Julie Clawson - onehandclapping

[Grid::Blog::Horizon2107]

Posted on September 25, 2007July 9, 2025

I wanted add my thoughts to the Gridblog started by Bob Carlton on “what does the year 2107 look like from your vantage point.” What to imagine? Should I be cynical or utopian? Will we be suffering from the environmental devastation of our planet or will we be on the road to sustainable living? What about war? Poverty? Religion? It was in looking back at what the world was like 100 years ago that helped me determine what to speculate about for the future.

Apparently, 100 years ago tomorrow New Zealand and Newfoundland became dominions of the British Empire (the step between being a colony and a Commonwealth). The word dominion dates back to at least the 17th century within the British Empire, referring generically to any British overseas possession. A country populated with indigenous people that another country has taken possession of and imposed their government, morals, and religion on. That’s the exposure that other cultures were having to Christianity 100 years ago – a belief system forced upon them generally in ways that made them easy to control. It was the old mantra of “colonize, Christianize, and civilize.” To be a Christian in those settings meant aligning oneself with the empire of oppression.

Not a whole lot has change in the past 100 years, but the past decade or so has seen the emergence of voices of those oppressed peoples. Voices that attempt to affirm the truth of Christianity apart from its marriage to colonial powers. And this Christianity in its attempts to set itself up as a countercultural alternative to Empire (gee, does that sound familiar?) is flourishing. So I wonder how this will play out 100 years from now. As Christianity assumes a local flavor in these autonomous countries briefly held as colonies and dominions, how will that change the global face of Christianity? Will the Western philosophies and theologies so central to our debates and arguments (Calvin anyone?) be usurped by local ethnic theologies? Will the numbers game naturally shift the power of Christianity from the Global North to the Global South?

For all the talk the emerging church does about rediscovering the fuller Gospel of the Kingdom (a good thing imho), I wonder if it is just setting the stage for the rise of the (soon to be?) formally marginalized voices. In this imagined future, the Church might actually have the potential to be a truly communal gathering of every tongue, tribe, and nation. A gathering that isn’t built on patronizing attempts at domination, but mutual respect and love. That is the optimistic view of the future I want to see.

Rejection, Redemption, and Roots

Posted on September 25, 2007July 9, 2025

The topic for this month’s SynchroBlog is Christianity and Paganism. I had a hard time narrowing down what I wanted to say about the topic because I’ve been struggling recently with the paradigms for how one interacts with other belief systems. So I decided to just write about that struggle and give my opinion of three of the most common approaches Christians have in interacting with Paganism. There are of course various other approaches and this is not at all an in depth (or coherent) look at any of these, just what has been floating through my head recently.

1. Rejection – This is the approach I grew up with and which I see displayed most commonly in Christian circles. The idea is that since the other cultures are not explicitly Christian, they cannot contain truth or that which is good and therefore must be rejected. Other cultures are devoid of God and are places of darkness. If we interact with those cultures we could be tainted or wooed into the darkness. This approach leads to such common cultural practices as banning books like Harry Potter, not participating in Halloween (and sometimes even Christmas), and freaking out about stuff like yoga. Growing up I wasn’t allowed to read fantasy books (other than Narnia) and while we were allowed to go trick-or-treating, Halloween was downplayed and we often attended church Harvest Fests dressed as Bible characters. The yoga issue has recently come up once again in the conversation in the recent Pagitt/MacArthur interview on the subject. MacArthur summed up the whole rejection mindset with his statement, “Why would Christians want to borrow an expression from a false religion?” If there is nothing good there, no truth there – why bother interacting? They say the Christian response should be rejection and not embrace.

