Month: January 2008

Book Review – What Would Jesus Deconstruct?

Posted on

The terms “postmodernism” and “deconstruction” are popular buzzwords these days.  For some in the church they represent the evil that is trying to undermine the truth of the gospel.  For others they convey a freedom to question and criticize religious traditions they no longer accept.  And, of course, for others they are utterly meaningless ideas that they wish would just disappear.  Yet John Caputo in his latest book, What Would Jesus Deconstruct? (Baker Academic, 2007), attempts to cut through all the confusion as he explores the philosophical roots of deconstruction and why he believes it can offer good news to the church.

In posing the question “what would Jesus deconstruct?” Caputo deliberately evokes the popular WWJD campaign.  He questions the assumptions of moral authority that movement often conveys and seeks instead to place the phrase into its original historical context – Charles Sheldon’s book In His Steps.  Sheldon’s use of the phrase dealt mainly with issues of social justice – issues which Caputo accuses the contemporary conservative church of largely ignoring.  He proposes that a philosophical deconstruction of the church is therefore necessary in order to promote justice and the Kingdom of God.

What follows next is a whirlwind introduction to the postmodern philosophy of Derrida and Caputo’s argument as to why deconstruction can serve as the “hermeneutics of the kingdom of God” (26).  Deconstruction is not, as many believe, an act at destruction, but instead an attempt at understanding – an understanding that seeks ultimately love and justice for the Other.   Laws and systems can be created to promote justice, but believers must always be ready to question them at every step as to whether or not they serve the kingdom of God.  There are no concrete answers defining such things in this journey of faith so believers must continually seek to deconstruct and understand everything they encounter as culture and context shift around them.  It can be an unsettling process, but one that promotes faith and a continual returning to examine the message of Jesus.

From this philosophical basis Caputo then explores the practical outcomes of asking the question “what would Jesus deconstruct?”  In following the tradition of the WWJD movement, he focuses mainly on the areas of ethics and politics.  Keeping in mind Jesus’ call to love others and the upside-down values of the Kingdom, Caputo addresses the controversial issues of economic justice, militarism, patriarchy, abortion, and homosexuality.  In examining these issues he challenges the assumptions of both the left and the right and demonstrates the need for everyone to question sacred cows before they become idols.  As he puts it, “it is time to let a few theological feathers fly.” (90).   Even so, Caputo remains fair and deals honestly with the complexities of all those issues.  He doesn’t propose any easy solutions, and his ideas about how to apply the call to love the Other to these issues will challenge most readers’ preconceived opinions (a significant reason to read the book in my opinion).

In the book’s final section, Caputo provides the reader with two examples of communities which have attempted to deconstruct ideas and assumptions about church.  From an urban Catholic priest who faces the traditions of hierarchy and bureaucracy as he seeks to serve the broken, the addicted, and the poor to an emerging community in Ireland that is rethinking the structure of church gatherings altogether, one sees the effects of a church being able to question how best to serve the Kingdom in its particular context.  Caputo is not proposing that tradition be abolished, just that one should always retain the ability to question and deconstruct any structure.

With this book Caputo succeeds in demonstrating the benefits of postmodernism and deconstruction to the church.  It is in many ways a necessary text for any Christian seeking familiarity with those concepts.  And the philosophically uninitiated shouldn’t fear, Caputo translates these ideas into accessible language and illustrates his points with examples pulled from the daily news and popular television.  This is an offering from which the church can benefit greatly.  The question of “what would Jesus deconstruct?” deserves ongoing engagement, and Caputo has thankfully paved the way for its reception in the church.

Read more

Excellence, Worship, and American Idol

Posted on

If you live in USA it is hard to ignore the fact that American Idol is back in full swing for its new season (and stop grumbling about silly television or our worship of popular culture – you know you watch it). As the season gets going viewers are subjected to the horrifically enthralling auditions. Amongst the handful of contestants that can actually sing there are those who are merely there to grasp their 15 seconds of fame (and yes I am still disturbed by the guy in the Princess Leia slave-girl costume). Then there are those who contrary to reality truly believe they have some ability to sing. Their confidence is high, their friends and family have praised their voices, and then they are shocked and generally incredulous when the judges reject them. While I assume the purpose of highlighting such contestants is to mock them, I am left feeling awkward.

