We like to jump to conclusions, don’t we?

As I begin to share the contents of my book, Discovering The God Imagination: Reconstructing A Whole New Christianity, I’ve had several people comment on the Facebook page and a blog post I wrote for Emergent Village.  The first was from a gentleman who said:

“Here is another way to look at all this. What if we have gotten it all right? If you are teaching anything other than that Man is a sinner and God sent his Son to die a sinners death and that we have to Repent and believe in the shed blood of Jesus, anything else is WRONG!!. Usually when someone says we have been wrong distort the truth.”

Another gentleman said:

Another gentleman said:

“Professing them selves wise they became fools. There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is death. You are accountable to God for this convoluted effort to shape the “sparing not of His Son” into something that you “feel comfortable with” . You are preaching another Gospel! The offense of the cross is not in your message. Wow.”

I actually get these types of comments.  The immediate assumption is that what is new cannot possibly shed new light on the old, or even reframe it in a way that adds to conversation.  It’s just easier to stick with what has come in the past.  The problem is that none of these people have actually read the book.  Instead of jumping to conclusions, the harder thing to do is actually wrestling with the possibilities presented in the book. I just hope they do to see that their concerns are misplaced.

“This is one of the problems with—and I don’t mean the actual theory—but how it is popularly taken. It presents God as someone who never [really] forgives.

If you get off the hook, it’s because somebody paid for it.”

Dallas Willard on Penal Substitutionary Atonement Theory

Perhaps no element of my faith has changed more over the last ten years than my understanding of belonging.

Tony Jones recently highlighted a post by Jeff McSwain, who was fired by Young Life over what he describes as “theological differences.”

“In November of 2007, I was dismissed by Young Life for what was termed “theological differences.” Since 2001, I had been preaching the gospel with an emphasis on theological belonging, the idea that humanity belongs to Jesus Christ by virtue of creation and redemption. Rather than splitting Christ as Creator from Christ as Redeemer, I was keen to preserve the gospel symmetry proclaimed by Paul in Colossians 1, where he speaks of the Christ who created and reconciled all things (Col. 1:16, 20). This is the gospel “that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven” (Col. 1:23). This is the gospel that declares that every person is included not only in the first Adam but also in the second (Rom. 5:18).

My point was that preaching this kind of a Christ-centered message actually brings congruence between our incarnational work and our proclamation message.

This story hit me because my wife spent five years in Young Life.  It was one of the more important experiences in her faith development.  When we were dating, I got to spend countless hours following her to meetings, singing songs, and going to ice cream with the kids afterward.  The central idea of Young Life was to hang with the kids and love them…period.  Very little Scripture was provided.  The dominant means of communication was through belonging.

What surprised me even more was that if Young Life took its current policy to its conclusion, Jim Rayburn the original founder would likely have been fired too. The irony of this whole incident is humorous on so many levels.  Rayburn founded Young Life on the idea of belonging.  Jeff provides a remarkable story about Rayburn’s original ideas.

In 1957 at the Young Life Staff Conference Rayburn taught on 2 Corinthians 5:19, which explains “that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” Said Rayburn:

“Reconciliation. Every single person in the whole wide world is now reconciled to God. [. . .] It’s been true for nearly two thousand years. I wonder what they [high school kids] would do if they knew it [. . .]. God has reconciled us, all of us, it’s already done.”Universalism? No, but definitely universal belonging. I italicized that last phrase, I wonder what they would do if they knew it, because the inflective anticipation in Rayburn’s voice on the recording of this talk is unavoidable. He is talking about how Young Life was founded “out of theology”; he relates how these great truths regarding the reconciliation and redemption of all people “rang the bell” in his heart and he became increasingly zealous to get the good news to his thirsty young friends.

What didn’t surprise me is that it worked.  Young Life consistently drew kids in because they began with belonging. They began with the idea that each kid was God’s valuable child, even if they didn’t know it yet.

McSwain calls out our historical approaches to the mat and reveals the contradiction in both forms.  But his quoting of Barth is fascinating.  He shares:

When Barth was asked, after all that he had written about the gospel, to summarize it as succinctly as possible, he responded with the familiar, simple words to the song “Jesus Loves Me.” We teach our children these words—“Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so, little ones to him belong, they are weak, but he is strong”—are we to tell kids that when they get to be a certain age this is no longer the case? Are we to tell them they belong to Jesus if . . .? Is belonging with an if really belonging at all?

It made me think that one of the deepest theological issues of our time is a fundamental shift back to belonging, beginning with the idea of the reconciliation of all things. This will be a central component of my book coming out.  What if we began with the idea that God actually has reconciled the world.

