. God is not the God Jonathan Edwards describes having us dangling like spiders above the pit of hell held in place by a “slender thread” ready to knock us in for every doctrinal ineptitude.
The psalmist rescues us from such a God. Our God is to be worshipped with gladness. Our God is a god that can be known. Our God is one who is worthy of praise and adoration. And our God is a God who welcomes our questions.

What is Truth?

This is a great article reflecting on the current global warming debate especially in the context of the Copenhagen summit. This question summarizes well his concerns here: As the amplification of human opinion becomes more democratic, is suspicion of the excerpt and the intellectual - a long-held trope in American society - going viral?" Access article here.

Hopeful Fruit #3 - Populist Insistence of the Priesthood of All Believers

One of the marks of the Protestant Reformation, of course, has been the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. As a direct result of a priesthood that had become thoroughly corrupt and overly powerful, believers found life and hope knowing that Scripture was for all and shouldn't be reserved for the most educated and annointed. There are few groups of Protestant groups that have realized this as significantly as the Church of Christ.

I always find some humor in explaining to pastors from other denominations how our churches find their ministers. When you really step back and think about it, it is quite humorous . . . and yet, somehow strangely, refreshing. In a postmodern world where skepticism abounds and trust of "The Man" has all but deteriorated, it seems as though this tenet of our churches just might push us through a difficult transition. It seems to me that outsiders will be excited to know that our ministers are not the product of some denominational appointment or designation, but that this is who the local congregation chose. There is a great connection with our populist emphasis and our insistence upon autonomy.

I find myself talking out of both sides of my mouth on this topic. On the one hand, I am encouraged by our desire to level the playing field of interpretation and leadership. Regardless of education, background, or perceived expertise, everyone pretty much comes in on a level playing field. This is overstated, a bit, obviously, in that we still maintain some hidden or unwritten "weights" based on family demographic in the congregation (more prevalent families often have a more vocal place), socioeconomic bias I'd like to think we are free of, but are just as susceptible as other groups to injustice there, as well as racially and culturally. However, finding no perfect system, we may just have something to offer here.

I am writing these words as the Sarah Palin circus has come to town. They are expecting 5,000 to 8,000 to attend the Columbus-area bookstore where she'll be promoting her book. The Sarah Palin political entry last year has proved to be an interesting example of the power of populist appeal. Regardless of your political leanings, you can't help but find something attractive to the "normal person" who takes on "the Man." This is the heart and soul of Palin's attraction. She speaks for all the soccer and hockey moms - her now famous self-identification. And the response? A great outpouring of support (at least in the Midwest and Southeast . . . she's not surprisingly avoiding the coasts in her book tour - now there would be some interesting events!) In any case, I bring Palin up here because she illustrates the power of the populist voice still today. People like the story of the underdog. They like to think that no office is too big for the common folk.

Sociologically, Churches of Christ fit this mold for the religious sects perfectly. We don't ordain our pastors. The local congregation maintains the criteria and job assignment for the ministers. Worship assemblies are overseen equally by "clergy" and "laymen" (and maybe someday "laywomen" - we'll get to that into the pruning portion of the posts!) Ministers are generally appreciated and respected for their unique Bible knowledge and ministerial expertise . . . at least generally.
It is here I find myself speaking out of both sides of my mouth. On the one hand I believe the populist appeal of our Movement speaks volumes for how we can traverse the postmodern matrix. However, at the same time, I feel as though it has been one of our most signfiant liabilities. In my ten plus years of ministry, now, I can assert that one of the most challenging aspects of working for churches is leadership. I have taken special interest in leadership in the past three or four years, seeing it as such a glaring weakness of my own, and many ministers I have worked alongside and known. It is tough to know how to lead a church.

However, I believe in the midst of such a populist driven church, the issue is ampiflied. Suddenly, the minister's voice is watered down, and his significance dulled a bit. "He makes some interesting points, but let's hear what lukewarm member who doesn't do anything but warm a pew has to say," and we have to keep in mind that so and so just isn't there yet" and those kinds of comments abounds. It seems, from my experience, that the power and influence of a minister in Churches of Christ is truncated even to a greater extent than those in other denominations. This makes the task of leadership extremely difficult and probably says a lot about why our churches tend to remain pretty small.

Again, I see this populist approach as both a potential bonus for our involvement with non-Christians. Realizing the only folks setting doctrine and making decisions and excommunicating members and hiring and firing ministers are those folks you worship right beside on Sundays. However, it has potential risks as this populism can just as easily make us lazy and myopic in our understanding of our role in the invisible church. Group think can (and I think has) set in quickly under populist-driven congregations. Looking around at congregations of Churches of Christ throughout the rural parts of the United States, I think this is exactly what is ailing them.

Hopeful Fruit #2 - The Passion for the Sacred Text of Churches of Christ

Perhaps it is one of the most enduring qualities of the Churches of Christ that we have managed to be unapologetically Bible-focused and Bible-centered, while at the same time remaining outside the limiting circles of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism [Richard Hughes argues that this may no longer be the case for much of the movement in his Reclaiming a Heritage (a great read for any reader of this blog!) ACU Press, 2002 - see especially chapter seven entitled: "Why Restorationists Don't Fit the Evangelical Mold; Why Churches of Christ Increasingly Do" Another topic for another day]. In compiling the "Heart of the Restoration Series," ACU Press was quick to release a work centered on the place of the Bible in our heritage [volume 2 in the series is entitled God's Holy Fire: The nature and function of Scripture, 2002.] Gospel meetings, mission statements, sermons, and classes echo from congregations of Churches of Christ the world over with the message of "Back to the Bible." Any study taken upon by her students inevitably begins with the question, "What does the Bible say about that?" Stated simply, there aren't many groups who know the Bible as well as our people do, and to not recognize that as a hopeful fruit would be disingenous and a disservice.

