Towards a More Liberating Imagination
November 9, 2007
In talking with a number of people about the possibility of lasting social change, I mostly encounter pessimism. People often shake their heads, shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, what can we do? Jesus does say that the poor and oppressed will always be with us.” Thankfully, there is a growing movement of Christians who are imagining a brighter future for the world.
I’ve nearly finished Brian McLaren’s new book, Everything Must Change and so far have found it to be a very good read. Later I hope to present a more complete review but for now I would like to share some quotes from the 29th chapter of the book, entitled A New Kind of Question. These are not McLaren’s thoughts but those of others who have influenced Brian’s writing.
McLaren quotes John Stott, who the fairly conservative journal Christianity Today has called the ‘Guardian of God’s Word’ saying that he has been ” preeminently a steward of God’s truth and a herald of the biblical message”. (September, 1996)
“What will posterity see as the chief Christian blind spot of the last quarter of the twentieth century? I do not know. But I suspect it will have something to do with the economic oppression of the Third World and the readiness with which Western Christians tolerate it, and even acquiesce in it. Only slowly is our Christian conscience being aroused to the gross economic inequalities between the countries of the North Atlantic and the southern world of Latin America, Africa and most parts of Asia. Total egalitarianism may not be a biblical ideal. But must we not roundly declare that luxury and extravagance are indefensible evils, while much of the world is undernourished and underprivileged?”
“Many more Christians should gain the economic and political qualifications to join in the quest for justice in the world community. And meanwhile, the development of a less affluent lifestyle, in whatever terms we may define it, is surely an obligation that Scripture lays on us in compassionate solidarity with the poor. Of course we can resist these things and even use (misuse) the Bible to defend our resistance. The horror of the situation is that our affluent culture has drugged us; we no longer feel the pain of other people’s deprivations. Yet the first step toward the recovery of our Christian integrity is to be aware that our culture blinds, deafens and dopes us. Then we shall begin to cry to God to open our eyes, unstop our ears and stab our dull consciences awake, until we see, hear and feel what through his Word he has been saying to us all the time. Then we shall take action. “
http://intervarsity.org/ism/article/1952
He also quotes Brian Walsh and Richard Middleton from their book “Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be”:
“It is only when we can imagine the world to be different than the way it is that we can be empowered to embody this alternative reality which is God’s kingdom and resist this present nightmare of brokenness, disorientation and confusion…..A liberated imagination is a prerequisite for facing the future…If we cannot have such a liberated imagination and cannot countenance such radical dreams then the story remains closed for us and we have no hope.”
It’s about being pro-active versus re-active, isn’t it? Not a call for more charitable giving, but a call for changing systems that create these problems. Blaming the flaws (even when they are real) in the systems of other cultures tends to take our focus off of the systemic flaws of our own culture. We need to ask ourselves the hard question of how we personally are benefiting from the suffering of others. Just asking these types of questions is a start and worth the little effort it takes. At least more worthy than throwing up our hands over the world’s despair. I am glad that people like Brian McLaren , John Stott and others are encouraging me to think about my complicity as well as offering me a vision of hope for the future.
How will future generations look back on the Christians of this age?
November 9, 2007 at 6:56 pm
You say it right, but doing it right is as different as light from dark. History disguises the facts, because history is written by and from the point of view of those with the education and means to write it, not by the poor and oppressed who are the majority within history.
The facts are that, taking the world, say 300 years ago, the population majority lived in poverty. Some nations rose from that poverty, usually by force of arms/gunboat diplomacy, at the expense of the rest of the world. An inbalance was created.
What you advocate, if it is to be realised, means that the balance must be restored, which in turn means that the standard of living of the haves must be reduced to meet the standard of living of the have nots.
You will not find many in the advantaged part of the world who will agree to that. Maybe some individuals would, and you sound like such a person, but not the majority, and therefore it will not happen.
November 9, 2007 at 8:02 pm
How will future generations look back on the Christians of this age?
I think that in the future, historians will label this time period as a New Reformation. There is so many changes in the makeup of the church.
When I read Karen Armstrong’s “Spiral Staircase”, I really resonated with her life story. Her story begins in the late 60’s early 70’s. During that time, she explains her leaving of the monastery and chronicles her journey out of traditional religion. I believe whatever was taking place in England around that time has made it to where I am now, 30-40 years later.
When I was talking to my buddy about this, he said, “Do you know what is really popular in Korea now? Breakdancing!” About 20-30 years ago that was popular here. It is some sort of ripple effect that seems to originate in the places of original civilizations. The times, they are a’changing.
November 10, 2007 at 2:44 am
Regarding being proactive rather than reactive this passage from Marcus Borg’s book The Heart of Christianity says it all.
Brazilian poet-priest Dom Helder Camara said it best: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.”
From an unknown authur expanding on the same idea.
“Charity means helping victims. Justice asks why there are so many victims”.
keith
November 10, 2007 at 8:32 am
Hiya C,
This is exactly what I have been trying to affirm in what you have been saying. The distance from the Western mind to the actual conditions of the rest of the world is nearly infinite. And this is the postivie contribution which I think people like MacLaren are making.
I have a concern, though (who’s surprised).
“but a call for changing systems ”
I have no problem with trying to change the perception of the population and their conscience in matters of being responsable to and for the conditions of this world. The problem, as I see it, is that people are still fallen. Changing systems still have people in charge, the same people who brought about this disconnect, the same people who are alwasy looking out for number one, the same people who are so prone to corruption, us being the people.
As you certainly know from that which you have read, the problem with different economic systems is not the intentions, it is the fact that people still need to do it. And the people who do bad in Capitalism are the same people who do bad in Communism.