My issue with the rejection mentality is the limits it places on God. It claims that God can only work in a very small segment of the population and is not big enough to be found in other cultures and religions. But even the Bible shows that Christians can engage with other cultures and find truth there. Just take the Acts 17 account of Paul at Mars Hill to see that he quotes “pagan” philosophers as containing truth about God. So obviously if the Bible displays engagement as opposed to rejection, it cannot be the best approach to the issue. As C.S.Lewis wrote, “if you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all other religions are simply wrong all through … you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of truth.” This isn’t about all religions being equally true, its about letting truth be truth wherever it is found. Which leads us to…

2. Redemption – For Christians who choose to see God’s truth all around us, a common approach to interacting with other cultures and religions is to redeem the good that is in them. One lays claim to truth (or beauty or the good) in other cultures and “baptizes” it for Christian usage. This is a process that St. Augustine referred to as the Egyptian Gold principle. When the Israelites fled Egypt the Bible tells us they “plundered the Egyptians,” taking much gold (in the form of idols) with them into the wilderness. The gold eventually came to be used in the Tabernacle – the very dwelling place of God. Its pagan associations were erased and it was redeemed for usage in worshiping God. This principle has been used by Christians throughout the ages to justify our involvement in pagan practices. Our holidays with pagan roots (Christmas, Easter, and occasionally Halloween) were all, over time, shaped into celebrations central to the Christian belief system. These holidays are now so Christian that many people are unaware of the pagan connections at all. This approached has also been applied (with lesser degrees of success) to practices like yoga. The idea is to take something you like from another culture, change some aspects of it to give it a Christian feel, and then feel complete freedom to engage with it. (and before you go there I am not in any way talking about cultural practices that are sins).

My issue with this approach is how oppressive and imperialistic it is. Essentially it chooses to steal what it likes from other cultures and write the rest of it off as worthless. The things that get “redeemed” are warped into mere shadows of what they were originally intended to be. There has been enough imperialism and rape of other cultures associated with Christianity, that to continue to discuss the interaction with other cultures in this language is generally demeaning and offensive. But the voices from the margins – those who have been oppressed and demeaned – is generally not heard or respected in Western Christian circles. With our imperialistic cultural values we really don’t care about how we are perceived by others or what damage we do along the way. We often think that Jesus being the end justifies whatever means we employ to get to him. That said, I don’t think the answer is then to resort back to rejection or cultural isolation.

3. Roots – I am currently exploring this approach not as the best answer out there but to understand a different way of interacting. This method seeks to understand the origins, or roots, of various cultural beliefs and practices. By seeing the history of something, one can see how it can evolve and grow. This is not about changing something through forms of violence, but learning to love and appreciate that which is other. I am all for admitting and discovering the pagan roots for things like Christmas and Easter. For all that Christians talk about getting back to the “true meaning” of those holidays, we forget the long history they represent. I want to affirm that history and respect that something I hold as dear to my beliefs has roots in the beliefs of others. I want to explore how the theology I hold to has been shaped by interactions with other cultures. How the Jews were influenced by the Zoroastrians in Persia or how prevailing political agendas influenced the popularity of various theories of the atonement. Everything has a history, everything is connected. Theology, culture, religion – they all grew out of something and fed off of each other as they grew. So as a Christian interacting with other cultures and beliefs, I want to learn from what they are offering to teach me and enter into a dialogue with them. I want to help give those on the margins a voice – the voice that has often been denied them in the name of Christianity. In being with dialogue with them I will of course take away parts of their culture and who they are. But I hope that I will be accepting a gift instead of violently acquiring. And I know that that dialogue will change the culture and change me – that is how cultures and people grow.

The issue with this – it’s hard. It’s hard to be invited to interact and learn. It’s hard to dig through the layers of history to reclaim roots and celebrate growth. It is hard to convince most Christians that others deserve to have a voice and that they have something to offer. It’s hard to remain in a church that cries “heretic” at those of us that seek the truth in these ways. It’s really hard to love that which I don’t yet understand.

Others offering reflections on Christianity and Paganism in this SynchroBlog –
Matthew Stone at Journeys in Between
Christianity, Paganism, and Literature at Notes from the Underground
John Smulo at JohnSmulo.com
Heathens and Pagans and Witches … oh my! at Calacirian
Sam Norton at Elizaphanian
Erin Word at Decompressing Faith
Chasing the Wild Goose at Eternal Echoes
Visigoths Ahoy! at Mike’s Musings
Belief and Being: The difficulty of communicating faith at Phil Wyman’s Square No More
Steve Hollinghurst at On Earth as in Heaven
Undefined Desire at Igneous Quill
A Walk on the Wild Side at Out of the Cocoon
Observations on Magic in Western Religion at My Contemplations
Tim Abbott at Tim Abbott
Spirituality and the Zodiac: Stories in the Cosmos at Be the Revolution

Random Comments

Posted on September 24, 2007July 9, 2025

After talking about types of churches in my last post, I thought I should mention that I have a new article up at the Theolog Blog about community churches.