While I understand that the driving force behind American Idol is fame, I have to question where the line of “excellence” can be drawn. If a person can’t sing then being famous and having a career based on one’s singing ability isn’t an option. But what about worship? In churches today worship is generally associated with music. If a person can’t sing can they participate in worship? What about lead worship? Does excellence and skill matter in those areas or do enjoyment and giving glory to God trump the ability requirement?

I know in many ways this is a silly question (of course if people want to sing to God they should be able to), but as I watched yet more worship leaders and choir members get mocked on American Idol the question came to mind. I know I’ve personally sat through some very painful “special music” moments and have sat silently through worship because the leader was so bad it was impossible to sing along. There is the part of me that wants to be generous and accept the messiness of it all. I want to say that having a good heart and a willingness to try is more than enough. But then I find myself squirming to some off-key song, or faltering sermon, or sappy poem, or amateur art, or stumbling dance done in the name of worship and I don’t know what to think. Do I lie and pretend it’s good?  Do I tell the truth and defeat the entire purpose of the act?  And this isn’t some snobbish condescension about someone not being classically trained or having sufficient(??) theological training, just that I’m so uncomfortable that I often go hide in the bathroom to escape. (and before I go further let me say that I know I’ve forced others to suffer through my junk, so this is about me too).

Maybe I’m just self-centered and judgmental and I should just shut-up and deal with it. I’m sure the typical poor singer given the mic on a Sunday morning doesn’t harbor delusions of grandeur, so I should just be more generous in appreciating sincere effort. This isn’t about me, it’s about God, so I just need to get over my distraction. Or perhaps I can lay all the blame at the church’s obsession with performance driven worship. (Come on, if it’s a performance at least it can be good…) In our misunderstanding of what it means to worship we’ve laid expectations on it that were never meant to be there.  I honestly don’t know.  Is this just me being weird or is this a question others have as well?

Read more

Embracing Deconstruction

Posted on

So I was feeling well enough the other night to actually get out and make it to our local Emergent Cohort. Let’s just say that with all of this sickness and complications with the pregnancy I haven’t been outside the house for adult interaction since October. So even though I paid for it the next day, it was really really nice to get out and interact (can you tell I’m getting a tad stir crazy?).

Anyway at Up-rooted West we are making our way through McLaren’s latest book Everything Must Change. At the very start of our conversation the other night someone mentioned appreciating the book because it helped point the way forward. Too many books or discussions in the emerging church focused on deconstruction apparently and not enough gave constructive ways to move forward. While I fully appreciate the need for positive constructive books, I am wary of the tendency to avoid deconstruction. To many in the church the term “deconstruction” is just code for unnecessary negative criticism that hurts and destroys. I have a few issues with that view. While I see merit in the need to avoid negative attitudes all the time, to deny people the right to criticize and expressing disappointment (just because those are negative things) restricts the telling of truth and silences prophetic voices. (I wrote about that here recently). But I also think that to view deconstruction as solely a negative act is a misunderstanding of the term.

Although my philosophical understanding is rusty and it’s been years since I’ve read Derrida, I seem to recall that deconstruction is less about the evil practice of tearing down and destroying that many Christians have made it out to be and more about understanding and justice. It involves discovering and understanding the underlying assumptions present in an idea, system, or belief. The goal of deconstruction ultimately is justice (the one thing that cannot be deconstructed) – for as one seeks better understanding one is able to better love the Other. In all something whose goal is love and justice seems to be a fairly positive endeavour in my view. I see much of the conversation that is occurring in the emerging church to be based on these habits of deconstruction – attempting to understand the church and the systems of the world in order to increase love and justice. Deconstruction is part of what it means to move forward as followers of Christ.