I am very open to discussion regarding system change, and there certainly are options out there which I have never heard, but I would encourage caution of “those bad systems” talk, the sort that separates the sinful heart of the individual from how it operates in a social and economic setting, the same error which I feel is common in, for instance, Walter Wink. We can’t separate the sinful results of any economic systems from ourselves, and no system has enough checks and balances to prevent abuses, the likes of which are being rightly addressed here.
The Spirit changes the person through the spreading of the Gospel. I believe that this is the only hope for permanent change.
November 10, 2007 at 9:54 am
Jason, you are preaching to the choir here. I don’t think we should consider looking to make any goverment led changes in our current civic and econmic systems. As we have seen, the different forms of nationalism that have been spun off of Marxist philosophy have been worse (in my opinion) than any transgression of captialism. But would we have even had to deal with those monsters if those of us who clamied to be democratic, capitalistic and Christian had voluntarily and eagerly sought out the well being of others over our that of our own?
If we can assume that the capitalistic countries of the world have been (at least nominally) Christian then there is a problem with the overarching ‘meta system’; what McLaren has termed ‘theocapitalism’. Theocapitalism is what we have today in America and what most of us call Christianity. And I think Stott summed it up nicely. It is the marrying of the church with Babyon.
As I’ve ranted about before – the social and economic sins that prevail are comitted just as often by people who claim to follow Jesus as anyone else. Rarely do I hear any poplular railing against these sins from our nation’s pulpit. The far left wing have been allowed to claim ownership of this prophetic element, and like any ‘extreme’ view, it rarely is taken too seriously. Or the majority fear that to take them seriously would intiate a slippery slope to totalitarianism. This fear would be unfounded if the passion for justice (as exhibited by Jesus and the OT prophets) was held in the hearts of the Christian. No socialist, from union organizers to advocates for government entitilements, would gain a foothold in anyone’s conscience if more people would be working towards God’s agenda.
November 10, 2007 at 10:04 am
@C
“Rarely do I hear any poplular railing against these sins from our nation’s pulpit. The far left wing have been allowed to claim ownership of this prophetic element, and like any ‘extreme’ view, it rarely is taken too seriously”
Extremely well said, that is a whole book waiting to happen.
November 10, 2007 at 10:09 am
Keith, I love that line by Bishop Camara (I use that exact quote in “my personal creed” page) and I love Borg’s book, although I am hesitant to recomend it to many Christian friends of mine. He tends to fringhten them, but I’ve seen his books help bring ‘anti-Christians’ back to the church.
November 10, 2007 at 11:04 am
also @C,
“Theocapitalism is what we have today in America and what most of us call Christianity”
Capitalism, obviously being powered by selfishness, (there is really no way around it, it is greed, which exists in every economic and social system, harnessed to a degree which is the cascading river running across the water wheel of capitalism, and every other economic system does not take this individual, psychological reality into consideration) Mark Noll and David Wells have looked at this phenomenon, which they assert is the Americanized, can-do variety of religion.
Wells in citing Noll, writes: “The idea of Justice, for example, which in the works of Jonathan Edwards was one of the divine perfections, became in those of Finney (19th Century tent-in-the-center-of-town preacher, not the inventor, but the popularizer of come to the front, pray the prayer and be saved Christianity – Jason) simply a functional value in human life. As democracy took hold, and as the pragmatic temper became more and more dominant, and as theology mutated within a changing culture, what had been a dominant “contemplative theocentrism” now became a dominant “activistic anthropocentrism.”
What he is basically getting at is that as Amercan, and eventually Western, religion was becoming was more and more personal, more and more about the needs of the individual (read: meet people where they are at, not that there is a holy God who has standards of justice to which only now we are returning) it became more and more therapeutic, more and more about an individual expression of spirituality, and more and more detached from the reality that The Body to be a reflection of the glory and the love and the justice of God. The “me” varieties of religion inevitably lead to a disconnection from what, as I understand it, what MacLaren is trying to say.
However, and I am asking as much as asserting, MacLaren’s postmodern variety of religion, as I understand it, bears little perspectival difference, individually speaking, from that propogated by individualistic minded Amercans over the past two centuries. What I am wondering is, since I haven’t read his latest book, does MacLaren’s Christianity establish a redoubt against the condition, the perspective, in which we find ourselves?
I would also assert that Borg isn’t frightening, just fallacy-ridden resultant from his chronic narrative criticism perspective. I am actually putting together a post on this and would love the scrutiny.
November 10, 2007 at 11:29 am
In what way to do you see that? Seriously, to me McLaren is speaking to the church as a whole, particularly with regards to the leaership (which I would include most of the commenters on this blog – positional titles not withstanding). The idea is to promote a more holistic approach to church, towards a more ‘kingdom’ centered ecclesiology as opposed to the more personal ‘what’s in my heart is a private matter’ position of Christianity (and secularism),
I would be the first to admit that I don’t see everything Borg’s way ( or McLaren or Lewis or Willard etc). But I do see a lot of value in some of the things he is saying that many other serious people are not. His writings have helped me to broaden my perspective of scripture which has prompted me to see more scriptural applications for my life.
November 10, 2007 at 11:40 am
@C,
I am referring less to his sociological take on the responsibility, I am referreing to his variety of spirituality which is the necessary precursor of action within the body. To me, MacLaren’s spirituality is as individualistic and personality driven as anything in Western church, just expressing itself in a less “American” way. Example: his acceptance and non acceptance of certain ideas and doctrines for little reason other than it doesn’t fit his personality, or what he thinks Jesus really meant, quite aside from whether he said it or not. My question, thereby, relates more to the impetus behind our social action. If the spirituality is self-driven, if the individual variety of religion is indeed individual, how does how that spirituality prevent the same excesses and lookinoutfer#1 which we both see in a huge amount of American Christianity?