And I have to say that I am honestly trying not to say too much about the latest load of crap issued from Mark Driscoll. I do have to say that I find it amusing that a lot more people are pissed off with him now that he is attacking the big boys and not just women. But what can you expect…

Up/Rooted Panel Discussion – Megachurches

Posted on September 24, 2007July 9, 2025

In my continuing comments on the recent Up/Rooted panel discussion on the topic “the emerging church critique of evangelicalism” with Scot McKnight, Wayne Johnson, and David Fitch…

The last question of the evening involved if typical evangelical seeker style services (complete with the rock show and other celebratory gimmicks) are worthwhile if they manage to reach people. i.e. As emergents (or mainliners, or fundamentalists) we may criticize such services as lacking in depth, devoid of true worship, and for promoting an individualistic and consumeristic view of the church, but if they are what people need at that point in their life does that make them worthwhile? I think that is a good question that needs to be addressed, unfortunately the panelist ignored it and dove straight into an all out fight about megachurches. Seriously. Okay maybe “intense discussion of varying viewpoints” is the better way to describe it, but as “fights” go, this one was pretty good. It wasn’t mean spirited and it was carried by humor throughout. It mostly involved Scot McKnight (who attends the megachurch of megachurches – Willow Creek) vs. David Fitch (who wrote an anti-megachurch book and recent blog post). Fun times.

Scot defended megachurches by saying that there is nothing a small church can offer that a megachurch doesn’t offer. He dislikes it when people criticize churches like Willow when they have never actually attended the church. They don’t know the church, they don’t know the people there. They are just reacting to stereotypes they have heard. He also praised the potential anonymity at a megachurch. People can show up and not be known – they aren’t pressured to “do”, they aren’t judged, and they aren’t automatically labelled as a “visitor” (the ultimate church Other). Scot explained, “at Willow there is a permeable boundary between who is in or out.” It is one of the few evangelical churches where gays and lesbians can attend without being ostracized or forced to immediately give up their “gayness” (whatever that means). It is in other words, a safe introduction to Christianity.

But my question is – is it really church if we can’t be the body together? Can we really exist as strangers to each other and still claim to be a community? Is the desire to be unknown and unconnected a good thing? I personally think that the boundaries of all churches should be more permeable. I’ve attended churches where it was very clear who was in and who was out. Those who didn’t fit in immediately (the occasional homosexual who might wander in) were given a very specific amount of time to repent and change who they are or else they were kicked out of the church. That is not church either imho. Places like that are what create the need for anonymity in the megachurches. People want a chance to discover what they believe before they identify themselves with a particular group in all of its religious weirdness. But can’t the church offer people a place where they have the freedom to explore (at their own pace) and be accepted into the community? Are we really that incapable of loving people that to be lost in a crowd is preferable to joining a community? I personally don’t think that being alone and unknown is a good thing no matter what circumstances forced it to be necessary.

I know that Willow does great things. And I know that there are many small churches where true community is non-existent. I’m just hoping for a better way.

Bill Gates on Education

Posted on September 23, 2007July 9, 2025

Today’s issue of Parade Magazine featured a short piece on how Bill Gates hopes to change education in America. (if you already threw out the Sunday paper, live outside the USA, or generally can’t stand reading that slice of conservative propaganda, you can read the article here). Putting aside the issue of why we are trusting Bill Gates to tell us how we should reform our schools, the article presented some rather messed up ideas. It states –

While educators debate the value of standardized tests, Gates is adamant that we need such tests and that ours should be tougher and more uniform. “Testing is the only objective measurement of our students,” he contends. “It’s incredible that we have no national standard.” As for those who say this will stifle creativity and lead to dull classrooms that only teach students how to pass tests, he replies: “If you don’t know how to read, it doesn’t matter how creative you are. More than a third of the people with high school diplomas have no employable skills.”