I wonder if our fear of actually living into the idea of belonging is not that it is true.  I would argue that we already do begin with this idea, we just dont’ admit it. Our fear resides in what we think would happen if people accepted it as true.  Would it make much of our institutional structures and activities obsolete?  Would it transform culture in a way that we’ve dreamed of but can’t get to because we can’t seem to get out of the way?

Note: I’m making some changes to this blog in the coming year.  I’m going to be expanding my focus.  I hope to have a blog redesign very soon.  But in the meantime…

————————————————————

What are the theological questions that need to be explored in the coming decade?  Here is my list.

1. What is the problem?

Much of the conversation in the emerging church has been deconstructive.  It’s been good.  Postmodern faith has been mostly about coming to terms with the dissonance in our theological framework.  We don’t like to admit when we don’t have it all together. Yet that is what the emerging church has done.  It took the risk to raise its hand and say, “Wait a minute.  Something doesn’t quite add up.”

That period I believe is coming to an end.  We’re comfortable now with the idea that we don’t have it all figured out.  Case in point is Scot McKnight’s recent exploration of universalism. We would never have had this conversation ten years ago.  It was taboo to even consider the idea that God could restore all of creation.  Yet the more we explore it, the more we’re realizing that it has significant merit directly in Scripture.

From my perspective, this shift towards seeing the problem is THE most important outcome of the last ten years. It’s kind of like an alcoholic.  Much of the work in alcoholism is first coming to terms that there is a problem.  Denial is the biggest obstacle to overcome.

Much of the tension is with tradition. We can’t ignore the reality that we are born into systems.  We are born into established rituals and traditions that we participated in before we even knew what they were.  To buck those traditions is to swim against the flow.  Much of the movement has been people taking the risk to do that even in the face of claims of heresy.

2. What is the postmodern Gospel?

Once the problem has been identified, it is then possible to begin dreaming again.  If we acknowledge there is a dissonance, we can begin to imagine better ways of seeing the story in Scripture.  The biggest possibility in the next decade is the idea of imagining new possibilities and bringing them forth. The seeds of the last decade will begin to bloom.

I’m gonna steal from Phyllis Tickle who identified three important theological questions in Memphis.

1. What is the theology of religion?
2. What does it mean to be human?
3. What is the nature of the atonement?

I would argue that her second question is the most important.  Embedded within it is the fundamental problem and answer.  If we’re going to make progress, we need to go back and ask what does it meant to first be human.  Before we are ever Christians, we are first human beings.  The Fall is predominantly about losing our capacity to see our own humanity. Jesus wasn’t about creating another construct on top of humanity called Christianity.  He was interested in getting back to what it means to be human beings created in the image of God.

3. How do we gather?

Once we begin to address the underlying problems, we can begin to ask some of the deeper issues of how we gather.  I seriously wonder if denominations will crumble in my generation.  I say this not because they don’t provide value, but because they are a subset of what it means to follow Jesus in the Way. Denominations are part of the larger kingdom. And once we see denominations as expressions, rather than exclusive identities, we can begin to participate together.

I have been a proponent of going back to the basics of the Jesus Model.  I think the most restorative means of gathering together actually looks exactly like what Jesus did.  But we can’t get over our own protective mechanisms about gathering until we answer #2 above.  We have to agree on what is the story we are sharing.  We have to come to terms with what is the Good News.  And once we do, watch out.

What is on your list?

“Who are these people who are the experts because I want to be one of them, cause I believe in the conservative worldview.  And I want to create my own reality the way you are. (4:44)

Stephen baits Andy into the subjective/objective reality dialog and he buys into it hook line and sinker.  Stephen leads him right into the question, “But how do you know its not true?”  Andy laughs because he knows he’s caught.  Reality may be objective and true, but it still must filter through the subjective perceptions of broken human beings.

Andy tries to fight for objective truth, but walks right into the Catch-22 of it.  Colbert asks him, “Who gets to decide if its true.”  Andy responds with, “It’s the jury (of people).”

I couldn’t help but laugh because this is the postmodern tension in about 1:30. Who gets to decide what is true?  Even though truth exist, at the core we are subject to the radical uncertainty of our own interpretations of truth.

Then I ran across this second video of Philip Clayton.  Philip, is the author of Transforming Christian Theology, and is quickly becoming one of the my favorite theologians.  Philip explores this radical uncertainty as a specific outcome of biology and the way we exist in the world.  At 4:20 he says:

“The days are gone when we can just list the doctrines…mother church can decide and we can just sit there with those as a given.  Given is no longer a given. And I think there is an attitude of radical uncertainty and radical doubt.  And rather than saying can we integrate doubt and faith, I want to speak of a faith which incorporates the radical doubt, which is the doubting miraculously finding faith within it.”