November 10, 2007 at 12:45 pm
You’re right to ask that last question IF you are correct in your assessment of McLaren’s spirituality. I happen to think that you are not. (Hey, didn’t we meet for the first time on Challies site, arguing over the same thing?).
I think that’s the same accusation that Brian is levelling at the traditional church. He is going against the idea that salvation is exclusively or even primarily self driven. He is emphasizing Jesus’ call for cultural salvation as well, specifically in the way he (Jesus) took on the societal status quo of his time.
November 10, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Yeah, no kidding, I am having a little deja vu…I am dedicated to keeping it from heading that way, though. Please help.
“He is emphasizing Jesus’ call for cultural salvation as well, specifically in the way he (Jesus) took on the societal status quo of his time.”
It is this very concept with which I am in disagreement. I assert that there is absolutely nothing about cultural salvation in the bible, and nothing at all about group redemption separate from the sacrifice of Jesus Christ redeeming his sheep. There is plenty about the The Body and the corporate nature of being in Christ, but none of that ever indicates that that happens apart from the person’s own repentance and faith. And at times in the New Testament that self-driven aspect of it is presented as a good thing and sometimes as a bad thing. For instance people repent, when Christ begins his ministry he says repent, which is not presented as a corporate issue anywhere except within a Christian Church. Brian’s all corporate formulation of salvation truly ignores nearly all of what Christ and Paul say about repentance in matters of dialogue.
And actually that’s not really what I’m talking about, I’m sorry it is coming across so unclearly. For example in “Finding Faith” he presents a few pages of (what I would say are generally speaking) valuable, but mostly subjective rules of his own for good faith and bad faith. It seems that the best way to establish what should and shouldn’t be thought would be to assert some other authority, but this is the beginning, in this section which I found so strikingly self-centered, of the self-driven sprituality of Brian. From where he gets these rules is unclear, clearly it is an attempt at some sort of systemization, which he, I thought, abhors. He further sets the tone with his intentional movement from the authority of God’s word to the authority of the individual when he writes, on pages 56 and 57, four questions. Now I am unconcerned about people asking questions, there is plenty that cannot be answered apart from the bible, but the answers to these questions are never, ever knowable apart from from outside source. So he goes on to pose them, not to seek some external truth, but to establish a base from which his internal epistemological filter is as good, and more comprehensive than that of the bible. He leaves these questions regarding the Bible’s veracity unanswered and then goes on to fill in the blanks not by addressing the questions but by continuing to place his own spiritual compass on par with the Bible.
Now, I expect non-believers to do this and more. That is quite a separate discussion. But for who name themselves among the followers of Jesus Christ to follow this reasoning in matters of spirituality is what I asserted earlier, the kind of me-first spirituality which brought us to this position of deep selfishness in the church.
It is also by this specious technique he marginalizes passages which go against his own personal grain, which he has already established as the proper interpretive lens via his open-ended epistemological shell game. However, and most conveniently, he imports the mush-bemoaned literalism in matters of his neo-liberation theology. And he utilizes these texts unquestioningly, much differently than how he approaches other texts which he has already set aside for no textual, systematic or biblical reason.
All that to say that McLaren’s spirituality is about him and what he has decided he is going to “know” about God in combining the texts which fit that which he already “knows” and the knowledge with which he walked into this endeavor. This purpose-drivenness may sustain this marvelous, proper corrective to 19th and 20 century Christian error and selfishness, but per Moses concern in Exodus 33, if our “faith” is not in God and our primary expression of spirituality is not in God alone, and instead is in what we think God wants us to do, then we go on without Him.
This social action cannot sustain itself for, no secret between you and me, people suck, but in McLaren’s epistemology, itself is all it has.
*breathe*
(smilerguy)(isn’t that what people always put (often somewhat disingenuously, but not here, of course) at the end of a protracted soliloquy such as this?)
November 10, 2007 at 3:16 pm
No, I think we should use the smiler guy when we make a little joke that may come across the wrong way. But I knows whats you means.
I don’t have that book of Brian’s with the questions – not even sure if I read it- so please share them with us.
Actually, I don’t think that Brian’s theology is something that he has worked out on his own, in fact I don’t think it’s fair to call it his theology. If anything he is merely sharing what he has come to learn with about God over the years as pastor of Cedar Ridge (my current church). I agree with you on some things, but I think much of that is due to Brian’s unintended overreaction to some things, similar to what we all do. For example you mention “Brian’s all corporate formula’ you are talking about something which he never espouses. He does stress corporate salvation in some of his writings because that is what he is writing towards – he never even hints that coporate salvation be instead of, or superior to, individual salvation. Any more than the Apostle James does.
As far as you not being able to find mention of group or societal salvation in the Bible how do you handle so much of what the prophets have said about it? Including Jesus. When he quotes Isaiah and mentiioins freeing the prisoners, giving sight to the blind and delaring the Lord’s jubilee – is that only a metaphorical reference to personal redemption and sacrifice. If so, then I think his listeners, without our later frame of reference, would have stood scratching their heads in bewilderment rather than trying to do him in.
November 10, 2007 at 4:28 pm
thanks, C, great detailed response. Each question is basically a prargraph. I’ll start a thread on it this week.
“I don’t think that Brian’s theology is something that he has worked out on his own, in fact I don’t think it’s fair to call it his theology”
OK, I understand, he has acquired it as an amalgam of others (that typically amorphous, contradictory subtitle of A Generous Orthodoxy), that’s certainly true. But though he didn’t invent it, as you didn’t yours and I didn’t mine, we still have our theology I just meant that it is how he sees God. He did write a book called everything must change, in which he puts his his amalgam on display, presumably from what you’ve wrote, with a mind to specific action. If it wasn’t his before, it’s his now.
“Brian’s all corporate formula’ you are talking about something which he never espouses. He does stress corporate salvation in some of his writings because that is what he is writing towards – he never even hints that coporate salvation be instead of, or superior to, individual salvation.”