Brightly hanging down from the branches of the Churches of Christ tradition is their abiding love for the story of God. I remember sitting in Bible classes learning the books of the Bible, the 12 Tribes of Israel, the 12 Apostles, the chronology of the Old Testament . . . just about everything that's in those 66 books, we covered it. Bible bowls, Sunday school, lectureships, Vacation Bible School, and Gospel meetings still retain the undeniably Bible-focus even today. From the smallest, most rural congregations to the largest suburban megaplexes among Churches of Christ, these churches love to teach the Bible.

Among members of Churches of Christ, a person's age, education, and life situation all are considered secondary to how well she or he knows the Bible. Bible knowledge is often directly equated with spirituality - the more Bible you know, the more spiritual you are. Quoting Scripture is sometimes seen as paramount to a spiritual gift. These latter case points illustrate some worms that lay underneath the skin of a perfectly healthy piece of fruit, but shouldn't take away from the fact that Churches of Christ hold steadfast to the biblical text.

It is widely held that children within Churches of Christ are not learning as much Bible as they did in bygone days. Biblical literacy across denominational boundaries is suffering and the Churches of Christ are certainly not immune to this phenomenon. However, there remains, by and large, an incredible commitment to teaching our people the Bible. While there may be a general laxity in the general audience when it comes to the biblical literacy, it also should be noted that scholarship in Churches of Christ has gained an increased audience in recent years and is more widely respected by the broader theological community than ever before (could this be evidence of an increased Evangelical leaning??)

While the commitment to being biblical and Bible-people should be seen as hopeful fruit, the good fruit has not come without potential worms. Often, in Churches of Christ, the story about God has been elevated to a higher plane than God Himself. Bibliolatry has become the golden calf for many in Churches of Christ - this excessive emphasis on the bonded leather and gold-tipped pages to the neglect of the mysterious Creator and Savior of all that is in existence. Too often we have bound God to the ink on the pages instead of allowing Him the freedom to work apart from the Scripture itself (we seem to have overlooked Paul's point in Romans 1 all too often).

Just as damaging, we have often married our love and emphasis of the text to our love and emphasis of "necessary" antiquated interpretive devices. The thoroughly modernistic hermentuic evolving from Enlightenment philosophy is often valued equal to the text it seeks to interpret. Churches continue to be taught the interpretive system of command, example, and necessary inference both directly and indirectly. The limitations of this foundational philosophy has been exposed over the past several years (see the work of Michael Casey, John Mark Hicks, along with others). Unfortunately, for many in Churches of Christ their love for the sacred text is married to their love for their interpretation of the sacred text. The certainty demanded of foundationalism has created skepticism of alternative voices and a myopic view of the hand of God. As the Churches of Christ engage the world of postmodernism, nothing has been more harmful to her cause than the lack of place for alternative voices and this begins at the table of biblical interpretation.

I believe we must reinvigorate our love and passion for the story of God, and not find ourselves so committed to one interpretive device or another. Instead, we need to find our way beyond the need for certainty and past the place of answers, as very difficult as that is going to be. If we will once again fall in love with the text and, in the spirit of Psalm 119, meditate over it, take it to heart, allow it to sink into our very ethos . . . and allow part of God to be revealed in the text, but not limited to the text. Our churches should be filled with people who love the text and love to learn about the text and engage in long discussions about what the text means. Churches of Christ must become a place where conversation is encouraged and facilitated instead of streamled monologue and uniform teaching dominate the floor. May diversity abound and the unity of the Spirit be what unites us instead of the unity of thought and homogenous hermeneutics.

Hopeful Fruit #1 - The Autonomy of Churches of Christ

As I looked over the apple tree in my backyard, considering the harvest cycle that was now coming to an end, there were a few apples that actually made it to fruit. Not all these apples, to be sure, were created equal. Most of them died off before they became edible. A few of them made it some time further, but then were attacked by squirrels realizing their demise at the hands of these neighborhood pests. There were exactly three that made it long enough to actually become part of our dinner one night recently. As I assess the hope-filled fruit dangling from the apple tree of the tradition of Churches of Christ, I see an equal disparity in the fruit. While each of the fruit I mention offers hope, they do so at differing levels. So, I thought I would begin here with what I believe to be the most promising of the fruit.

I have become convinced that the single-most promising characteristic of the Churches of Christ as they engage in their ministry in the postmodern world is their commitment to congregational autonomy. From my earliest days in Churches of Christ, I have known that the Bible taught "autonomy." I think I was in college before I really understood what that meant. In a nutshell, our autonomy in Churches of Christ can be well-illustrated in business-terms: each congregation is locally owned and operated.