Which is why I am loving what I have read so far in John Caputo’s latest book What Would Jesus Deconstruct? – The Good News of Postmodernity for the Church. He writes –

But in the view I am advancing here, deconstruction is treated as the hermeneutics of the kingdom of God, as an interpretive style that helps get at the prophetic spirit of Jesus – who was a surprising and sometimes strident outsider, who took a stand with the “other” … In my view, a deconstruction is good news, because it delivers the shock of the other to the forces of the same, the shock of the good (the “ought”) to the forces of being (”what is”). (p. 26-27)

and as James K.A. Smith writes in the introduction –

Caputo plays here the role of witness and midwife, giving voice to the ways in which Jesus’s vision of the kingdom deconstructs all our domestications – not to leave the institution razed to the ground, but merely flattened. In fact, the whole project is animated by a passion for just institutions – a desire to see things otherwise, to see an institution open to the Other, to the future, and most importantly, to a Jesus who will surprise us.” (p.16)

Deconstruction is about creating a positive vision. It is about moving forward and for us as Christians that involves living with the expectant hope found in Jesus. Discovering ways to fulfill the “on earth as it is in heaven” description of the Kingdom. It is about understanding ourselves and what we believe so that we can respond to the call to love.

Read more

Book Review – Rising from the Ashes

Posted on

I recently finished reading Becky Garrison’s new book Rising from the Ashes: Rethinking Church (we have also been discussing this book over at Emerging Women for this month’s book discussion). This book is different from the typical offering on this subject in that it consists solely of interviews Becky conducted with a wide diversity of people who have experimented with “rethinking church.” I found this pure inclusion of various voices refreshing and a good representation of the vast array of changes happening in the church today. These voices come from mainline and evangelical backgrounds; and while many of them are involved in the emerging church conversation, this book is a good reminder that streams of change are present across the broad spectrum of church and are not just limited to the emerging camp. That said, I was interested to see how even amongst the emerging voices the expressions of how church is being rethought varies from culture to culture and church to church. The voices often disagree or place emphasis on differing areas, but I found that to lend validity to the widespread nature of this conversation on the need to rethink church.

I found a quote in the interview with Brian McLaren to be helpful in summarizing this diversity in the conversation –

There’s so much going on, and people are at all different places. I mean, I started asking certain questions fifteen years ago, and one question led to another and another, and here I am now. other people are just asking the first set of questions, or they’re asking the questions in a different order. But what all of us have in common, I think, is this sense that we’re trying to be faithful to God in the aftermath of modernity and colonialism and all that they entail. (p. 51)

So as the conversation is explored in this book we hear from voices like Phyllis Tickle, Jonny Baker, Shane Claiborne, Diana Butler Bass, Tony Jones, Ian Mobsby, and Nadia Bolz-Weber on topics such as the state of the church, the Gospel of the Kingdom, Christian community, and worship practices. Many of those interviews hold tight to particular church traditions as they attempt to understand the church in this day and age. Others seek to question existing structures or to examine our very conception of church itself. In their responses one sees a mix of theology and practice as well as a deep commitment to serving God in whatever way they can. Rethinking church for them is not about being new or different, but about being faithful and committed followers.

I find this book to be a necessary offering at this stage in the conversation as it serves to highlight the diversity of voices present therein. It is a needed reminder that around the world and across denominations the conversations do not look the same although they may have common elements. I hope this book can help raise that awareness and heighten the appreciation of those who are coming at this conversation differently from us (whoever “us” may be). Not everyone is rethinking church in the same way and there is much to be learned from each other. I recommend this book as a great resource and glimpse into the currents moving the church today. It is helpful to know where we are headed and prudent to understand the passions and rationale of others during these times.

Read more

Ideological Luddites

Posted on

I’ve written often here about ethical consumption and the need to be aware of what we are supporting with our shopping habits. Too often we don’t care that women were abused in the factory that made our shirt or that children were kept in slavery to produce our chocolate. I have a real problem with treating people as objects to be manipulated, used, and destroyed – especially when there are things that could be easily done to make things better. But sometimes even I question the ideology behind some of these discussions.