OK, fair enough, I spoke too broadly. An over-reaction to his over-reaction. You’re right.
“When he quotes Isaiah and mentioins freeing the prisoners, giving sight to the blind and delaring the Lord’s jubilee – is that only a metaphorical reference to personal redemption and sacrifice”
Firstly, the part of the quote he cited were things he was actually doing, so no, it’s not a metaphor. As well, Jubilee is not in the quote nor is it in Isaiah. But even if it was, I am presuming you don’t want to change our Constitution to the Torah, and neither did Christ, because he’s God and no political change of the sort took place upon the fruition of his task. That would be a particularily impotent God if the sort of literalism (?!?!) you are suggesting is what Christ actually meant.
Secondly, as Christ was actually doing those things, and we cannot, his reference must have been to himself, not us. The Isaiah passage is in the context of the bruised reed that did not break, speaking of Christ, not us accomplishing these things. In the NT there are other passages which indicate Christians must do those things but it is used in the present or future subjunctive/possible tense, whereas any soteriological passages are in some variety of tense which is translated into English in the past tense, as in, Christ did it, Christ set his people free, Christ redeemed them. Salvation is unavoidably spiritual, and any good that we do in this world is to the glory of God and resultant from, not causative of, salvation. Which is a much, much longer conversation.
As well I would assert that in the OT the prophets mostly spoke of social ills as being resultant of not knowing or rejecting God, as in Isaiah 1. He is not in anyway saying that redemption comes through solving these ills, he is saying that Israel lacked those things because they did not know him. But even in those situations in which social ills need to be fixed I think I can say that there isn’t one passage in which the context is one of salvation, redemption, judgment, or righteousness, although any individual passage would have to be looked at closely to say that more assertively. If you have some that are in question I would love to look at it, as that is all that I do.
“If so, then I think his listeners, without our later frame of reference, would have stood scratching their heads in bewilderment rather than trying to do him in.”
C, many of them did. Their frame of reference was as temporal as yours is in this particular matter. They were waiting for a messiah who would provide the sort political solutions which you assert is the point of those passages. And then he died. And they were pissed. Until they got that the picture was not some temporal solution to social ills that were just going to come back anyway, it was an eternal spiritual solution, as Christ contextually connects so many OT passages about internal change to those who are his in John 3-6. They were looking for what you are looking for, but Christ’s picture had to do with his sheep being his, not some political coup. He was concerned with unrighteousness, but as can be culled from dozens of passages, his concern was the heart, which came before the behavior, hence the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount. (but I say to you…) and the source of the proper result of faith which James is addressing.
November 10, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Hmm. Why do I think that we are in agreement here but apparently unaware of it? Social compassion and action (the Kingdom) is not something that precipitates personal salvation. As you rightly say, It should be a direct offshoot of tranformation of the heart. The examples of misery and injustice that we see throughout the world are evidence of individuals and consequently societies living out of synch with God. What is more disturbing is that so many who are not exhibiting these ‘fruits’ of the spirit are those who claim to be followers of Christ.
I am not perfect, I fall far short of what is required of me. I know that I am forgiven, but not excused. Those who do not know God may perhaps be excused. So what do we assume is the problem with the church?
November 10, 2007 at 4:56 pm
“Those who do not know God may perhaps be excused. So what do we assume is the problem with the church?”
It consistently blows me away that we are talking about the same stuff.
These two sentences are book worthy, and I have stuff to do. I have a feeling we will come up with a similar idea. I also think you are much more theologically conservative than you think you are. You just rightly expect more of The Body than it is giving and you are incredibly disgusted at the duplicitousness of it.
November 10, 2007 at 4:57 pm
forgiven, but not excused….
Very good
November 10, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Oh, boy. I think you are right. I do so hate the labels (even though I so often stoop to using them). I am glad that we have kept up the conversation.
November 10, 2007 at 5:47 pm
I know that I am particularily grateful for you reaching out to me in spite of me.
Yes, labels stink, but how else can I talk about “them”? smilerguy
November 11, 2007 at 12:26 pm
BTW – you are correct in pointing out that Jesus (and Isaiah) did not use the word Jubilee in that particular quotation but they both talked of the Year of the Lord’s Favor which many believe is synonymous with the Jubilee year.
November 11, 2007 at 3:51 pm
You are correct in that is how that phrase is used elsewhere. But a literal application in this situation greatly understates the power of Jesus Christ and the astonishing things he did during his life, and more importantly what he accomplished in dying and rising. At the time and in the way that Christ used it makes it, at best, a highly spiritual, metaphorical concept, and I don’t think one that should be imposed on the text.
Because contextually, that is an immense stretch. Firstly, Jubilee was one year, and Christ’s ministry occurred for around three. Secondly, he literally healed people, but released no one from temporal prison, which means, if taken literally, that our Lord failed to accomplish part of what he was sent for. Additionally Jewish interpreters in the Targum wrote that the person speaking here was The Prophet from Deuteronomy 18, the Messiah, and this continues to be their interpretation in orthodox circles, which indicates that “The Year” in this use, again not using an ordinal number (first, third, ninth, an adjectival or subastantival use of a number) as with Genesis 1 puts this “year” along with “last days” both of which refer to the period in which the Kingdom of God is being realized, as in everything after Christ, which is a much better fit for the fact that it was Christ who used it and the context of his citing it – at the beginning of his ministry.
There are other passages which indicate that Christians are to pursue justice, and most of them are in the epistles in citing or alluding to the OT. We need to be using the texts which say this in order to day this. Making this text say it makes Christ only an aspect, not the central causative completing factor, of the true accomplishing of this and bringing the Kingdom of God to come to pass.