While the basis of this self-understanding in Churches of Christ stems from the belief that the autonomous churches in Acts serve as an example for how churches should operate today, the richness of a locally-run congregation is quickly becoming realized throughout Western Christianity. As culture deepens in its skepticism and distaste for globalization and cookie cutter development, hungering for creativity and authenticity, it seems to me that an autonomous church offers an organic structure that is both biblical and culturally significant. In Christian leadership circles, a localized approach to church dynamics is gaining momentum across the denominational spectrum (just a few recent examples are : Doing Local Theology, Preaching as Local Theology and Folk Art, It Comes from the People, Organic Leadership and Finding Organic Church).

What many see as innovative, Churches of Christ have maintained throughout its relatively short history. One of the most enigmatic qualities among Churches of Christ have been their relative homogeneity despite their autonomous claims. Although we have claimed to be autonomous, our practice has not been fully so. Congregations of Churches of Christ in settings as diverse as Boston to rural Pennsylvania, Texas, coastal California, Florida, and the Midwest all, for some time, have looked eerily similar. While there is no organizational hierarchy declaring edicts on church policy, the schools, literature, and lectureships training our leaders clearly have had a great deal of influence throughout these churches. But, should autonomy be limited to describing the lack of a denominational head quarters? Is there not more implicit in the reality of autonomy? Haven't we missed a great deal of our freedom?

Today, many in Churches of Christ find their Mecca in the Bible Belt of the South East or on the prairies of central Texas. In my ministerial interaction with those in Central Ohio, I am amazed when I come across ministers and elders who seem more concerned with what is happening at a school or lectureship hundreds of miles away than with the decisions of the local governments and churches within minutes of where he lives. I conclude that autonomy very well may be the best thing we have going for us . . . but it also may be the most widely misunderstood and undervalued.

I challenge us in Churches of Christ to take the autonomous heritage of which we have been the benefactors, and explore its deeper implications. What would it look like to be a truly autonomous agency of the kingdom? No denominational boundaries. We would be just as interested in the preaching and teaching of the Vineyard Church here in Columbus as we would the others who share our name. We would be willing partners in worship and fellowship at any time and with anyone whose sole aim was to lift up the name of Christ. And we would invite others to the table with no strings attached. We would converse and share, listen and learn. We would be more engaged locally allowing our theology and ecclesiology to emerge from within the voices of people we love and share with and worhsip beside. The oldest and the youngest would have equal say with great theological forefathers who are also part of our tradition. Our conversations would begin with empathy and care instead of doubt and hesitancy.

The future will be bright in Churches of Christ if we can further grapple with this notion of localizing our theology and practice. We can be proud of our heritage when we are about forming disciples instead of creating adherents. That is the duty of the church . . . and far too often we have gotten in the way. There is much to be said for the baggage that denominational structures bring. This post simply touches the surface of what I believe to be our most enduring and important characteristic. We live in a world who is much less interested in the position our denomination takes on homosexuals - though they will make judgments based on that (what edict has been sent down from your ruling body?) than in our local manifestation of the love of God (do you love homosexuals? can I tell that you love them?)

With the emergence of micro-narratives and village theology, the localized, contextual congregation has as much potential as ever. However, in order to embrace this potential, we must learn to listen, open ourselves, and be ourselves: here and now.

Peter Rollins' Parable

Should be a pretty provocative book with parables like this:

God Joins the Army by peter-rollins

Hope for Churches of Christ in Ohio

I want to continue in my postings about my Christian tradition. I spent some time in my previous post reflecting upon my upbringing in the small, backwards Defiance Church of Christ. I began my current ministry position five and a half years ago at a Church of Christ in northern Columbus, OH. Our church is on the very outer-fringes of the Columbus suburbs. It's about two and a half hours from Defiance. In the years I've been in Columbus, the atmosphere of the Churches of Christ I've experienced has been incredibly disappointing and frustrating. I suppose the phone book (and Mac Lynn) probably find evidence of about 25 - 30 "congregations" in the Columbus area. There are a few large enough to be multi-staffed (Fishinger and Kinney Rds., Spring Rd., Northland, Reynoldsburg, Genessee Ave. - Gennessee Ave. is a predominantly black congregation, and while it defies everything I believe to treat them differently, the fact of the matter is, in this conversation, they are a bit different), and Marysville. Also could be included is Heath and Lancaster, but they are a bit futher away. In any case, there are a few.

Columbus, OH is the 15th largest city in the United States. Perhaps you are surprised. I am. For a city that size, our particular denomination is very under-represented. What is more disappointing, is that the few churches that are here don't have much to do with each other. I mean, I know that churches are kind of known for not getting along, but seriously, the churches in Columbus, OH don't care too much for each other. I hardly ever talk to any of the other ministers. I am good friends with one of them, but the others I probably talk to less than once or twice a year. Perhaps that is because I am not making the effort . . . but neither do they. To show that it is not all on me, when I first came to town I tried to begin a regular lunch meeting with the youth ministers - there were about five or six of us at the time . . . we met a few times, then it flopped. Some of the ministers have been here for a long time, most of us have been here from between 5 - 10 years. From my best judgement, this is a deep-seeded disunity that goes back many decades - and there looks to be no progress in sight.

I have met a few ministers from a little further away - Jeff Slater in Ashland, Russell Howard and Matt Dahm in Marion. I could list a few others - but only a few. I went out of my way to attend a meeting in Marion that I didn't find too beneficial simply because I felt it was a good offering of fellowship on my behalf. I have attended events and brought teens and children to local events simply to be supportive. Seldom has that support been reciprocated. I'm not trying to sound high and mighty here either - I repeat, I have failed in this manner as well. I believe this group of churches is in some trouble.