First I find it interesting that he doesn’t deny that teaching to tests will stifle creativity and lead to dull classrooms. Like many testing advocates he seems to think such things are worth the price of adhering to this sort of system. Secondly, since when did creativity stop being an employable skill? Yes, I think everyone should learn to read. But the sort of “reading” skills taught in order for students to pass tests doesn’t often lead to the ability to think creatively or critically. Despite studies that show that students who are allowed to develop all aspects of their intellect (through art and music) actually end up being better readers, there still seems to be the general assumption that things like art, music, and creativity get in the way of real education. I could just try to blame this on Gates being a computer geek and businessman, but this sort of unbalanced approach to education is rampant. Even if people actually think tests are worthwhile (something I highly disagree with), why does it have to be an either/or? If we are seeking to improve the schools and have people like Gates dumping money into them, why can’t we seek a more holistic approach that affirms reading, math, and creativity?

I could rant on that topic for awhile given my general frustration with the pathetic state of education in our country and the even more pathetic attempts to fix it, so I’ll move on for the moment and point of the other really inane thing the article wrote about Gates. Apparently “Gates also believes in small high schools, where students won’t get sucked into cliques.” Okay, I know of schools that had graduating classes of 12 that still had cliques. Size of school has nothing to do with kids getting into cliques. I support smaller schools and much smaller class sizes but not because that will prevent kids from making friends with other people with similar interests. Smaller class sizes lead to more interaction and deeper exploration of subjects. Given a decent teacher (whose purpose is to teach and not to coach students through a test) such deeper interaction will lead to real learning (as opposed to rote memorization) and (dare I say it) more creative and critical students. At least it would be nice if it was allowed to happen, but apparently we are so uncreative and uncritical that we prefer to be told what to do by whoever has the most money.

Up/Rooted Panel Discussion – Emergent Freedom to Question

Posted on September 22, 2007July 9, 2025

At the up/rooted panel discussion the other night Scot McKnight spoke on the questions that are important to people in the emerging church. These are questions that were (still are) taboo in the evangelical church but which shape the faith journey of emergents. The point isn’t so much the answers they land on, but that they feel like they can wrestle with (as opposed to suppress) these questions. Scot listed six main issues of discussion (and yes, this is a horrible paraphrase)-

1. Scripture & Inerrancy. e.g. Can Genesis contain mythic elements?

1. Science & Evolution. Instead of giving up the faith when finally exposed to science, can we actually be believers in light of science?

1. Hypocrisy. Can Christians be genuinely consistent?

1. Hell. Where did our views of hell even come from?

1. God. Do we really believe everything the Bible says about God?

Social location. Are most of us Christians because of the happenstance of where we were born?

When issues such as these are seen as beyond the realm of discussion, it forces believers to generally either deny their intellect or walk away from the faith. The emerging church gives people the freedom to ask the honest and hard questions about these things. Instead of being told that “good Christians” don’t question the evangelical assumptions about hell or inerrancy, it has become almost the mark of a growing Christian in the EC that you explore those issues for yourself. Of course, I’ve learned from experience that taking advantage of that freedom to question is not looked upon favorably in many circles. For many just asking a question and thinking for oneself get one labeled as a heretic and results in a quick dismissal from one’s job.

But, I think Scot’s list is accurate in the issues he sees as central to the emerging conversation. The list could in many ways be the summation of my faith journey this past decade. Those were the question I wrestled with and am still exploring. I’m sure I’ve gone in different directions than some in the EC, but I’ve found resonance and a theological home with others. The only big thing I would add to the list is the whole gender question (women in ministry, gender roles…). That is really the issue that sent me down this road to begin with and has remained a central part of my experience of the emerging world. From what I have heard it is also the entry point for others (mostly women) into this conversation as well. I guess I could fit it under one of Scot’s categories (scripture, God) and I know that it isn’t as taboo of a topic in evangelical churches as others on the list, but I still see it as a vital and in many ways separate category.

What do others think? Are these categories accurate? What would you add?

Pop Culture Interlude 3

Posted on September 22, 2007July 9, 2025

So as the Fall TV season gets underway, I thought I would post what pop culture offerings I’m looking forward to. We of course have to wait until February for Lost to return, but Heroes starts on Monday. Then there are the guilty pleasure reality TV shows – Beauty and the Geek (if only to fuel my ire at stereotypes in America), Survivor: China (watching the evangelical gal squirm about the Buddhism should be interesting), and apparently there is a new FoodNetwork show The Next Iron Chef (I’m a fan of all things Iron Chef). I’m sure we will watch a few of the new pilots as well, just to see what the buzz is about (let’s just say I am really curious about Bionic Woman). But I’m more excited about upcoming books and movies.

