Here’s a quote by Pete Rollins up in Ireland who is doing some great things with his group called IKON. They are going to be at GreenBelt this coming year. Check them out: http://peterrollins.net/

We must avoid confusion between remaining silent and saying nothing. For while the former is passive the latter is active. By saying nothing we endeavour to speak of that which manifests in our world as a no-thing, as an absolute mystery which infuses our world with light and life.
To undergo and then speak of that which is not a thing but which transforms our relationship with all things… this is a sacred and subversive vocation.

A couple of weeks ago, Peter Rollins tweeted a parable over the course of three days. His parable was, like most everything else he writes, simply brilliant (especially the way he delivered it via twitter). If you put all of the tweets together, the parable goes like this:

There was once a poor and compassionate woman who lived in one of the world’s largest cities. She was a kind and tender lady who laboured tirelessly with the unloved and unwanted. She was also a skilled painter and would subsidise her work by sketching portraits of wealthy tourists in their fine robes. At night she would chat with strangers in the local tavern or relax with friends in her modest home at the edge of the city. Her life continued in this way for many years, however, on her thirtieth birthday she made an incredible discovery. She found that she had been miraculously bestowed with an astonishing gift. For no apparent reason she could now perform supernatural feats of the sort she had only heard of in the fables of old.

One word from her lips could generate breathtaking wealth and a mere thought could turn her dwelling into a golden palace. People would travel thousands of miles just to sit in her presence, watch what she could do and learn from her. Soon even those in power began to take note of this miracle worker, and were awed by her immense power. Her divine gift captivated everyone she met and caused many to revere her as a god. Yet, throughout her entire life, not one person ever learned of her supernatural powers; for never once did she use them.

She could have taken herself out of poverty in an instant or gained any possession in the blink of an eye. Yet she had no desire to do so for she already loved her life and saw it as already infused with overwhelming beauty. People were in awe of her because she was able to love without limit, forgive without reserve and live without fear. The rich were so poor that they longed to be in the presence of one who could live meaningfully in a world that seemed devoid of meaning. To them she was nothing less than a living testimony that life before death was possible. This woman’s very existence was her miracle and her example was her divine gift to humanity.

I shared this parable at church, and highlighted the ways that it turns the idea of a miracle on its head. So often, it seems, we look to big, mighty, magical displays of power as that which is truly ’supernatural’ or miraculous, e.g. the parting of the Red Sea, Jesus walking on water, fire coming down from the heavens, etc. etc. etc. But what of the miracle of love? of forgiveness? of living simply? In the midst of a society in which we are so trapped and conditioned by greed, consumption, violence, etc., is not being freed from such captivity the most wonderful miracle of all, and the miracle for which we daily pray and weep? Isn’t this the kind of freedom displayed on the cross? by the widow who gave away her last two coins? by the prodigal father who forgave unconditionally? Is this not a display of the crazy, foolish, transformative, upside-down kind of kingdom that is madder than anything Lewis Carroll ever dreamed of?

A few days later I was told that love and forgiveness are nice and all, but that sooner or later I need to get around to talking about “real” miracles. But isn’t this what I’ve been trying to do all along?

Too often we carry with us little more than our own assumptions.  We have assumptions about the belief systems of others, and we never get past those assumptions.  But when will we listen?  When will we have the courage and humility to listen to others, and in the process learn much about them as well as about ourselves.  That is what the following short article by Peter Rollins is about.

http://peterrollins.net/blog/?p=697

One of the sweet things about being an author and a blogger is that I’m always learning about wonderful new (and just “new to me”) books, often from friends of mine, either folks I know in person or acquaintances that I have found through Facebook. So this morning I thought I’d highlight a few of these books, books which I think readers of this blog will enjoy. Actually, I myself have not yet read any of these books (!), but I have at least looked at them all, and they all look pretty juicy.