I understand, generally, where you are coming from if this is your interpretation of the Kingdom of God/Heaven -”Social compassion and action”. If this is your interpretive motif then Luke 4/Isaiah 61 would have to go through that wringer. I know that that is the popularized variety of liberation theology right now, but that is at best a very small part of what the Kingdom of God is. I would say that Jesus is a lot bigger than that. And when you look that the reasons which he cites for becoming incarnate, it inaugurates and brings to fruition much bigger things than this, although it by necessity includes this, for his disciples are with Him (as in Immanuel – God with us), and thereby should not be the recipients of God’s accusations as in Isaiah 1.
November 12, 2007 at 4:28 am
Hughstan – i appreciate all you write, but i do not share your pessimism as i perceive in your words.
I do not agree that we in the West must give up what we have that is ‘good’ in order that those in third world countries can have ‘more’.
I do not advocate greed but believe that it is foolish to ’setlle’ for less than you have currently – even if many live disgustingly ‘excessive’ lives compared to many non-westerners.
It is up to those who have to lift up those who have not – to teach and lead them – to build themselves up – not to make ourselves less by giving all that we worked for – We should lead but not ‘take advantage of’ for our own ‘greed’ as did those in our past..
Wouldn’t we all agree Folks?
love
November 12, 2007 at 7:29 am
Absolutely- Jesus’ proclamation includes both of these aspects if not more. As for his social proclamations, it’s not that he personally was to accomplish those goals (such as the release of prisoners) but he provided a way for us to do these things.“I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.”
And Love, although I think Hughstan was exhibiting the pessimism that can be cured with this new ‘liberating imagination’ I think he is pretty close on the mark when he talks about what real global justice will require. I am with you – we may need not part with what is ‘good’ in our lives but parting with what is excessive is most likely essential.
And even much of this excess is just pure dumb wastefulness; $250 sneakers that are worth $10 – $100 extra just to have a name brand sewn on our jackets – low prices for produce that merchants throw away (like bananas) – plastic and paper CD jewel cases – disposable batteries etc. etc.
Of course this might negatively affect the bottom line of some corporations. Some executive compensation packages may not be quite so out of proportion with their employees (if they decide to do the right thing and take the hit personally, rather than initiating lay offs.) It might also kick some others companies up the ladder.
November 12, 2007 at 10:49 am
“but he provided a way for us to do these things.“I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.”
And I would affirm that.
My concern is using texts which don’t say it out of context to say it. Like I said, that are other texts which say this.
We have all read people who used texts notably out of context. Often people will come up will come up with the right idea from the wrong text. There are many who see no harm in this. But if we, in order to say somethig biblical, use a passage which is not addressing that, then we will have a hard time critiquing acontextual missuse of passages. We must not be one of them, no matter how badly we want to say something.
And just asking:
“what is excessive is most likely essential.”
who determines this?
November 12, 2007 at 11:14 am
That line does sound confusing. What I meant was that it will be essential to part with what is excessive. I gave a few examples of what I thought would qualify as being excessive. Still, I think it most cases it should be up to individual conscience. That’s why I think the questions that McLaren, Stott and others are raising are important.;
November 13, 2007 at 12:34 am
there really is something to all of this, I totally agree. But convincing people that they don’t need the thing that they have takes wither brainwashing, or a change of heart. A real change of heart.
Siince we have both read so widely in matters of economics, and knowing that the general population isn’t going to be satisfied with less anytime soon, either we have to get busy brainwashing, or our economy needs to collapse and the world’s with it, or there need to be heart change. And although I would be suspicious of Brian, Stott certainly operates from a Christ centered point of view and the fact that real change in the individual conscience won’t happed without God.
I really liked the details on your “while some eat with their eyes post.” That was fantastic information on how our mess slowly accumulates.
November 13, 2007 at 7:28 am
Without a doubt a change of heart is necessary and this cannot be accomplished without the knowledge of Christ. McLaren cannot, nor can anyone else, effect this change. But please trust me when I tell you that McLaren is as centered in Christ as anyone I have ever read or met.
I was reminded of this last night watching that great movie “12 Angry Men”. Henry Fonda’s character reminded me of people like Brian; willing, no compelled by their conscience, to stand up and say “But what if the truth that we are all talking about looks a little different than what the majority has already decided unquestioningly?”. I think there is biblical precedence for those who question the current wisdom and even at times question God.
I don’t think it’s necessary to change everyone’s heart to realize some of these dreams. Think of the advent of democracy, abolition and then civil rights. The ‘yeast’ of the Word can be very contagious, even for those who have yet to exhibit the signs of infection.
November 13, 2007 at 11:02 am
Hi Christian, thanks for the reply,
“But please trust me when I tell you that McLaren is as centered in Christ as anyone I have ever read or met.”
I’m sorry Chris, I come to a considerably different conclusion derived from what I have read by him. I really think that he is much more centered on himself and his own ideas. But we will disagree on that.
There is a biblical precedent for attacking the conventionaly wisdom, but the attacks are based on the word of God, not on the conscience of the individual. And I cannot find such a consistent rule in McLaren. His exegesis is consistently ahistorical and subjective. He so often says the right thing using the wrong text, indicating that he is comfortable using passages out of context, as with the Jubilee example (presumably that is his) in order to say something which no Christian would dispute. His proof texting is exhausting. I find him to be an untrustworthy steward of God’s word. There is a reason that I regularily try to dissuade people from reading McLaren and most of those with whom he associates, that is, a notable lack of faithfulness to what the Word of God actually says. Yes, these are my opinions, but I feel that I can back them up, one at a time. No, I have not met him as you have, but his ideas, those that he feels are worthy of teaching and instructing in righteousness en masse, are visible for all to see.
I would ask your reference for questioning God productively. I hope 12 Angry Men isn’t an example for this. The idea that something inside of us would make us feel entitled to question God is very common in and out of the Body, but the idea that we would be right and God would be wrong makes that an extremely unsound comparision.