For example, I am not a fan of hating technology because it is technology. I don’t think that scientific development is necessarily evil and that all technology should be feared (and shunned). Sure it changes the way the world functions, but I’m not the type that sees change as inherently evil. I’m not a fan of rampant advertising from companies that oppress their workers and try to convince people that the acquisition of more and more stuff is the goal of life, but I don’t boycott all TV, Internet, magazines, and billboards in order to avoid any exposure to such things.

Same with things like Facebook and blogging. Sure I am putting my personal information “out there” for any ad exec (or the US government) to access and target me with, but that doesn’t stop me from enjoying the benefits of those mediums (for more on the uber-capitalistic big brother nature of Facebook check out this article (HT – Will Samson)). I’m not a fan of all aspects of the system, but I still participate it in (similar to how I engage with church or politics).

I have a hard time accepting the luddite tendency these days to condemn all forms of technology and media because they have the potential to be used by corrupt and controlling forces. I’ve more of a mind to embrace that which I enjoy, ignore that which is stupid, and oppose that which I see as wrong. I’m not a fan of the constant culture of advertisements we see, but I would rather be critically aware of the system instead of rejecting the entire system. I don’t mind the way something like Facebook works because I expected no less from them. If I tell the world that I like XY and Z products/bands/movies I am under no delusion that that won’t be used by someone somewhere. But I do have the choice to not allow advertisements on my own blog if I don’t want them there. I choose what I want to participate in. (although I do find Gmail ploy to scan my emails so they can target me with “Pastor Ringtones” and “Girlpower Marketing” creepy and annoying).

So to bring some sort of conclusion to my ramblings today (which I hope make sense outside my head although I am beginning to doubt that), I would just say that ideology must be coupled with critical thinking. To me there are differences between committing actual evil, encouraging the support of evil, and the potential to commit evil. And for all I prefer to help redeem the system instead of reject it altogether.

Read more

The Power of Paradox

Posted on

So come lose your life for a carpenter’s son
For a madman who died for a dream
And you’ll have the faith His first followers had
And you’ll feel the weight of the beam
So surrender the hunger to say you must know
Have the courage to say I believe
For the power of paradox opens your eyes
And blinds those who say they can see
So we follow God’s own Fool
For only the foolish can tell
Believe the unbelievable,
And come be a fool as well 

from Michael Card’s God’s Own Fool

I listened to that song a lot back in college when I was going through the whole postmodern crisis of faith thing. Before that I think I would have scoffed at the whole idea just like I’ve had people scoff at me when I have voiced similar ideas. Be a fool? Follow a fool? Choose to be stupid? Why would anyone do that?

The audacity of claiming the label “fool” when so many are quick to use it in derision confuses those that harp on truth and evidence. In a world where scientific certainty reigns and forensics has replaced mystery, to assert the power of paradox and affirm the foolishness of belief just doesn’t make sense. It isn’t the cultural norm, it doesn’t fit the dominant paradigm, it leads to ridicule and dismissal. You know the list. It’s what causes the atheists to point their fingers and laugh and the Christians to burn you at the stake as a heretic.

But all of that misses the point. I’ve been down this road of modern vs. postmodern epistemology before here on this blog and as fascinating as arguments about truth and certainty are they are often a red herring that distracts from the real issues. I’ve also admitted to not being afraid of postmodernism and do so for just this reason. I like the shift in postmodern philosophy (especially in Levinas) toward Ethics (as opposed to Epistemology) as first philosophy. So people can get their panties all in a bunch in their rush to call me postmodern relativist for not thinking that how we know things is of primary importance, but they are really missing the whole point – that of justice and how we interact with the Other as being more basic and central than any theory of knowledge. And it is that emphasis on interaction with the Other that has me proudly accepting the label of fool.

Faith is not about knowledge – what we know or how we know it, it is about following in the footsteps of a fool. Jesus was a fool in the eyes of the world. He has been accredited with ushering in an upside-down kingdom – where the first shall be last and the last shall be first. He cared for those whom society cast aside, he instructed us to love our enemies, he called the underdogs blessed. By anyone’s standards he was a fool. And he called us to follow him. As many have stated recently, this isn’t about affirming a secret set of knowledge but about entering into a way of life. It is about following the fool, being content in mystery, affirm the power of paradox, and turning the world upside-down.