First, here are two books from folks here in the Atlanta area. In neither case is my friend the author, but with Planet of Grace my friend James Stephen Behrens provided the photographic illustrations to accompany Bernadette McCarver Snyder’s text; and this recently issued edition of The Cloud of Unknowing with the Book of Privy Counsel was translated by local scholar Carmen Acevedo Butcher. My connection to both of these persons comes from the Monastery of the Holy Spirit: Father James is one of the monks at the monastery, and Carmen I met when she came to the Abbey Store to buy some fudge! Planet of Grace is all about the spirituality of life embedded in the earth (“biosphere one”), with lovely photographs all taken on the monastery grounds. The Cloud needs no introduction to readers of this blog, as it is one of the towering masterpieces of English mysticism (and Christian mysticism in general).

Now for a few books from my online friends, only one of whom I have met face to face, and he only briefly. Theology of Wonder is the oldest book on this list, having been published in 1999, it is by the Orthodox Bishop, Seraphim Sigrist. It consists of a series of short meditations “where Arthurian legend, Russian iconography, Jewish wisdom and Eucharistic community come together in a stirring intimation of the world seen whole,” in the words of reviewer Michael Allison. The Orthodox Heretic is by the bad boy of emergence Christianity, Peter Rollins, in which he (according to the blurb on the back of the book) “presents a vision of faith that has little regard for the institutions of Christendom. His uncompromising critique of religion, while often unsettling, is infused with a deep and abiding love for what it means to genuinely follow Christ.” Hmmm — I don’t know, but based on how wonderful his first two books were, I’m willing to bet it will be a pretty sweet read; it also consists of a series of short parables and tales. Finally, Diana Butler Bass’ A People’s History of Christianity approaches church history with the same kind of iconoclastic “tell the story from the bottom up” methodology that Howard Zinn used in his classic A People’s History of the United States. Not surprisingly, Butler Bass gives far more air time to the mystics than most conventional church historians ever bother to do. Might be because she is interested in how ordinary Christians actually struggled to live out the gospel. What a radical idea!

So there you go. Happy reading…

Peter Rollins talk about the leader who reject leadership. This is Christian leadership. The leader who always gives the decision back, never willing to be the leader.

We cannot get around celebrities, if with celebrities we mean those known by many. People are not connected in a random network (see explanation of random and scale-free networks in the beginning on this well-known article by Dwight Friesen), where everyone is connected to a similar amount of people. This becomes even less so when one a one-way connection is needed (such as with twitter, where you can follow someone without them following you, and different from facebook, where both need to confirm before they are friends).

Celebrities require such a one-way connection. And we will always have some people that are more well-known than others. But the world in which we live has created a culture where celebrity is being fed with meaning. Now the popularity of this person gives them authority. Authority to make truth-claims which then need to be followed simply because of the celebrity which said this (see how we quote celebrities sometimes). Authority to be above the system, to be untouchable (some of this came to the surface during the recent Polanski/Hollywood affair).

The Christian is part of a tradition in which texts such as these are important:

What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

Paul the Apostle, 1 Corintians 1:12-13

Also texts such as these:

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good– except God alone.

Jesus in the Gospel according to Mark, 10:17-18

The Christian celebrity, meaning the one who is known by more people within the system of human relations, always rejects the celebrity status that come with the connection, the status which provides authority or privilege in any way on the basis of being a celebrity. It is impossible to be a celebrity, in my second definition of celebrity, and in line with the teachings of Jesus as they are reported in the gospels.

Integral musician, actor and all-around hilarious guy Stuart Davis has just filmed a short commercial hawking the latest in potable ancient-future altered states of (higher) consciousness – Godka, or psilocybin-infused vodka.

!!!

Absinthe what?

I wonder if he’s met our pals John Crowder and Benjamin Dunn – or John Scotland and Emerge Wales and Red Letters crew, for that matter?

Have you missed John since my interview with him last year? He’s YouTubing up a storm…here’s one of the latest, on ’spiritual exercises’…

In a perfect world, John Crowder and Stuart Davis would get along like gangbusters. Stuart does for sex – on his bleeding-edge Sex, God, and Rock & Roll – what John does for drug culture.

If you missed it last year, here’s my six-parter looking at the Pentecostal/charismatic avant-garde, kicking off with Charismatic Chaos or (Holy) Spirited Deconstruction?

…and leading into a five-parter dialogue with Mr. John Crowder himself:

Part I

Part II

Part III

Part IV

Part V

Good times.