What this all means to me is that we begin with humility as opposed to certainty, recognizing the reality of our own humanity, biology, and pride.  The person who best expresses this in writing to me is Brian McLaren.  This is also one of the reason I engage the dialog of the emerging church.  It begins with the idea of radical uncertainty and explores it in conversation.

I heard a new word today.  And I like it.

Recently I’ve been exploring some of the theories behind atonement.  And a friend recommended a book called Triune Atonement by Andrew Sung Park.  I haven’t read it yet, but it looks intriguing.  After doing some looking around Park seems to be known for highlighting a specific word in the Asian culture called, “Han.”

Park defines “han” as the “critical wound of the heart generated by unjust psychosomatic repression, as well as by social, political, economic, and cultural oppression. It is entrenched in the hearts of the victims of sin and violence, and is expressed through such diverse reactions as sadness, hopelessness, helplessness, resentment, hatred, and the will to revenge”

I like that because I need language to describe the human experience.  I need words to describe what I am feeling and thinking.  I see Han in myself at times and in so many people around me.  We’re struggling at times to make sense of our own sense of justice and faith. I see so many people trapped behind a wall of oppression and sadness.  What if those barriers are some ways the inability to speak what we’re feeling?  What if we just don’t know how to communicate with the world around us what is on our heart?

Thank you Andrew for words.

What is the real nature of sin?  And if grace is true, how far does it truly extend?

I’m not a huge fan of Mr Diety. It essentially plays on the worst hypocrisies and stereotypes of faith and Christianity, although its irreverence has made me laugh from time to time.  But this video got me really thinking. (ht)

Real life skeptic Dr. Michael Shermer, who is Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, and columnist for Scientific American, pleads his case before Jesus and Mr. Deity at the judgment seat. Shermer was actually a Christian in college and professed to being a born again Christian, but then chose to use his rational and critical mind, and eventually walked away from faith.  He says to God, “I used the brain you gave me to think critically and skeptically.  I developed some doubts, I admit…my sincerity dropped.”

And then Shermer poses an interesting question. “But wait.  Shouldn’t doubt and insincerity, as sins, be covered under the same category as lying?”

The look on Jesus’ and Mr. Diety’s face is really interesting because Shermer has produced a fascinating argument that calls into question our traditional understanding of sin.  Is there really a line in which certain sins are NOT covered by grace? Or does is grace something that extends far beyond our traditional understanding?

Interested in your thoughts.

I have a friend who is very legalistic.  And during some of our conversations, this person has drawn the conclusion that I am probably not a Christian.  His framework is so narrow that I don’t fit into it.  And I get that.  I used to think like that too.  I used to live in that world.  He drew lines where none existed and in many ways chose to sever our relationship because I was now not part of his circle.

At first I really had to check myself.  Was I so deluded that I couldn’t see what my friend was saying?  Was I so captivated by some idea that I had somehow believed something that would jeopardize my faith.  Or, was my friend captivated? In hindsight it was good for me to be reminded of what I had walked away from.  But it also reminded me that I didn’t have to live that way.  It also made me sad when I considered the cost of theology, especially when it’s so harsh.

It’s easy to forget that the one person who is subject to our own specific interpretation of theology is…US.  We suffer the cost of it.

Are you okay with that?

It made me realize why Jesus made our actions the central revelation of our own theology.  Did we love?  Because if we didn’t, we were kidding ourselves.  It made me realize why idols are such a concern.  Theology can become an idol just as much as a gold statue.

Seriously.  I need your help.

Q: What would be the response of the critics and naysayers of the emergent world…IF a compelling and sound presentation of an emergent theology were made.

I’m looking for your gut opinion on this one.

This video was exceptionally provocative for me. (ht) It really helped me articulate one of the problems I have with the idea of a perfect Bible.  Justin explores the nature of myth and how our interpretations play a role in the text itself.  He brings up a really good point about the nature of translation is a form of interpretation and thus renders the Bible somewhat infallible because of human translation.  But it also calls into question the nature of what many call a perfect doctrine.

The video got me thinking.  If grace is true, do we need an infallible document?  If grace is truly something that God does and is not of works, what is truly the point of having a “perfect” story?  Because, from my perspective, the only person who needs a perfect, infallible text, is someone who is trying to justify his/her own faith.  If grace is true, then the idea of grace covers any discrepancy in the story.  I don’t need it to be perfect.  I need it to be true.

All of this means that the real story is not if Scripture is perfect but that I hold the story of grace as true.  This has an amazing way of calling my bullshit if in many ways.  And the immediate concern from those who hold it as perfect is obviously the slippery slope. At what point is it not true?  That doesn’t really matter.  My life and journey with Christ calls me to test our the story to see if its true, which makes me wonder if our desire for infallibility is simply a cop-out that allows me to check out and engage a lazy faith.

What do you think?