Following the fool and choosing the foolish way isn’t about stupidity vs. knowledge. Those things don’t matter, or at least matter much less than the values of the Kingdom. Loving others and living subversively are foolish in the eyes of the world and so we follow God’s own fool and choose to be fools as well.

Find more contributions to this month’s Synchroblog on God’s use of fools at –

Phil Wyman at Square No More
Fools Rush In by Sonja Andrews
That Darn Ego by Jonathan Brink
Won’t Get Fooled Again by Alan Knox
Strength on the Margins by Igneous Quill
Foolish Heart by Erin Word
A Fool’s Choice by Cindy Harvey
Quiet Now, God’s Calling by Jenelle D’Alessandro
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right… By Mike Bursell
Ship of Fools by David Fisher
Hut Burning for God by Father Gregory
God Used This Fool by Cobus van Wyngaard
Fool if you think its over by Paul Walker
Blessed are the foolish — foolish are the blessed by Steve Hayes
What A Fool I’ve Been by Reba Baskett
The foolishness of God and the foolishness of Christians. by KW
My Foolish Calling by Lisa Borden
What a Fool Believes by Sue at Discombobula
God Uses Foolish Things by Sally

Read more

Gender and Politics

Posted on

During the 1984 Presidential elections I was in 1st grade. My teacher had us fill out a mock election ballot put out by some children’s magazine as to who we would vote for if we could vote. In my astute understanding of how the entire process worked I voted for Geraldine A. Ferraro, Walter Mondale’s vice presidential candidate. My rational was as follows – since Reagan and Bush had already had a turn in the White House I thought it would be fair to let someone else have a turn. And given that there had never been a female President, I thought it was high time a woman got to take a turn at that as well. (I apparently got the whole playing fair and taking turns thing). So in the box under the pictures of Mondale and Ferraro, I shaded in only the half of the box under her side. I wanted to vote for a woman.

But I am not voting for Hillary Clinton in the Primaries (it could be a different story if she gets the nomination). But I have been intrigued by the media’s reports on the effects of gender on this campaign. Many are accusing Hillary supporters (quite a few who are 50-60 year old women) of voting for her just because she is a woman. I have a hard time with this. I am a firm advocate of the need to allow women to have a voice and the necessity of altering male-dominated systems to make that happen, but I don’t subscribe to the idea that one’s gender should be one’s sole qualifications for a position. But neither should it stand in the way.

I found Gloria Steinem’s recent op-ed piece in the New York Times on this issue to be intriguing. In the piece she states her support for Hillary and mentions the gender roadblocks she continues to face.

“So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.”(and for a challenge to her racism/sexism comments see this interview on Democracy Now!)

Hillary Clinton has hecklers demanding that she iron their shirts for them. Her win in New Hampshire gets attributed to her tears on national television – just sympathy votes for a woman. She is seen as divisive because of her sex. Women are called disloyal to their sex if they don’t vote for her, and biased by gender if they do. In all – the gender issue is still an issue.

I personally think we absolutely need more women in leadership in this country to bring in various perspectives and leadership styles and to serve as role models. But I have my reasons for voting as I do and I no longer vote as I did in first grade and am not voting for someone solely on her or his gender. Nor do I appreciate the accusation that gender based voting is the only reason one would ever vote for Hillary. But then again single issue voting is one of my many pet peeves. I find it sad that (at least in the media) this comes down to being about gender. I know it could represent a long overdue historic first for women, but I look forward to the day when “because she’s a woman” doesn’t have to be a factor either way.

Read more

Slow Food and the Kingdom

Posted on

The Kingdom of God is like a well-cooked Italian meal.  Now it might seem a bit strange to start off a reflection comparing the Kingdom of God to Italian food, but I recently stumbled upon an encounter with the Kingdom of God in a book about food.  This wasn’t even some esoteric aesthetic encounter with the beauty of the earth or even a divinely inspired recipe for the perfect chocolate cake, but an exploration of food that is ethical and good.  In the foreword to Carlo Petrini’s Slow Food Nation I read Alice Waters’ summary of the themes of the book and the Slow Food movement-

“[Carlo] argues that, at every level, our food supply must meet the three criteria of quality, purity, and justice.  Our food must be buono, pulito, e giusto – words that resonate with more solemnity in Italian than do their literal English counterparts.  Our food should be good, and tasty to eat; it should be clean, produced in ways that are humane and environmentally sound; and the system by which our food is provided must be economically and socially fair to all who labor in it.  Carlo’s great insight is that when we seek out food that meets these criteria, we are no longer mere consumers but co-producers, who are bearing our fair share of the costs of producing good food and creating responsible communities.”