The more conservative churches in the area (Fishinger and Kenney, Alkire Rd., Pataskala, and some others) do a much better job of communicating and associating with one another. They are united by some of their simliar antiquated events such as Bible bowls and such. (Alkire Rd. actually has a school where they offer Bible classes). I commend them for much of their efforts, while choosing to disagree with a great deal of their theology. I see some positive organizational points for them, though I think they may be dying under their oppressive and judgmental theology.

There are a few other chruches that lean more towards the center of "mainline churches of Christ" but are a little on the outs with the more conservative groups mentioned above. That leaves three or four of us others. These other churches (and ours probably leads the way) find ourselves in a theological quandry. We know we we are not "them." About half of our membership consists of people "born and raised" among churches of Christ. Several, however, have been burned by previous churches due to situations of divorce or other tragedies. Many find themselves here because they don't really know where else to go. We don't lose many members to other Churches of Christ . . . instead we tend to be the last church on their way out of the movement altogether.

Our church is different. Two of our elders are in their second marriage (all these situations are complicated, but people in most traditional churches of Christ would probably not be too excited about the details of either of these cases). We have claimed to be a grace-oriented church before it was cool. We don't know much of what's going on in our "brotherhood." We use instrumentally-accompanied tracks on occassions - though we usually don't sing with them. We have used women in an expanded use on occassion - though not regularly. More than anything, we aren't afraid to talk about anything. With all that said . . . we still don't have much of a sense of who we are.

Probably half of our church has been with Churches of Christ for quite some time, but we have a sizeable minority who have no clue about these things. We regularly have visitors, some who stick around even though we are a cappella, who don't know much about us. Our four elders all are "born and raised" church of christers. Both ministers are too. And none of us have any idea what to do.

Some of our members fit nicely in the Church of Christ mold, and would like it if we stand there. They seem really hell-bent on insisting that. We have another sizeable number who fit more in-line with an evangelical mold. They enjoy reading and listening to authors, pastors, from evangelical churches and attend concerts and events that are mainly evangelical. Then, there's a small minority who probalby empathize more with a mainline denominational structure (we have two Catholics who attend regularly for one example - though, of course, they are not considered "main-line").

In addition to these problems, our small membership (100 or so) live in a radius that comes close to surpassing 50 miles. We live in five or six different counties. All in all, it's a mess. And honestly and truly, I have no idea what to do. It'd be a lot easier, as I've stated before, to start a new church. Little of the emergent and missional ideas I read about and empathize with are prepared for any mileage here. Our baggage is immense. And, all the same, I figure we have it a whole lot better than many in our movement.

To make a long post longer, I think Churches of Christ in Ohio are in trouble - especially, and ironically, the progressive ones - or open ones - or whatever you call us. (Maybe confused ones). We have, probably more than anything, lost our mission. We've been so caught up in the newfound freedom in worship that we found two decades ago, that we've never moved beyond that. Now, so much of our time (and especially my time) is caught up in a two-hour event on Sunday mornings. We are currently a church culture more obsessed with the "correct way to conduct an hour-long worship service" than bringing hope, justice, and love to a dying and decaying world. That is a problem . . . and a big one . . .and I sure hope we can take a few very small steps in overcoming that in the coming months . . . perhaps God will allow us through our repentance to participate alongside him - and stand back and watch.

Reflections on Peter Rollins Lecture & Newt Gingrich's Book

Peter Rollins

I found out a few weeks ago that Peter Rollins was going to be in Columbus yesterday, so I worked things out to be able and go listen to him. He offered a three hour lecture. The whole experience was a little surreal as I joined a crowd of 80 in a dimly lit old theater listen to a post-modern Christian philosopher from Ireland with beer on-tap. I haven't had a lot of exposure to Rollins, but my interest was piqued by some video clips I ran across online a few weeks back. Trained as a philosopher, Rollins has brought to light one area I feel especially inadequate in study. A few years ago I remember being challenged by John Caputo at a conference about the place of philosophy in our faith. To say that it was lacking in my training would be a huge understatement.

I'm not sure I could adequately reflect on Rollins' lectures here, but would strongly encourage anyone who gets the chance to hear him to do so. His group works on the fringes of Christianity and will stretch any Christian in our country with his thoughts. He suggests that his work (with the quasi-faith community called Ikon) has a prophetic voice on the fringes of orthodox Christianity. No doubt many would question his place within orthodoxy altogether, I do believe that he is providing necessary critique for the current state of the modern church. I am very excited to read his forthcoming The Orthodox Heretic (April) as it is a collection of parables created by Rollins to help communicate. Highly entertaining to listen to, Rollins is well schooled in parables from philosophy, rabbinic traditions, and other places - it will be well worth anyone's time to read from his forthcoming collection.

Essentially, Rollins argued in the first section of his lecture that the modern project of reason succeeded in objectifying God . . . the pinnacle coming with Nietzche's "killing of God." Nietzche, in fact, simply proceeded through the modern project. Rollins made use of a helpful image of God always pushing back at theology resisting the temptation to be objectified. I loved his image of God being so close, and so transcendent that we can't figure him out (as opposed to so far away we can see him, what, I'm sure many of his opponents argue). There's more to be said here, but I'm still processing.