As well, “The ‘yeast’ of the Word can be very contagious, even for those who have yet to exhibit the signs of infection.” First of all interesting use of yeast. I know that you are going to find this nit picky, but leaven is not a good thing, it is metastisizing sin metaphorically speaking within the bible. I just don’t like using an illustration positvitely which is clearly negative in the bible. Secondly, I think there is reason to believe that historically speaking it was just as much the self-interest of those who were being appropriately coerced to do the right thing. Both with slavery and civil rights, partaking in it was made to be a greatly negative thing. In terms of the individual’s welfare, legistlation forced those who were fighting to maintain these Satanic institutions to acknowledge that it was no longer in their best interest to continue in them. It was by the word that the Spirit brought conviction to those who fought to abolish these institutions, but it was the mostly the pocketbook which convinced those who were actually doing it to stop.
Am I misunderstanding you Chris? I meant the last post to be more affirming than the substance of most of our ongoing discussion.
.
November 13, 2007 at 11:49 am
Only have a second or two right now;
First – the Jubilee reference was entirely mine. I still disagree with you on this. I don’t think your exegesis is conclusive. The Year of the Lord, whether it be one or three, is like a Jubilee for those who follow Jesus.
Secondly – concerning the yeast, consider this from Matthew 13;
33He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amount[a] of flour until it worked all through the dough.”
It’s not that leavening is sinful ( how could it be?). It is a metaphor for ‘attitude’ and a bad nor sinful attitude is to be avoided or it can infect the individual as well as the group. A good attitude, a Godly attitude is infectious as well, but in a good way.
November 13, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Hiya,
Firstly,
“is like a Jubilee for those who follow Jesus” I would agree that there are similarities, but again it is Christ who is performing the Jubilee in Luke 4, not us, which doesn’t fit the original application being made within this thread.
Secondly,
I stand corrected, you are right, I had forgotten about its positive illustrative use in this passage,
Thirdly, I did say it was a metaphor. I did not say that leavening is sinful, I only indicated that it is used in a one bad apple spoils the bunch manner in th evasy majority of its uses, passover, Matt 16, 1 Corinthians.
I would take issue (who’s surprised) with your appositional use of “Kingdom of Heaven” and our attitude. There is no way that they are at all commensurate in this context or any other. There are considerable circumstances cited within the passage which indicate that the effect of the Kingdom of Heaven is quite outside of our activity or even intent.
November 13, 2007 at 2:23 pm
No, I think “12 Angry Men ” could be a metaphor for taking on the theological status quo. Henry Fonda was the only man who truly held to the letter of the law as well as the spirit of the law. Everyone else was quite comfortable with relying upon their preconceptions, prejudices and personal agendas to encourage a guilty verdict. I think this could parallel someone using the whole bible to point out where thoroughly entrenched habits are obscuring the truth.
As far as questioning God I think of Abraham, Job, Moses and the Psalms. No one was smote by lightening when daring to challenge God. And the established church is hardly God like (or often Godly).
Please give me your take on the meaning of “Kingdom of Heaven”.
November 13, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Hiya,
“As far as questioning God I think of Abraham, Job, Moses and the Psalms. ”
And that is true, but they were all incorrect in their questions. All of them had to do with an (understandably as a result of the suffering and, to me, unimaginable temporal difficulty, I do not being judgment upon the fact of their questions in the least, in fact, the Psalms which speak to these questions, or fabulous Habakkuk, finally give in and then witness God’s glory) inability to see what God was doing, and not that they corrected God. They couldn’t see what God was doing.
Which leads to your great question so allow me to go on and on (what’s new)
The Kingdom of God/Heaven is God’s glory in action, it is his sovereign rule over all of time even when we can’t see it.
For instance in Matt 13:31-33 which you cited, the leaven is hidden. It’s growth goes nearly unnoticed, and procures growth quite apart from anything we do. It is the power of God acting. Another good example is Luke 8:10, in which the Kingdom of God is only visible and knowable to some, but others hear confusing stories. The bringing of the spiritual reality of God’s glory upon his sheep is also the best explanation for the prophecy in Luke 9:27 and Christ’s statment in Matt 12:28 and Luke 11:20. Or even though the term is not present, witness in John 2:1-12 the fact that though Jesus manifested his glory infront of the whole party, it was the disciples who are said to have believed. And though it would be unwise to make a strong argument from silence in this passage, with the above passages in mind, it makes sense to say that the Kingdom of God is visible to the Sheep. So many saw Christ doing miracles but they did not witness the Kingdom of God.
As with all good things which are laid out before us, social justice is a natural, fruitful outpooring of God’s glory being manifested. But that glory is a spiritual reality for those whom he has drawn, and though others see the work that is done, as the party goers witnessed the miracles, it is the disciples who can see the Kingdom of God.
I have a feeling there will be more to say about this.
November 13, 2007 at 6:36 pm
“the best explanation for the prophecy”
That is an overstatement. It is one of a couple of very good explanations.
Hyperbolic? Moi?
November 13, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I have no trouble with your explanation. How do you think I see the Kingdom? (Since I believe you have expressed some trouble with what this might be)
November 13, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Two reasons which I think, or thought, your concept of the Kingdom of God was something other than what can be pulled from Scripture:
1. You won’t like this, but you read a lot of Emergent literature, much of which is very close to Gustavo Gutierrez style liberation theology, just with less hard core commie talk.
and
2. Your quote above,
“Social compassion and action (the Kingdom) is not something that precipitates personal salvation”
fits the mould in part #1.