What do you think of spirituality and altered states of consciousness? What I’m thinking these days is inspired by and summed up nicely in a piece entitled Mystical Experience or Unitive Seeing? by integral Christian contemplative Cynthia Bourgeault, in Richard Rohr’s Radical Grace magazine. Money quote (though I could easily take the highlighter of my life and highest aspirations to the entire article):

The word “mystical” is almost always immediately coupled with the word “experience,” and a mystical experience becomes something that you have—or want to have, anyway. It becomes a sign of God’s special favor—a kind of spiritual “peak experience”—and circumstances promising to deliver that experience are eagerly sought after: from sacred chanting and Eucharistic devotion to Sufi whirling, solitude in the desert, or peyote. In the usual way of looking at things, it is an altered state of consciousness, ecstatic, something that takes you far beyond your usual self, a straight shot into divine consciousness.

What’s so bad about that?

Well, nothing, really. [Mike's note: And I'd want to emphasize that I agree 100% - there's nothing wrong with ecstasy and spiritual peak experiences! In fact, I could really use one right now...John, if you're reading this, could you email me a toke of the Holy Ghost? I'd like Jesus on the mainline, please!] But from the point of view of real spiritual growth, it’s an immature state— a “state” rather than a “stage,” in the helpful language of Ken Wilber. A state is a place you go to; a stage is a place you come from: integrated and mature spiritual experience. It’s true that a mystical experience can indeed be a sneak preview of how the universe looks from the point of view of non-dual consciousness. And it’s true that this consciousness does indeed operate at a higher level of vibrational intensity, which at first can overwhelm our normal cognitve systems. But the point is not to squander this infusion of energy on bliss trips, but to learn to contain it within a quiet and spacious consciousness and allow it to permanently bring about a shift in our operating system, so that unitive (or non-dual) perception becomes our ordinary, and completely normal mode of perception.

Amen and amen. I’ll drink to that.

McLaren gets it right on the the question of “Does Islam and Christianity worship the same God?” and tags a quote from that heretic C.S. Lewis.

Peter Rollins writes a brilliantly cryptic piece here on his belief in god, his disbelief in god, and how one day he hopes to believe in god.  Describing his recent interview with Rollins, renowned UK journalist William Crawley, perfectly describing why I love Rollins, writes :

“I was expecting conversation, but what emerged (sorry …) was closer to a visit I might have made to a Sufi wise-man. I would ask a question, like, “Do you believe in God?”, and Peter’s answer would involve saying “Yes and No”, followed by a parable, an illustration, a story, or a cryptic quotation.”

What’s better than a Christianist movement to adopt a liberal for prayer that they may convert to the true god of the Republicans?  How about a revised Bible with all the liberal stuff cut out??

I’m a big fan of graffiti artist Banksy.  He paints his politics from London to the West Bank, always progressive, always disruptive, always hopeful.  HT to Peter Rollins on posting these videos from from a similarly anonymous christian anarchist (who by denying himself credit is defying the temptation to build an empire of religious fame off a good message):

In light of the message @ WBCC this morning, we thought we’d re-share a beautiful parable by Peter Rollins that we read a few weeks ago.  THE GREAT MISFORTUNE  looks more directly at how we can walk alongside those in suffering, rather than what our answer should be.  Enjoy:

THE GREAT MISFORTUNE (from The Orthodox Heretic)

There was once an old man named Benoni who had known great misfortune through life, having lost his wife and children to poverty, disease, and war. The many lines on his face betrayed his pain, and his heart was filled with sorrow and regret. Indeed he barely had the strength to carry on.

But there was one who had drawn alongside him in his sorrow. His comforter was the village blacksmith, a strong but caring man who exhibited a gentle, humble, and charitable way of life. People knew very little about this blacksmith, as he was a quiet man who had moved into the town only a few years before. Yet he was well liked by the community and would often be found sitting on the porch of his workshop, enjoying the midday sun and passing the time by engaging strangers in conversation. His face was strong and full of character, betraying both a depth of spirit and a breadth of experience. But it was also a kindly face that was set alight by his compassionate smile.

When Benoni lost his first child, the blacksmith called round to his home, put his hand on Benoni’s shoulder and with great affection said, “I am so sorry that you have suffered this grave misfortune. If you will allow me, I would like to stand with you at this time of hardship.”