Rediscovering God in America

Secondly I wanted to spend a few minutes dissecting a book given to me by one of our elders (thanks, Curt :-) ). The book, Rediscovering God in America, is a tour through the monuments and important structures in the United States which Newt Gingrich has compiled to "rediscover the historic source of American liberty and to rediscover the founding generation's understanding of what is required to sustain liberty in a free society." p. 131. I appreciate Curt giving me this book and offering it as a challenge to the pacifist perspective I argue.

I ackowledge that this book has forced me to reevaluate my considerations for the relationship between the Christian faith and participation in this nation. I believe that I often over-state the ills of our government in order to make the case that a Christian is not called to participate in government. The United States is a rather enigmatic case for Christians to consider when considering the government. I believe what Gingrich is trying to do is to combat the radical left that wants to rewrite history books taking "God out of the founding of our nation" - I would imagine he would say something like that.

Gingrich states that he does not intend for his book to be theological in nature, but for the theologian, everything is theological. To allow a book like to address state concerns or sociological concerns and NOT theology is to create and/or expand an incredibly harmful compartmentalization that deeply affects the American church. Gingrich's observations should be troubling for Christians on multiple accounts. First of all, the unspoken logic of the book is that because Scripture permeates the national landmarks we were indeed birthed as a religious (Christian) nation. It's amazing to me how many evangeicals rush to the frontlines of our nation's beginnings and uphold the founding fathers as born again Christians. It is well documented that many, if not most, of these forefathers were Deists at best.

With our Scriptures stamped all over the landmarks of this nation, I am disappointed more Christians are not disheartened by the early ways these forefathers did not act like Christians, devistating the Native peoples from their lands (in many ways, I believe the horrors inflicted on the Native Americans are every bit as horrendous as what Hitler did to the Jews - by the grace of God, the Jewish race survived the atrocities, but many Native civilizations were destroyed by this "Christian" nation - but becaue it is closer to home, it is not talked about). We are too quick to separate their behavior from their actions. We are too close to the situation. We want to have the Christian underpinnings of society, but to do so, we have some seedy baggage to deal with. Christ has called us to faithfulness to him, period. Not knowledge of Scriptures. Not claiming a land for him. Not policing the world in his name. We are called to love him and love others. By participating in the state, I am not sure we can do that. I see it in the people I care the most for. They cast a blind eye at blatantly un-Christian practices at the state level excusing it as if Jesus holds the state to a different standard.

This brings me to a second important point. I believe the most mis-guided aspect of our discussions about the state in America centers on the concept of freedom. It is vital that we ackowledge that the Bible is no guaranteer of freedom. The United States has propagandized the nation over recent decades, focusing especially on Christians, stamping our fight for freedom in all international conflict under the guise of godly oversight and protection. The Bible does not teach to fight for freedom. NOWHERE! If this offends you, stop reading right now and do a study. There is no guarantee of freedom. I know it's easy for me to say that. I wouldn't trade it for anything. But God has called me to faithfulness, obedience, and love, not the right of freedom. Slaves were told to obey their masters, not fight them or run away. This concept calls into question the very root of our nation - fighting (read killing) for our freedom. Is this what Jesus taught on the sermon on the mount? How dare we give a free pass to those in the military because they do so in combat? Jesus never makes that distinction, how can we? This places the onus on those who wish to argue for military participation, not me.

This is not an easy discussion to be had. I don't know if many are ready to fully open themselves up for the implications of what this means. I believe that Gingrich is narrow-mindly American in his book and potentially sows the seed for a future holy war. Perhaps he will follow it up with a second volume noting all the landmarks of Iran that are covered in verses from the Koran and how their nation is built around a good-peaceful religion gone bad and now must be destroyed. It becomes nothing more than a modern-day crusuade. The cycle of this thought continues. We must spend more money so our military is the biggest so that no one threatens us . . . haven't we misplaced our hope as soon as we do that? And so many of us do that without even thinking about it. My hope is in God. Period.

The idea of kingdom is political. It was the political jargon of the day. What purpose would Jesus have had in using that language unless he meant his kingdom to be an alternative politcal reality? We can praise the outcome of the wars of the state (freeing blacks, defeating Hitler, etc.) but Christians must always do so with a partly disappointed heart knowing that this is not the way of the kingdom. The means must be consistent with the end . . . the end cannot be used to justify whatever means possible. This is not an easy teaching to accept. But, something that Gingrich fails to ackowledge, is that every ruler, every war, is started and maintained by people who believe that God is on their side (is the swastika not a broken cross?) Just becuase we think God is on our side does not make us right . . . or good.

The Truth Project Twice More

We are nearing the end of our small group study of The Truth Project. Last night I watched the second to last installment about the "sphere of labor." I did not get to see the last video about "The American Experiment" but have a pretty good idea of where he was going with it - a place I will be spending a great deal of time arguing against in the coming weeks. Essentially believing that America is a great last hope for the Gospel and we need to continue to try and "save it for God" or bring it back to God or whatever. Anyone reading this who has been here before knows that I especially struggle with such a perspective. I just finished reading Gregory Boyd's book entitled The Myth of a Christian Nation. It is a great pastoral piece written to challenge and make people uncomfortable in dealing with their idolatry of nationalism. This problem is alive and well and way too often has gone unaddressed. I would like to say more about the book as I found it to be a poignant and sharp pastoral treatment of a topic that is all too often left in academia.