As I read those words, the concept of people being co-producers in creating an alternative and ethical world intrigued me.  Christ proclaimed that the Kingdom of God is among us and gave his followers the task of being the witnesses (or heralds) to the advent of the Kingdom.  Although the Kingdom was already a reality, it took the work of these witnesses to make it concrete to those who had not yet heard.  In a sense they were the co-producers of the Kingdom – proclaiming its existence, spreading it values, and training others in the way of Christ.  Active ongoing work was required to insure the Kingdom visibly reflected the pictures Jesus had so vividly portrayed it as in his parables.

In reading the goals of the Slow Food movement of being co-producers in ensuring that our food is good, clean, and fair I saw a parallel to the Kingdom of God.  This movement stands in opposition to the dominant systems of the world and insists on a better way of producing and eating food.  Bypassing the destructive industries of agriculture and the siren’s lure of fast food represent struggles undertaken only by those with a commitment to this better way and a compassion for others.  The goal is to care for people, to care for the earth, and to care for ourselves.  I think in many ways the Slow Food ideals have captured the ethos of those who serve and witness to the Kingdom of God.

The Kingdom of God exists as a radical alternative to the systems of the world, challenging the status quos of oppression and injustice.  It includes the calls to love and to serve and to seek a better way of living that cares for those around us.  The outworkings of these endeavors often echo the goals of the Slow Food movement in our commitment to care for God’s creation, our celebration of the good, our passion to treat people fairly and with dignity and respect, and our desire to bond together in responsible communities that seek to live on earth as it is in heaven.    It is a call to a life that isn’t merely “convenient” or rubber-stamped by the dominant paradigms of the world, but one that takes deliberate effort and committed passion to maintain.  Being witnesses (or co-producers) of the Kingdom requires lifestyle choices that are often seen as odd as the Slow Food desire to cook a sustainable, fair, healthy, authentic and natural (not to mention yummy) Italian meal.  But oddity and difficulty don’t impede the committed.  In seeking God’s Kingdom we are never mere consumers of the way things are, but witnesses proclaiming the good news of a different way.

And so the Kingdom of God is like an Italian meal, but with far greater rewards.

Read more

You Know What They Say About Assumptions…

Posted on

A bit of a weekend rant to follow.

I hate being pigeonholed. I hate people making assumptions about me because of their preconceived stereotypes about certain sorts of people. I’m sure I fit some stereotypes from time to time, there are reasons why stereotypes exist in the first place. But pigeonholing assumes a dichotomous black and white world that is often far from the way things actually are.

Molly over at Adventures in Mercy had a good post this past week on this very issue. She writes on the fallacy of assuming that there exist only two choices in any situation – one “obviously” right and the other depraved and wrong. Such dichotomous choices she finds dangerous include –

There are only two choices: You can either be a submissive wife and have a happy marriage, or you can be a conniving rebellious domineering woman and make your marriage miserable.

There are only two choices: You can either spank your children, rewarding every infraction with swift clear punishment, which we say will produce “godly seed,” or you can not spank and have sniveling brats who run into streets and throw tantrums every five seconds and will grow up to bomb schools and have fifteen illegitimate children before they run straight to the fires of hell.

There are only two choices: You can believe my denomination/group’s theological view (plainly taught by the Bible) and thus be a real Christian and please the Lord, or you can not subscribe to our particular theological view (er, do you even read the Bible?) and be a second-class Christian (if you’re saved at all, that is), and be outside the pale of God’s approval.

