Navigation | into the mess
this week, dom, jon, dave and i have been engaged in a fairly heavy email dispute. then this morning, jer and i had an equally interesting conversation about some of the same things. and now, thanks to justin, i’ve found this video from solomon’s porch that yet re-iterates yet again some of the same thoughts and conundrums.
in the words (and accent) of russell peters ’someone’s gonna get hurt real bad’…
Filed by Joe at April 12th, 2007 under Uncategorized
Hey Joe, Thanks for the heads-up on the video. I thought it was great, I watched it with a friend, and we found the snippets of conversation…led to sak ourselves some great questions. How big is the Kingdom? How big is redemption? In terms of langauge ( art + creativity )…how to we convey the Kingdom to the culture around us? In the midst of community how to we convey, live all inclusive and all equal? Anyways Jow, lots to chew on. Peace…Ron+
Solomons Porch sounds really neat-O! Pretty much what you would expect to experience by being part of any unitarian-Christian Science-burning man festival-bingo hall-private club-pub down the street-house party-type of community. Authentic community is a beautiful thing, but you can find it in just about any little corner in society. I think we forget that at times. The fact that North American evangelicals have kind of sucked at it for the past few decades seems to have really lowered the bar for what passes as doing church well.
We’re young and cocky and we all think that we have just figured out how to make church work. But the truth is that we are just one generation standing in the shadow of a great ‘cloud of witnesses.’ This is our 40 year run at the gospel and then we’re out. If we hope to do well, we should stop trying to reinvent the wheel every 15 minutes and strive to be faithful to those things which were passed on to us, namely those things of ‘first importance’ 1 Cor. 15.
I thought I’d share this rather timely quote from Jacques Elles, ” The Subversion of Christianity “, for Anthony’s benefit…
No doubt some will reply that God is not a God of disorder, incoherence, or arbitrariness, but a God of order. Of course he is. Unfortunately the whole of the Old Testament shows us that God’s order is not that which we conceive and desire. God’s order is not organization and institution (cf. the difference between judges and kings). It is not the same in every time and place. It is not a matter of repetition and habit. On the contrary, it resides in the fact that it constantly posits something new, a new beginning. Our God is a God of beginnings. There is in him no redundancy or circularity. Thus, if his church wants to be faithful to his revelation, it will be completely mobile, fluid, renascent, bubbling, creative, inventive, adventurous, and imaginative. It will never be perennial, and can never be organized or institutionalized. If the gates of death are not going to prevail against it, this is not because it is a good, solid, well‑organized fortress, but because it is alive; it is Life‑that is, as mobile, changing, and surprising as life. If it becomes a powerful fortified organization, it is because death has prevailed. ( Jacque Elles )
Having had the opportunity to vist Solomon’s porch last summer of holidays, ” Solomons Porch sounds really neat-O! Pretty much what you would expect to experience by being part of any unitarian-Christian Science-burning man festival-bingo hall-private club-pub down the street-house party-type of community “, was hardly the impression I got. Heaven forbid we try to ” reinvent ” anything.
There are and will be as many expressions of the Christian faith as there are people groups and cultures through out history. We should indeed celebrate the fluid and creative shapes that Christ’s body has an will take through out the world.
But to assume that this inevitable change of expression is of such central value to are faith (which I believe is fair to say of Doug Pagit’s position) is, in large part, to miss THE Point and move away from our unchanging Center. Solomon’s Porch is a unique community and we have much to learn from them. But doesn’t a closer examination of the theology that Pagit is leading his community in give rise to caution and concern? When do we stop celebrating new expressions and start discerning the loss of Christian orthodoxy?
Anthony, great points…I do not disagree with the importance of theology. But, rather than paint Doug Pagitt with the broad brush stroke of Pagitts theology, perhaps you could convey what the theolgy is that you are concerned with.
Right now I’m involved with a missional project on a local First Nations Reserve, and with the history of residential school abuse…it’s mind boggling we find ourselves there. But my point is as an old missionary told me long ago, ” the best theology flows out of mission.” And rather than force feed the gospel into these folks, we are utilizing and honouring thier culture, their creativity…and gently merging the gospel into it. Some of my more ” religious friends ” have a problem with this, like we are distorting or diluting the message. I like to think it is more unorthodoxical orthodoxy, in that we are making it relevant to there culture, and conveying the truth of the message.
I would like to think all missional communities are doing something similar. The reality is we all find our selves in slightly different neighbourhoods…and probably need to relate to that culture. And I believe that is what Doug Pagitt is trying to do. The question is, ” underneath everything we see, is he revealing the Kingdom, and revealing its truth or something else?
Ron,
your thoughts are interesting. Obviously you bring a perspective to this conversation due to your visit at ‘the porch’. Having said that i think that Anthony’s thoughts or perspective on Pagitt are not a painting with a broad brush, but a response to Pagitt’s own words in this video.
His understanding of authority is obviously skewed and in no way linked to historical Christianity. The early Christians, as seen in the book of Acts, (and forward) understood that their was a sense of authority structure in place that was to help the church fulfill her mandate. Pagitt is the one who paints with the broad brush as if all authority is Authoritarianism. They are very different.