However, back to the truth project. I had many misgivings and much reserve in studying this material knowing that it was produced (or at least marketed) by Focus on the Family. I knew there would be some underlying agenda-driven points along the way. It met me squarely with this video on labor. Now, I do applaude the inclusion of this topic in the series. He is right that we too often do not speak of the place of labor in our theological framework. And for the first part of his video I felt he did a fair job of presenting a biblical perspective. Our role in work is rooted in God's working in the Genesis account. God worked. He created us to work. Work is not inherently evil. The Fall did affect work (he states that the text shows it affected the ground, not work itself, which may be a semantical variation, but I don't feel as though he gives enough credance here to the affect the Fall has had - he sure was adament that the Fall had affected our moral capacity in the rest of the series!)

When he moves away from Genesis, however, he begins some hermentuetical gymnastics to make his right wing political ideology fit the Bible. I found his use of the biblical text in this video to be incredibly selective and misleading and incredibly unfortunate. He loves the Old Testament where it talks about leaving behind the gleanings for the poor people to work - to ensure they WORK for their wages. The poor should not be given hand outs. OK, I'm with him there. Systematic rehabilitation is at the core of addressing the complex issues of poor - but little progress will be made by wood-working factories leaving the sawdust for poor people to collect and recycle (the "incredible" example he gives). But here, as throughout this series, he is showing an incredibly myopic and fundamentalist perspective of the text. The Bible says it, I believe it, let's move on. He came across to me as a very well-intentioned (I don't doubt his heart) white, middle class American who has taken little time to sit down accross the table from the impoverished families who are all out of "easy" answers. For Tackett, everything is flat. The poor need jobs; people with money need to make jobs so they will work. If only it was that simple!

This is, to me, one of the most frustrating aspects that frequently surfaces from evangelical Christianity - an utter disregard for the complex sociological and economic factors affecting the world. Please don't take this the wrong way, but there comes a point and time when we need to put our Bibles down and learn from economics, sociology (and all other disciplines) and struggle and wrestle with how this impacts our understanding of the sacred texts. It is like Tackett has been unaware through this entire series how he has been shaped by these disciplines and through his life experience, and instead stamps his perspective as the way.

Unfortunately, his way doesn't consider the fundamental economic program in the Old Testament. I have had disagreements with his teaching throughout the series, but felt as though it served as good discussion. Some of his statements and teachings in this series are downright misleading and un-biblical. I am flabergasted that he would spend 15 minutes of his hour long session on the gleanings passage and NEVER mention jubilee. Jesus reads from the text in Isaiah at the beginning of his ministry in Luke stating that he has come to fulfill this (in their hearing). Israel was intended to be built around the idea of redistrubtion of wealth - something he lists on the screen that the Bible teaches is a SIN! A sin! It is a biblical teaching! I'm not supporting socialism or anything like that . . . my point is that Tackett has allowed his culture to dictate his understanding of the text. The Bible does teach that this is a sin. It actually looks a lot like what the early church did. Jubilee forcefully redistributed the wealth every fifty years. I don't believe that this makes everything easy to understand . . . but if you are going to have a Bible study you CAN'T spend a fourth of your times talking about the gleanings (because that fits into your Republican/Protestant work ethic ideology) and not address the jubilee (because that fits more into a Democratic/liberal sharing of wealth that you don't agree with). Why else would he avoid this teaching? It is even more central to Old Testament theology? And of course he went to the Proverbs to uphold the value of work and all that. There is a lot to be wrestled with here, and he avoids the conflict altogether and instead presents our form of economy as though it is ordained in Scripture - it is not. It may be a better version than most or all other economies . . but it is not presented in the Bible (our economy is totally foreign to the biblical authors).

He makes the same mistake in the New Testament. He rushes to you don't work you don't eat and says . . . See, told you. But totally avoids Jesus' fundamental teachings from the Sermon on the Mount - if someone asks for your tunic, give him your cloak as well. Tackett would say give him a job. Hey that's great . . . but all I've got is a tunic and cloak. His poor use of the Bible in this episode shows that he is not a theologian working outside his field, mistraining those in the ways of his ideology.

He shows his card and the house of cards falls out from under him by a simple and seemingly harmless comment he makes off the cuff and on the side. To completely understand this you'll have to know the general outline that he uses for his teaching. There are great foundations built on the nature and character of God, anthropological insights, supporting pillars of philosophy and others and on top are these spheres: labor, sociology, and others. His premise is that these spheres are the created order set in place by God with a purpose. It is when these spheres overlap into another sphere that sin enters. It sounds great, but it's not biblical. The Bible nowhere lays out some created order that everything follows. This is where modernistic scientific models break down. Sure, there is some good in organizing things this way and it is a helpful way to talk about things that don't get addressed enough. However, you can't draw logical conclusions based on these faulty logic premises. That fails to see them for what they are. They are illustrates for the sake of discussion, not ontologically secure facts.

His comment is that the spheres of government (the state) and labor are different and that jobs can't come from the state. Wait . . . was that John McCain or Dell Tackett. The Bible doesn't say anything about that. He knows that, that's why he quickly moves on, but if you're paying attention, you can't let him get by with that comment. His whole system breaks down if you begin to use it in that way. My postmodern mind was fatigued by trying to follow his thoroughly modernistic approach and application to Scriptures. It furthers my suspicions that The Truth Project is a thoroughly modernistic agent dressed up with some bells and whitles (there was a really well done and cool video at the beginning of this session depicting God's creation), but riddled with the same issues that are being debunked by postmodernity.