November 13, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Hmm. Not knowing Gustavo Gutierrez I am at a disadvantage. I am no fan of liberation theology, particularly their coziness with Marxism. That being said, if more Christians in power and the Church itself had done a better job following Jesus’ instructions perhaps we would not have had to deal with these specious revolutionary movements. I abhor communism and socialism and I keep saying this: if we actually followed Christ then we wouldn’t have allowed these ideas to germinate. But they are no worse than sweatshops, child labor, slavery , colonialism, – the soil that allowed the seeds of Marxism to germinate.
So you think that social compassion is something that does precipitate salvation? No, of course you don’t – so you must be objecting to my suggestion that the Kingdom would display strong elements of social compassion and action. Serving God implies that there must be some who need to be served.
And no, I didn’t like your first argument about emergent literature, not because I find it offensive, I just think you of all people could come up with a better argument. I spent a lot of time reading other religious literature (and still do) that would not be labeled ‘emergent’. That being said, I like the emergent concept just as I like the old ecumenical concept but only so far as how they work towards serving the Lord. It would be difficult for me to appreciate this paradigm and still hold to a more conservatively traditional ecclesiology.
November 13, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Sorry about the Guttierez reference, I really didn’t mean to be obscure, I meant to make a reference point for the style of theology to which I was referring, and I was hoping someone would just wikipedia it, perhaps that should have been me.
“That being said, if more Christians in power and the Church itself had done a better job following Jesus’ instructions perhaps we would not have had to deal with these specious revolutionary movements.” – truly, truly! to this and the rest of that paragraph.
“So you think that social compassion is something that does precipitate salvation?” – Actually I think being loving does generate a proper amount of interest, and this is one of many things upon which you place emphasis which are important and I am very glad that you are saying it. But generating interest and The Kingdom of God are two different things. For instance, Jeremiah, preaching for 30 years, no converts, in fact as far as any modern measuring stick regarding a successful ministry, an abject failure. Willow Creek would have sent him to a vocational guidance counselor. How is God greatly glorified in that? Because his glory being manifested is not generating interest, it is him being glorified.
The way the sentence I cited from you reads to me is not that you are saying that the Kingdom of God has these attributes but that those attributes ARE the Kingdom of God.
Which, by the sound of it, is not what you mean at all and are totally sold out to the “Worthy are you O Lord” bandwagon, whether the world thinks we rock or suck. Great.
“I didn’t like your first argument about emergent literature, not because I find it offensive, I just think you of all people could come up with a better argument.”
I can’t blame you for not liking it as an argument, because I really didn’t mean it to be one. It was only an observation looking at your reading list in conjunction with what felt to me like an equative proposition in the sentence i cited from you. Hanging out in the environment I do, if I meet someone who’s reading list has many of those books as recommended, (not just as important contemporary literature in which any responsible theologian must be well versed, I don’t mean avoid the books. I look at the necessitous exposure to that with which you have disagreement as the modern Matthew 16:13, who are people saying the Son of Man is) they have a political, socio-economic, theological point of view which I find, and I am not exaggerating, anti-Christian. There is a philosophical mindset to those whom I have met who would consider themselves “emergent” here at this school, and at home in Minnesota, which is absolutely nothing more than socialist Jesus, almost devoid of power, only a revolutionary cynic sage, apologies to JD Crossan. So, what appeared to be you saying that social compassion and action IS the Kingdom of God looked just like the type of religious philosophy with Christ as the trail blazer, a kind of John Brown for the abolition movement in the states, that I see so much of here. There is a guy who was here last year who occasionally wore a Che Guevera t-shirt who fit well into this mold, now pardon me but what kind of dumb a** thinks that a person can be a Christian leader and emulate Che?. Now mind you these are people who do this stuff all the time, they are quoting Schleiermacher and latin Vatican 2 from memory, and these are going to be the leaders in churches, and their idea of the gospel, Christ, our glorious God and His Kingdom are so human centered that it becomes a philosophy, just a bunch of “we oughta” ideas strung together, like you find at FC. We Should. Well, yes, but why? Let me also say that the tentacles sliding off of such ideas are frighteningly black, godless, and they are coming to a church and a seminary near you. This is why I am so fired up about this and why I misjudged what you were saying. You must admit, if you were indeed saying that the Kingdom of God IS social compassion and action, it would not be very far out of line to give you the number of the local Unitarian Universalist congregation.
Anyway
“conservatively traditional ecclesiology.”
Since you are breaking my paradigm a bit, and I think perhaps I am doing the same to you, could you unpack that a bit? I am EXTREMELY theologically conservative, but I don’t think that looks like what people think that looks like, so I am wondering what that concept means to you.
November 14, 2007 at 1:20 am
Don’t sweat Gutteriez – I didn’t mean that I didn’t know who he was ( or who is asscociated with) just that I never read him.
It’s too late fo me to get into right now but I would not pigeon hole someone like you or Buddy O or God’s Gal when I am referrin to ‘conservative ecclesiology’ (or theology for that matter, but I want to stress the distinction between the two).
I am referring to the ‘traditional’ picture of the typical congregational member, sitting in the pew, completely happy with whatever doctrine is handed them by authority, non-questioning in their way of seeing the church’s role in society nor their role in the church. Buddy and i have often talked about this sort of voyueristic way that most people see religion -much in the way that football fans see the NFL. Once a week there is a big game, which they may become very spirtual abouit (perhaps carrying through the week) in which they are participants, supporting just one team of many competing ones that all happen to follow the same rules and wear similar unifiorms.
It is not enough, I think, to accept the 80/20 rule; whereby you can expect 20% of the Church to be active, intentional and authentic in their faith and meanwhile exhort the others to participate. The way the church as evolved into what it has become today, chugging along like it has since the Reformation, is a paradigm that was never complete and is in fact losing headway in our culture. It is possible that a newer paradigm may at first result in a ’smaller’ but more committed church.