Ever since this first encounter the blacksmith had called round to Benoni’s house most evenings, sometimes to sit and chat, sometimes to listen, and sometimes simply to leave food and other provisions. As each new calamity befell Benoni, the blacksmith would be there to speak and cry with.

One day when Benoni was particularly depressed he went to visit a pastor who lived in the heart of the city, so as to talk through what had taken place over the traumatic years and try to make sense of it. The pastor listened to what Benoni had to say and then, after a little thought replied, “Well my son, in order for great fortune to take place one must first suffer great misfortune. The suffering you have faced is the price that has had to be extracted for strength of character, and a spirit forged in the fires of hell.”

So Benoni retuned to his home alone, lit a fire in an attempt to take away the evening’s chill, and contemplated the words of the ministry. Perhaps he is right, thought Benoni, maybe I should take some comfort from these words. But it is cold, I am alone, and words can offer no shoulder to rest on.

Just then the blacksmith knocked on the door and Benoni, as always welcomed him in. As they sat together they drank whiskey and talked long into the night. That evening Benoni shared the words of the pastor with his friend, adding, “Perhaps now that I have been given these words to comfort me, you no longer need to visit as you have done this last year.”

The blacksmith simply looked at the floor for a few moments and then replied, “My dear friend, if what the elder has said is true then I am needed all the more, for if you had to suffer such great misfortune in order to find strength of character and wealth of spirit, then this is in itself a great misfortune.”

And so they sat late into the night bringing comfort and warmth to each other through the sharing of their lives.

I was having coffee with an old school friend yesterday. He was in the local Charismatic church back then, I was in the local Dutch Reformed church back then. He is still in the same congregation, but even back then they were slowly moving away from the charismatic label and rather adopting the label evangelical, and I have been moving closer to… I’m not always sure what, but I like much of the emerging conversation.

He bemoans the fact that Americans have annexed the evangelical terminology, and complains about the way people misunderstands evangelicalism. So I asked him what exactly evangelical means. Without any hesitation he went on to tell me that there is no central creed. Not Lausanne. Not the Westminster confession (although, according to him, that one is the most common in the world where he moves around).

He continues to tell me that being evangelical is mainly about shared relationships. It’s people who journey together.

Sound familiar? Same thing those who associate with emerging thoughts would say.

Maybe there is more of a realization that we don’t have a common theology than we might think. Maybe many continue in the tradition they are not because they agree, but because they find community, friendship, in this tradition. So they’d rather disagree and remain in community.

Evangelicals would probably consider my friend to be in line with evangelical theology, but he wouldn’t make that a prerequisite to be part of the evangelical community, if I understand him correctly.

I’ve been listening to the 2007 Emergent Theological Conversation with Jack Caputo and Richard Kearney over the past few days, and the story of Derrida and Riccoeur, and how their personal relationship impacted they way they talked philosophy really touched me. This provides for true ecumenical conversations, where the relationship gets priority over the idea.

Not so easy, I agree. Peter Rollins points to this in second paragraph of this post, but maybe what we should be looking for is the idea which would give relationships priority over ideology or theology. Caputo’s love of God in chapter 1 of On Religion maybe?

Here is part 2 of the conversation.  Please feel free to leave feedback or comments.  Agree/Disagree?

Rollins and Tickle discuss Emergent Christianity.  Rollins makes an interesting point of the need for a push back from leaders in the church so as to create a priesthood among all believers.  This is Part 1/3.  I will try to put other parts over the next couple of weeks.  Enjoy-and I invite feedback and comments.

Recent discussions about the church have raised the question of the relation of the kingdom of God that Jesus preached to the “church” that those who support the institutional church, preach (for example, Bill Kinnon says this in a recent book review: “…since DeYoung/Kluck resist the Kingdom of God arguments of their emergent targets, it’s best to ignore the fact that (according to my friend, Jonathan Brink) the word church only appears twice in the Gospels, whilst the word kingdom appears 116 times. We wouldn’t want Jesus’ words to screw up our carefully crafted arguments, now would we.”).