In the end, Tackett offers too many answers, and not enough questions in an area that is very challenging and complex. I appreciate his willingness to address the topic, but wish that he would do so acknowledging his biasses.

The Truth Project and History

In our latest installment of The Truth Project, Dr. Del Tackett tackles the topic of history. After viewing the video, I have to admit that it wasn't what I thought it was going to be (a thought shared by one of the others in the group I watched it with). He said, afterwards, "I thought there would be . . . I don't know . . . more history." The topic title is a little misleading.

Tackett camps out on the frequent Old Testament admonishment to "Remember," looking at numerous passages where Israel was told to "Remember" different events of its life (Sinai, crossing the Red Sea, the Passover, etc.) Beginning here, Tackett states the imperative that we remember history correctly. He spends a good deal of time blasting revisionist history, offering passing insight into his conservative political position as he mentions secular liberals seeking to remember American history differently than the way it was written (basically taking God out of it).

I really like the premise of the topic. "Remember" is such a critical aspect of God's desire for his people. I was astonished that in the entire topic, he didn't mention the Eucharist once to my knowledge. What more key thelogical concept can there be t0 remembering than the communion celebration - "In remembrance of me." This shocking oversight is troubling.

However, the bigger difficulty I had with the history session was its thoroughly modern intepretation of history. He spends a few minutes debunking post-modernism and its lack of a meta-narrative. There's no doubt that the lack of meta-narrative in the postmodern world is cause for concern. However, I strongly disagree with Tackett's solution, which is to hold on to a modern worldview . . . which I think pretty quickly unravels when considering this topic.

Postmodernism, we are told in the video, jettisons the larger meta-narrative in obsession for the smaller individual narrative of the individual. Instead of realizing the great opportunity this offers, Tackett and those contributing to the discussion, bemoan the situation. However, he offers no answer to the problems postmodernism has challeged. Instead, he utterly ignores them as though they don't exist.

I find it truly ironic that he accuses the "world" of myopia when that is exactly the problem I see inherent in his belief system in regards to history. He has a great moving moment in light of a painting of the Pilgrims and talks of the great sacrifices they made to follow what they thought of as God's will - coming to America, expanding the kingdom he even says. What a great people they were, following God's will even to the point of death from the elements. It's interesting that he determines that this is the meta-narrative, the guiding story and following of God's people that will lead no doubt to where he's headed with the session entitled the "Great American Experiment" looming. It was God's will that this nation was founded. Upon the great principles of God. Perhaps that discussion can be had in political circles - but NOT theological ones. I believe that the founding fathers of our nation are irrelevant to the proposition of the church and her relationship to the culture within which she lives. America has baptized the church instead of vice versa. We have become so incredibly self-centered in our discussions of theology and politics. We must repent and overcome this. This point is made incredibly well by Rob Bell in his latest book Jesus Wants to Save Christians (I plan to review that book when I finish it up.) Theologically, we have to deal with the narrative of all people.

What Tackett fails to acknowledge is that the Pilgrims landing on this shore began the process for a much more heinous narrative to unfold as one of the most persecuted and oppressed people in the history of the world who would be massacred. This, too, must fit into our metanarrative. It does not, I contend, fit into the picture that Tackett is painting of history. Instead, it is his perspective that is, indeed, myopic. He sees only the history of his own people, failing to incorporate the story of others . . . which is the great gift of postmodernity. It forces us to consider the story of others. We very well may claim to have a meta-narrative that others can fit . . . but, more likely than not, it will have to be altered in consideration of the others.

The world of postmodernism is not a clean and cut world and it makes those schooled in modernity, like Tackett, very afraid and worried, and, unfortunately, defensive.

And . . . a last just unbelieveable word. Tackett actually tells the audience that the only date he makes his seminary students learn is 1859 - the year that Darwin published The Origin of Species. Wow . . . and he's accusing others of myopia?

Truth Project Reflections

I have seen a few more installments of the Truth Project without comment, choosing instead some political reflections. Tonight, I should finish reading Shane Claiborne's and Chris Haw's very impressive Jesus for President, so I'll rejoin that topic soon, but I did want to get back to a few thoughts on the Truth Project.

The last two installments of the Truth Project dealt with the two age-old questions of "Who is Man?" and "Who is God?" Interestingly, as least to me, he began with "Who is man?" before addressing "Who is God?" While not wanting to downplay the help these videos may be for many, I continue to be troubled by the underlying premise of much of the teaching. I've spoken previously about the underlying foundationalism from which the teacher comes. It continues to be a problem for me. For Del Tackett, the instructor, the world is laid out in black and white terms: good and evil. If something is not good, it is evil. This is why, in his "Who is God?" lesson, he states he began with man rather than God - man is evil and we have to understand that before looking at the nature of God.

I was more troubled with his teaching on man than his teaching on God stemming mostly from his Calvinist leanings which run counter to my tradition (suprisingly, and a little alarmingly, however, few of our members seem to notice any fundamental difference in perspective). I don't doubt that there is something to be learned in Calvinism, however, I cannot support the total depravity which was, in essence, the teaching in this video. Man, so stated the video, is inherently evil. This was the fundamental lesson of this session, and I cannot uphold such a view. I believe the Bible teaches that man is inherently good! Created in the image of God. Now, Tackett does acknowlege this in kind of a side comment at the end of the video as if to acknowledge the shortcoming of his own theology of anthropology.