These black and white choices impose assumptions and stereotypes upon people and fail to actually become conversant with what a person truly believes. Such assumptions make it easy to dismiss people without engagement and to ridicule/destroy them instead of love them. And I admit to being guilty of falling into this trap from time to time which I need to work to overcome. But I still get fairly annoyed when I encounter such attitudes towards myself. To Molly’s list, I would add the following dangerous assumptions that annoy me –

  • Being told that the only reason a person would vote for Obama is because we are young and don’t understand politics.
  • Being told that voting for a Democrat means we are pro-baby killing.
  • Being told that I ascribe to entire schools of theology if I happen to read a book by an author who does
  • Being told that I don’t care about Jesus if I insist on serving people physically and emotionally and not forcing them to say “the prayer”.
  • Being told that I am throwing out the Bible if I think women should ever have a voice.
  • Being told that I don’t care for the environment or sustainability because I am having children
  • Being told that I am rebellious and ungrateful because I strayed from the church tradition my parents raised me in.

I am sick of these assumptions and sick of the dichotomous thinking they betray. I am sick of being dismissed and rejected because of what others think they know about me. Reality is more complex than this.

Read more

What to do with the Early Church

Posted on

I’ve recently seen a lot of buzz around blogs regarding Barna and Viola’s new book Pagan Christianity. I haven’t read the book yet, but I am intrigued by the topics it seems to address. With quotes such as, “We are also making an outrageous proposal: that the church in its contemporary, institutional form has neither a biblical nor a historical right to exist,” the book raises some serious questions about the purpose and nature of church as well as about Biblical interpretation.

At the heart of the controversy surrounding this book is the question of if we should read the Bible prescriptively, descriptively, or some combination of the two. We actually addressed this issue at church this past week as we started our study of the book of Acts. It seemed prudent to discuss our assumptions about how we read and apply scripture before we examine the stories of the early church. In essence we asked if what we read in Acts is prescriptive (giving us the guidelines for how we should do church forever and ever amen) or descriptive (just an historical picture of how things were done in one particular culture in one particular era). We of course came down on the both/and middle ground. Yes, there are aspects of scripture that are instructive for us today that we should follow; but, there are also cultural elements portrayed that reflect Biblical culture, but don’t translate well today.

Barna and Viola seem to be taking the approach that claims culture doesn’t matter. A perfect system was created once upon a time and must not be deviated from. We must just repeat exactly those things which were done 2000 years ago and discard any practices that have been introduced since then (you know evil things, like pastors). I personally find this view as disturbing as the opposite extreme that sees the early church as just a cute historical vignette – meaningless for our lives today. Not only do such dichotomous views put God in a box, they have the potential to lead to serious misunderstanding and abuses.

I prefer instead the approach often mentioned by N.T. Wright – that of seeing ourselves existing in God’s unfolding story. If the story of the church is the story of God working in the world, then the early church represents say chapter 9 of that tale. Much has come before and those stories play a pivotal role in the unfolding tale. We then find ourselves living today in Chapter 20, not the final chapter, but still significant to what God is doing. As this chapter gets written it would be silly and really poor writing to merely copy exactly what was written in chapter 9 over again. To do so would ignore all intervening chapters and would imply that God is not big enough to work in the world today. But on the other hand it would be equally silly to make chapter 20 utterly unrelated to all the preceding chapters or to ignore the character development that was established in chapter 9. Chapter 20 must be informed by (and in ways constrained by Chapter 9), but it must also allow the story to be told.

So when I read some of the extreme statements from Barna and Viola, I cringe at the disregard for God’s unfolding story. Having just read excerpts I can’t comment on the whole of their argument. But I can’t help but find the “let’s just get back to the early church” stance a bit simplistic and naive. We are not the early church and no matter how hard we try we Westerners are not pre-industrial people living in an occupied territory. It may be easy to blame all the problems in the church on systems and traditions that were not present in the early church and I fully agree that many of those systems need to be re-evaluated, but the issues are more complex than that. And I for one am not willing (or think it is truly possible) to recapture the ethos and social mores that defined the early church. I am not interested in repeating that chapter in history, but I am interested in learning from and being inspired by it.

Read more