In (fiction) book news –

After nearly a decade the next book in the Obernewtyn Chronicles by Isobelle Carmody will finally be released. The Stone Key is scheduled for a Feb. 2008 release although for now that release seems to be limited to Australia (not a huge deal in light of the internet, but the shipping costs are annoying.) If you haven’t encountered this widely popular (in Australia) young adult post-apocalyptic fantasy series yet, I highly recommend you give them a try (books 1-3 are available in the USA). Anyway, some of us have been waiting a long time for this one.

As for movies –

Coming out in just a couple of weeks is the film version of The Dark is Rising. I’m curious to see what they do with this. I enjoyed the book, but am not so sure how well it will translate to film.

For as much as I had a love/hate reaction to the book, I’m looking forward to the movie version of The Golden Compass.

A bit further out, but exciting nonetheless is the release of Prince Caspian in May 2008. I can’t even count the number of times I have read the Narnia books, so I enjoy seeing these made into (good) movies.

And also coming out in May 2008, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. It’s Indiana Jones, it’s a must see, but honestly what’s with the name?

Up/Rooted Panel Discussion – Authenticity and Worship

Posted on September 21, 2007July 9, 2025

Last night the Chicago Emergent cohort, Up/Rooted, hosted a panel discussion on the topic “the emerging church critique of evangelicalism.” On the panel were Scot McKnight, Wayne Johnson, and David Fitch. The entire evening’s discussion should eventually be available as a podcast and I’m sure someone with more patience than I will post a nice summary somewhere. (update – sorry no forthcoming podcast, something about it not recording and there is a decent summary here) For now, I will point you to Dave Fitch’s blog where he posted a few of the ideas he covered last night. Scot also hinted that he will be blogging about the ideas he presented as well. Needless to say it was a stimulating discussion that did a fairly decent job of summing up most of the emerging critiques of evangelicalism. But of course the conversation didn’t stop there as the presenters worked in their critiques of emerging/emergent as well.

I heard a lot I liked last night, a number of things I disagreed with, and a few things I didn’t understand. I of course didn’t ask any questions there, because, well, I hate asking questions in that sort of setting. One can’t engage in real dialogue and the question generally gets misunderstood anyway (as evidents by the “let’s see who can ask the most convoluted and confused question” game the audience seemed to be playing last night). But given the joyous freedoms on the blogworld, I can post my thoughts, disagreements and questions here and, in good emerging/postmodern fashion, engage with dialogue with anyone who is so inclined. So I’ll try to post my random thoughts on this panel discussion here over the next week or so. That said, let’s jump right in and talk about…

Worship. In his initial presentation on the emerging critique of evangelicalism, Wayne Johnson focused on the aspect of worship. While he thought that the EC has done a good job in it’s critique of consumer, seeker driven worship, he also pointed out a few weaknesses in the EC in regards to worship. In setting up his discussion on worship, he defined the concept of worship as “our response to God’s revelation in the world” (not a direct quote, but close I think). I like that definition, but not his subsequent assertion that primary forms of worship should then be the Word and the Table. Sure those are important aspects of God’s revelation, but the God I worship is a lot bigger than just those two things. But I digress… What I really had issue with in his talk was his critique of the emerging emphasis on authenticity.

I know that “authentic” has become a buzz word in the EC and I fully agree that that which is trendy often has no real substance or meaning. And I fully agree that to push one idea of what it means to be authentic (informal, organic…) onto a person who is not those things to begin with kinda misses the point of authenticity. I get that. But then Dr. Johnson claimed that to be authentic is to promote an individualism that hinders the communal act of the body of Christ entering into corporate worship. If we so fine-tune our services into that which is an “authentic” worship experience for us, we run the risk of heightening ethnic, cultural, and generational divisions. We care too much about ourselves and not enough for others.