Also, i don’t understand how a French philosopher known primarily for his views on politics and technology becomes an authority in this conversation. Jacques Elles maybe be brilliant but lets keep our thinkers in their respective fields.
Lastly, I think Anthony does well to remind us that we are responsible to live the great tradition of the church. Jude 3 “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”
peace!
Hey Dom, werd up!
Ron, your ministry context sounds very challenging and no doubt greatly needed. I’d love to hear your story surrounding that some time.
Regarding the points of concern in Pagitt’s theology…
For a thoughtful critique of some of the “emerging” theologies check out
http://theresurgence.com/brett_kunkle_2006-11_essential_concerns_regarding_the_emerging_church
Brett Kunkle points out some of the theological underpinnings coming from some emerging leaders and calls for discernment on the potential eroding of biblical and historical orthodoxy. Pagitt’s thoughts are briefly discussed in this short paper.
To hear Pagitt’s position from his own mouth, check out “Listen to the belief’s of the emerging church”. http://www.amazon.com/Listening-Beliefs-Emerging-Churches-Perspectives/dp/0310271355
Hope that clarifies what I was referring to.
anthony:
i read the kunkle (great name btw) article. i think he makes some valid points. thanks for posting it.
i suppose my thought here would be that historically christians have re-articulated God’s story in many different ways and by different means. re-articulating again, as i assume you agree, is a must for us on our watch as disciples of xst. now, doing this without diluting orthodoxy is where things get dicey i suppose…
so…
dom and i chatted about this very thing on the phone tonight and he offered this quote…i think it’s a winner:
“For Change is not progress unless the core remains unchanged. A small oak grows into a big oak; if it became a beech that would not be growth, but mere change…. In other words, wherever there is real progress in knowledge there is some knowledge that is not superseded.”
C.S. Lewis (God in the Dock: Dogma and the Universe 35.)
if i can throw in my $.02 late here…
i think in seeing that video i was torn in both directions (how’s that for a great political move?)… on the one hand i see the need for creativity and contextualization (isn’t this exactly what John did when he declared that the abstract Greek logos was now in the flesh and living among them?)and the necessity for a church to be shaped as such… but at the same time I’m leery of those who claim to have the “right way” of doing church and therefore set out on their own to prove themselves. perhaps i’m overstating the vibe i was picking up on the video, but the broad strokes of dismay for any leadership in general, certainly seemed to speak to this. while i’m sure that i share most of his frustration with regard to state of the seeker-friendly, church growth movement, modern church, i see it as unfortunate that we have so many who seek to emancipate themselves from a tragically flawed institution to create another tragically flawed institution rather than to seek reform from within. even luther’s intentions were to seek reform within the Catholic church, Wesley’s within the Church of England, and so on. while ultimately their desire for reformation unfortunately resulted in division, at least we can look back and see their initial effort was internal, not a reactionary exodus. (although i’m also not trying to paint these guys in an entirely saintly scene either) i think what we have lost today is the dialectic nature of theology, ecclesiology, and mission. it has become too easy to step out of an church with whom you disagree, set up camp across the city, and never have to enter the dialogue that brought growth to the church in the centuries prior to us. consequently we quickly become individual [people/churches/bodies] without a true sense of our role tangled within the messiness of the church catholic, our place within our history, and ultimately, our identity as the New Creation within the Kingdom. (all this i say humbly, because my gut reaction would be to do just what i spoke against…) i guess my ultimate question is, “given our history (since the 16th century) when are we as a church going to stop building our churches on reactionary moves and start simply being faithful to Christ and His Body? and what exactly would this look like?”
Sorry for slipping out of the conversation ( which has been great by the way ), my wife had her 6 month checkup at the cancer clinic in Vancouver. But I’m back. I wonder how much the early church ( Acts ) was focused on theology and doctrine. Even in the Gospels, theology and correctedness in believing dosen’t seem to be Jesus concern. There is not a whole lot of classroom teaching in the Temple as the pharisees might have done. The first place Jesus takes this ragtag group of friends ( one can hardly call them beilevers at this point ) is the the wedding at Cana. He emerses them into the reality of life, and community.
It is more about revealing the Kingdom, building the Kingdom…the orphan the widow, the poor, the sick, the oppressed. Probably the greatest theological sermon around the Kingdom comes from the Beatitudes. Paul preached Christ crucified, and the Kingdom. Maybe as we become more missional we will embrace the truth of Christ and his Kingdom…and won’t be so consumed with theology.
Ron, I think your characterization of the early church is quite speculative and, as far as I can tell from my reading of the NT, not accurate. I think we see in the early church a passionate commitment to both the integrity of the message and the living out of that message in all of life (Acts 2:42-47, 6:1-7 for eg).