November 14, 2007 at 1:52 am
House churches are wonderful. My concern is always that it would become an idea driven items and leave the wrod generally speaking behind, not that having a denominational structure has helped the seven major mainlines.
As well, in that people should be expected to sit up and take notice, to not just accept what is being said, but to be good bereans and go after it, inspect it, turn it over and over to make sure that it is authentic, those who are kind of the leaders or pastors will be called upon to correct the strange ideas which inevitably come. This is very hard in quarters that close, so somebody with a real pair, like Buddy or you, needs to be fastidiously diligent in the word and understanding what is being said. Satan is always looking for the weak spot and if it is the house church’s inablility to maintain orthodoxywhat then there is no hope for it.
“chugging along like it has since the Reformation”
I know that this is perceived as the proper assessment, but two things must be said. 1. The alternative at the time was government run and enforced recreation.
2. When what occurred in the wake of Calvin, the amazing growth and vibrancy in Geneva, when one looks at what occured unders the English Reformers and Puritans like Owen, Bunyan, Baxter, Sibbes, and the Westminster crew, I would just like to note that when the whole word of God is taught and brought to bear upon people where they currently reside, God does astonishing things. Those who truly held to the word of God being the conduit for sanctification, Whitefield, Wesley, the multiple Mathers, Edwards, Anne Bradstreet, brought a change in society and how the world saw the church. As well, in the wake of these persons who saw themselves as preachers, God showed up and brought moral change to the positive which is inexplicable. This is the change we are looking for.
November 14, 2007 at 3:59 am
xxx J xxx
love
November 14, 2007 at 7:18 am
True. Two points; I agree completely with your analysis of the possible pitfalls of home church. I am not personally feel led to home church for preciisely the reasons you give.
Next; I didn’t mean to come across sounding that critical of the Reformation. I just meant that it was not a ‘complete’ picture of what church could be like and that it needed to evolve, which it has resisted, and what appears to be taking place now.
November 14, 2007 at 9:59 am
Who’s Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy requires some governing body. It could be argued that orthodoxy in many cases has trumped the Word and that is the problem with the current way of doing church.
If, however, the ‘governing body’ is the Word itself then a smaller group would have an easier time mantaining this purest form of orthodoxy.
Don’t knock it till you try it….
“not that having a denominational structure has helped the seven major mainlines”
Uh… yeah… quite an understatement.
November 14, 2007 at 10:16 am
In spite of my earlier comment (hastily made upon a hasty read of Jason’s) I do have to agree with Buddy on this point about orthodoxy. Sorry for being careless.
November 14, 2007 at 10:24 am
“Who’s Orthodoxy? Orthodoxy requires some governing body.”
When did you convert to Catholicism? Seriously, orthodoxy is by necessity a comprehensive view to the word, and I am certain that you and I agree on that. But orthodoxy, or that which runs parallel or is commensurate with God’s glory is not dependent on people. People may put this label on what they teach, but as I know you know, the label rarely matches the reality. As with, as long as it is there, Catholicism, and its extrabiblical incremental accumulation of other crap, is probably a perfect example of what both you and I are fighting against.
I am using the label in a way that is in pursuit of the reality, not in a way. I know that is what other people say as well, but that is why the individual pronouncements need to be scutiinized individually, not as a monolith.
However,
“If, however, the ‘governing body’ is the Word itself then a smaller group would have an easier time mantaining this purest form of orthodoxy.”
begs your own question regarding who’s orthodoxy. One of the Catholic church’s most often voiced concerns regarding Protestantism is that there will be an endless proliferation of false teaching. If the group is tiny, then there are less who have sufficient base by which to hold the leaders accountable for any midnight visions or puzzling worldly extrapolations to which they are given over. That can be a cult. However, as is easily observable, the bigger the system the more chefs are in the kitchen and it becomes a big sociological experiment in mob or shepherd/cheep mentality.
If there is a small group, orthodoxy can become non-ortho overnight. In a big group, the tide of public sentiment and invisible leaders are steering a ship, and it becomes almost impossible to turn around. I don’t think I really have to try it, one can look at the number of Protestant denominations, and look closely at what they teach, and figure out that any body of Christ is one or two steps away from being a philosophic, coffee klatch mutual admiration society. The perils of each idea are readily observable. Each system is only as good as it’s teachers and the diligence and steadfastness of its congregants/members/attendees. Neither is superior, I think.
November 14, 2007 at 10:39 am
“I do have to agree with Buddy on this point about orthodoxy. Sorry for being careless.”
I don’t think it is careless at all. I think you and I going back and forth inspecting every square inch of a passage and desiring that it be in our heart that we would teach it and live it, IS orthodoxy. And I also believe that most passages with significant theological impact can be defended. Though quite often some ancillary details differ, much of the time the core is there.
Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s keep doing what we’re doing and see what the word has to say about it.
November 14, 2007 at 10:41 am
Don’t forget prayer… [many often do]
Absolutely.
The Word itself. Everything is contained there. Goes back to my view of a “clear reading” of the text…. I started an article about that, I should finish… No need for interpretation, just read what it says (in prayer and the Spirit).
November 14, 2007 at 10:47 am
Don’t forget prayer… [many often do]
me, this morning, I need a lot more sleep.
November 14, 2007 at 10:51 am
It is interesting how this has come to be the case. Which has helped me to see that, in spite of some of the more outrageous additions to their orthodoxy, there is still much of value within their tradition. Just as there is value among most of the protestant traditions. It helps to keep the conversation going among everyone. For example, we have seen the RC make some steps towards a more gradual reformation of their own.
Don’t forget prayer… [many often do]
One of those would be me. Thanks for the reminder.
November 14, 2007 at 11:01 am
Just for the fun of it, here is a link to my church.
It is wonderful.
http://www.eastgloucester.org/
November 14, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Yes, it looks like you are part of fine community there. Thanks.