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for diverse churches and I think our self centered myopic worship wars have caused more harm than good in the church; but, I’m not ready to throw out the concept of “authentic.” If authentic is defined as that which is “true, real, and genuine,” would not the opposite be that which is “false or a lie”? In emerging critiques of evangelical worship (and in evangelical critiques of traditional worship for that matter) there has been a lot of talk about “just going through the motions.” In other words, participating in a false and meaningless form of worship – lying to God. I don’t think anyone wants to promote lying in one’s response to God as a good thing, but the question arises of if lying to God is justified if it helps build community. Is it okay to be inauthentic and false in how one responds to God if it helps build up a diverse body of Christ?

I honestly have no idea if that is at all what Dr. Johnson was intending with his thoughts, but it is what immediately popped into my mind. Does serving others involve making weighted moral choices like that or am I way off base here? Maybe I’m just too seeped in the evangelical definition of sin as personal choice as opposed to a wider more emerging view that involves the community as a whole. Maybe I just really have an issue with the whole concept of the submission of my will to that of other people. But I can’t bring myself to say that it is okay to engage in false acts of worship solely for the good of the community. I see no problem with remaining silent and not making a scene about it if one can’t participate, but I can’t justify engaging. But maybe that’s just me. What are your thoughts? What’s your take on this whole issue of authenticity and worship?

Missional and Seekers

Posted on September 19, 2007July 9, 2025

Bob Roberts of Glocalnet recently put up a post about “being missional in the Sunday service” (ht – Rick Meigs). He had some good suggestions about being missional within the cultural trappings of the Sunday service. Like – if your worship consists of singing songs, it would help if those songs focused on service instead of just being another “me” centered melody (which is way easier said than done since songs like that are limited). But I was a bit uneasy with his opening assertions about being missional and seeker sensitive. He writes –

Can you reach seekers and be missional? Yes. Reaching seekers is missional! The challenge is how do you communicate to seekers, change their perceptions of God and church, help them find Jesus, and then help them understand we’ve been called to community to together live out the Kingdom.

I see all of the things he listed as good things, it is the order that he presents them in that bugs me. First you give them the messages about Jesus, God, and church and then you get them on board with being missional. It might just be me, but that smacks of the whole bait and switch technique that so many of us so desperately try to avoid. If the point is to follow Christ then call people to follow Christ from the get go. Don’t woo them with spiffy seeker services and then expect them to catch the missional mindset. It’s that old saying – “what you call people with is what you call them to”. Calling people to enjoy a service and get committed to the church before you expect them to actually serve God can lead to disastrous results. In our “me? centered culture that sees church as a place to come, sit, mingle, be entertained, and possibly fed, to get people into your church for those things and then ask them to serve doesn’t work. They either ignore the call to get up off their butts, or they find another church that doesn’t make such “extreme” demands on their life.

But that can be a problem for churches. I’ve known churches where the people have left in droves after the church leadership started pursuing a more missional route. Our tiny little church plant continues to struggle with this as well. We don’t want to present people with one conception of church and then push another agenda down the road. We try to be upfront about who we are and that scares people. They don’t want to have to engage with the sermon, they don’t want to have to give their time to missional events. It’s too far out of their comfort zone. But it is who we are. We recently had a booth at our town’s annual Hometown Days. We debated what to do with the booth (do we give away water or popcorn, what about free games for kids?). We eventually decided against the attractional gimmicks and instead sold fairly traded goods for Ten Thousand Villages – it sparked some good conversations about who we are as a church. What was amusing was that the new church plant in town went for all those attractional give aways (water bottles, candy, free games, ipods…). What you call them with is what you call them to – but somedays it seems like there are a lot more people out there interested in passive “gimme” styles of church than there are interested in missional churches.

That said, I also think that calling people to be missional does not come after the call to be a Christian, but is part of the call itself. In fact people can be serving God and helping others even if they are not onboard with the whole faith thing. Inviting people to engage with doing the work of Christ is part of calling them to Christ. We invite anyone to help out with our missional projects at church – even if they are not part of our church or any church at all for that matter. They are welcome to be the hands and feet of Christ even before they believe in Christ. And the interesting part is that action of serving and following Christ often makes them actually want to well, follow Christ. So being missional vs. being seeker sensitive doesn’t follow in my book. It’s about following Christ and that means being missional always.