What I found especially ironic about this session was the underlying premise was that man is inherently evil and therefore, nothing of the world is to be trusted. And yet, he paints himself into a corner at the end, because he accuses humanity of all the ills and leaves no hope - we messed up and we have to wait it out until Jesus comes back and fixes it all. What of the already of the kingdom!? He never addresses it. How then shall we live? (We'll get there, we'll get there, I'm sure he would say, but you cannot separate the praxis from theory, and here the theor is flawed).

He picks on Maslow and his teaching of the hierarchy of needs. Quoting miscellanious fragments from Maslow, Tackett once again sets up the strawman to show that Maslow is misled and all his teaching is hogwash. He doesn't come right out and say it, but he often jests and makes fun of the theory (really he only disagreed with Maslow's aim in the hierarchy of needs - that man's chief aim is self-actualization - something that he'll hang onto and through synedoche make represent all the teaching of world) but due to his extreme dualism, he throws the whole thing out and says - "What do you expect? He's of the world!" If only discernment was that easy! Instead, it seems to me that Paul would have an Athenian moment here. Your pyramid of hiearchy is good . . . though misguided. God is a God who has already actualized you. You are good by nature! Created in the image of God! To acknowlege total depravity, to me, allows evil to triumph good. No, there is nothing that can trump the good in us, that is what gives us hope now! Living out our faith right now, allowing the image that is within us to trump the cries and desire of the flesh - is that not the point of Romans 8!

The fact of the matter, there is much good (even biblical?) in Maslow's theory. Why must we throw all out, accusing all non-believers of having false motives because they are caught up in some scandal trying to work against us? While this series is dressed up with cool graphics and masquarades as intellectualism, it still remains highly critical and skeptical of all higher learning! After all, the "liberal" academy is after us! I believe that if we uphold the things presented in this video, we will essentially cut ourselves off from communication with higher learning. I'm especially curious to see the next two videos (both on science). At this point, I can't seem him being too enthusiastic about the direction of the sciences.

There is much more I could say on this video, I've said too much already, but I want to also comment on the next video on the nature of God. I found his approach to the question, "Who is God?" very disappointing if not just totally random. He asks the quetion and then never answers it. I mean, after all, how could you answer it? But, I would say he never even really addresses it. He has this long pastoral discourse on God being a jealous God which was sentimental and fine, but I found it random and wasn't sure how that fit into his main discussion of who is God. He never mentioned the communal aspect of the trinity as portrayed in Scripture. This is fundamental to the nature of God and as far as I'm concerned if you are only going to give one shot (one hour) at the nature of God and never address that aspect, I'm just puzzled. It continues a very worrisome theme that has been there throughout - a theology that is almost entirely individualistic.

His discussion of sin was largely individualistic (our choices). His discussion of God was entirely individualistic (our own personal relationship). The remaining "pillars" that he sets out to address in the end of this series (economy, work, politics) are going to be malnourished because of this complete ignoring of the communal aspect of the essense of God: in theological jargon, a "functional trinitarian theology." This is where theology has moved in recent years, and to ignore it comletely shows the reliance of antiquated, foundational modernistic philosophy underlying this entire video series.

With all that said, it's probably going to connect to the modern thinkers in churches (50 - plus), but really miss those of us under that age. It raises some big time questions about the direction churches that work from that philosophy are headed.

Divergent Emergent Perspectives

I ran across this clip on Youtube today searching for emergent discussions. I found it interesting since both RC Sproul and Ravi Zaccarias are featured in the discussion - I never did figure out who the third guy was, but the link for the video on youtube references it as a Ligonier ministry - RC Sproul's creature. These two are prominently featured in the Truth Project, and their perspectives were unfamiliar to me before our time with the Truth Project. With our congregation in the midst of the discussion, I know find it important to better inform myself. Admittedly, most of the reading that I do is focused among emergent-type authors. Adding to the difficulty is the fact that I am part of churches of Christ who aren't really evangelicals (though some of us are looking more and more like them), but find ourselves, for the most part, of of these kinds of discussions.

So . . . a few thoughts on this video clip. The speakers unfairly use Brian McLaren as their dartboard picture. He's an easy target, no doubt, due to what is quickly becoming a prolific writing resume and his widespread appeal in the Emergent Church. However, he is better seen as the representative pastor of the emergent movement as opposed to the theologian and thinker. He is these things, but not nearly at the level of others. In large part, this area of theology is slowly gaining momentum in the academy. Better conversation points should be noted with N.T. Wright, Stanly Grenz, and John Franke, among others.

The end of the clip shows the climax over the issue of homosexuality and the "audacious" claims of McLaren. I don't want to post at length here, but the last thing I wanted to do was to share in the standing ovation of the crowd. The sharpness and condescending tone of their remarks were also unfortunate.

The relativist perspective they caricature is never seriously dealt with but cast aside in reference to extremist points. The one point they make that I feel needs further conversation among "evangelicals" is the accusation of the emergent movement as conservatives (theologically) finding of liberalism. There is some truth in this for much of what I read. I think the conversation at large is not confined to this, but it is a contributing factor. However, as a true postmodernist, I have to say that I don't find much help in those categories they loosely throw around. Anyway, for what it's worth, this video explores the reaction conservative evangelicals are having to postmoderns.