Is theology of supreme importance? No. But the gospel, God’s work through Christ’s life, death and resurrection, is. And to keep this supreme truth at the center of all of Christian life, belief and practice should be the goal of our theology and doctrine. Is this not a reoccurring theme we see in the rebukes,corrections, and teachings of the NT? At the end of Romans, after Paul has laid out his staggering teachings on the gospel, urges his readers to watch out for those who cause divisions by way of obstacles to the faith that are “contrary to the teaching you have learned” (16:17).
I don’t really understand the Kingdom reference. Again, based on my reading of the NT thus far, I see Jesus referring to the kingdom in many ways, the widow, poor, etc. being one important aspect that we see being brought under this heading. The common thread is that the Kingdom is about the King, Christ’s authority and established rule over all things. It is common to speak in language that essentially equates “kingdom” w/ social action. But, this is, I think, where we need to wrestle with and reaffirm biblical theology: what the kingdom means, why we believe it intersects with social issues, and how we are to live it out.
I guess my point in all of my comments on this post are basically to say that the gospel should be our message, Christ should be our Saviour, and scripture should be our highest authority.
“Is theology of supreme importance? No. But the gospel, God’s work through Christ’s life, death and resurrection, is. And to keep this supreme truth at the center of all of Christian life, belief and practice.” …and
” But, this is, I think, where we need to wrestle with and reaffirm biblical theology: what the kingdom means, why we believe it intersects with social issues, and how we are to live it out.”
Anthony, I couldn’t agree more.I don’t think I’m being to speculative in looking at the early church especially around the scripture you quoted from Acts 2:42-47…
41-42That day about three thousand took him at his word, were baptized and were signed up. They committed themselves to the teaching of the apostles, the life together, the common meal, and the prayers.
43-45Everyone around was in awe—all those wonders and signs done through the apostles! And all the believers lived in a wonderful harmony, holding everything in common. They sold whatever they owned and pooled their resources so that each person’s need was met.
46-47They followed a daily discipline of worship in the Temple followed by meals at home, every meal a celebration, exuberant and joyful, as they praised God. People in general liked what they saw. Every day their number grew as God added those who were saved. ( Eugene Peterson, The Message )
At this moment in the history of the church, there were no written Gospels…it would have been communal stories from the apostles lives with Jesus ( missional living ), centered around the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. There was a profound simplicity in the message.
There is a saying, if you give a person enough rope they’ll hang themselves…so this is where I take the rope. I have an issue with the modern churches myopic view of atonement…the very personal Jesus died for your sin and my sin. Now, I’m not saying that isn’t true…but that is like looking at one piece of a 10,000 piece puzzle. The story has always been about community, God’s people, Israeal, the church…it’s about redeeming and building community. If, in Genesis the Word speaks all creation ( Colossians 1:15-18 , The Message )into existence, is in and of, and holds it all together. In the opening of the Gospels, the Word takes on flesh ( John 1 ), and comes speaking the new creation, the Kingdom is near ( Mark 1:14-15 ). This Word/Living Word is crucified on the cross. Could it be…that on the cross…all creation hung in the balance. And what does that mean in terms of redemption? Is this bad theology…heresy?
Some one in an earlier comment mentioned Pagitts theology in the new book,” Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches “, so I dug out my copy and found thsi quote from Pagitts section…
“We are called to be communities that are cauldrons of theological imagination, not ‘authorized re-staters’ of past ideas. What we have in our communities are not simply people who need to have the gospel applied to their lives, but people who need to know their situation and what the Good News of God means for them. So our job as leaders of communities is not simply to apply the well-founded answers of previous generations’ questions or assumptions to the lives of our people, but rather to guide, extract, and join with the hopes and aspirations deeply embedded by God in the lives of our people” (127).
I really don’t find to much wrong with that.
Aaron,
thanks for your reminder of how the great reforms of the church desired to live and grow within their respective communities instead of start their own ichurch.
Ron,
first of all, may the peace of God be with you and your family as you battle through the complexities that come with illness in our broken world.
Second, your reflection that Jesus wasn’t concerned about theology just doesn’t hold water. He spend most of his time attacking theological ideas from religious leaders. This doesn’t mean, like most like to believe that Jesus isn’t about religion, he’s about relationship. That’s grabage. He’s about how the right religion leads to the right relationship.
On Pagitt’s quote, I’d like to remind us that although depending on our locality our communties will look different. Yes, for sure. But no matter what the difference are, we must also be christocentric. In the video Pagitt affirms that community is about love. DUH… every community on the planet is about love. The church is a community centered on Jesus and out of this flows the love. With Jesus love is undefinable.
Lastly, you mentioned “Is theology of supreme importance?” No. But the gospel, God’s work through Christ’s life, death and resurrection, is. Ron,THIS IS THEOLOGY!
Peace
Dom
Did you get this last line?
“I have no agenda to go around and convince people of what they don’t want to be convinced of… it’s the most unkind, ungracious thing to do… to disturb someone who doesn’t want to be disturbed.”
Interesting.
I’m not sure if he’s talking about the gospel, justice issues, environment, or someone who has another opinion about something in his church. I’m not sure, he didn’t qualify.
Comment by david — April 12, 2007 @ 4:14 pm