A while back I left a comment on Craig Carter’s blog summarizing my basic thoughts on the nature of the kingdom of God, and I thought a positive thesis on the kingdom might be interesting enough for discussion, so I’m going to repost it here with some editing and expansion:

Firstly, the kingdom of God is most basically “the range of God’s effective will” (Dallas Willard’s definition), or more biblically, wherever “God’s will is done”.

So:

1. Jesus/God are the kingdom in themselves, since they control themselves.
2. In a sense, given the doctrine of providence, everything in history is in “the kingdom of God”. This is reflected in the Psalms and the OT Prophets. In this case, something being under God’s will does not entail his moral approbation of it (God uses evil for good without approving it).
3. The apostles/prophets, as Christ’s royal ambassadors (and by implication, their writings which are the scriptures), infallibly obey his will insofar as they are carrying out their office, so that their official acts (including the scriptures) are complete expressions of the kingdom of God. They must be completely obeyed as Christ is obeyed.
4. The apostles are the foundation of the church, which is therefore also an extension of Christ’s will. As an institution set up by Christ, it is the kingdom in an objective sense (so, when the sacraments and word are properly preached, etc.). But insofar as it can defy its own nature/constitution, it can fail to be the kingdom in its subjective behaviour (when discipline fails). One could perhaps state this differently: preaching, baptism, the Lord’s supper, worship, prayer, church discipline, and the charismata are the kingdom on earth, and insofar as they are present, or absent, or deformed, the kingdom is present/absent/deformed to that degree. Church discipline should also be understood as inclusive of discipleship (which is church “self-discipline”). Another important point that needs clarification here is what is part of the “essence” of the church, such that without it the church would not be present at all, and what is part of the “well being” of the church. Given the kinds of churches that Paul addresses as churches, it would seem that perfect behaviour or doctrine among the congregation in general is not a requirement. This is the point that led the magisterial Protestants to locate the essence of the church in the correct doctrine (on essential matters!) and sacramental practice of the clergy. We may want to dispute this, but we have to come up with an explanation for the same data they were responding to, and I’m not sure there’s a better one. Any explanation will also have to take into account the things that the prophets/apostles/Jesus say requires exclusion from the kingdom, including both doctrines and practices.
5. As the last point implies, the clergy, which share the fallibility of the church, were instituted to have slightly more authority (and therefore responsibility) than the lay, but can ultimately be corrected by laypersons on the basis of what the apostles taught.
6. Non-Christian society, insofar as it is influenced by the church, can take on kingdom-like features, so in a sense the kingdom can be thought of as any situation where people are obedient to God/Christ. On the other hand, insofar as the world is, by definition, that which is under the sway of Satan, it is by definition the kingdom/city of man, not the kingdom of God.
7. The state can become/express the kingdom insofar as it obeys Christ’s/God’s commands for its special task, rendering judgment for the society which consists of both Christians and non-Christians.
8. With regards to “the powers and principalities,” insofar as Christ has subdued a particular power, then just that far the kingdom has also been extended in the spiritual realm.
9. The kingdom of God is also heaven (currently), as mentioned in the Lord’s prayer. Angels as heavenly ministers would also be agents of the kingdom.
10. This entire age of the church is the kingdom of Christ because Christ is currently in control of it on a providential level.
11. The consummation/eternity future is the kingdom of God in the fullest sense, where everything is obedient to God both providentially and morally.

*****

This already complicated picture leaves out an important biblical teaching: the presence of God’s kingdom in the Old Testament. The simplest way to summarize what the OT teaches about the kingdom would be to say that each of the covenants were Suzerain treaty covenants, covenants that extended the kingdoms of Suzerains/Caesars/Tsars over lesser vassal-kingdoms. These covenants were the Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and Restoration (with Gentile emperors as divinely-appointed rulers) covenants, along with the liminal period of the exile, which was itself an expression of the sanctions of the Mosaic and Davidic covenants. The New Testament/covenant theme of the “kingdom of God” is only picking up on this theme and the explicit OT prophecies that in the future, beyond even the Restoration period, there would be a greater expression in history (prior to the eschaton) of God’s will on earth, in the presence of a renewed Israel, a saved/judged Gentile world, a Messiah along with a modified cult/law, and an outpoured Holy Spirit.

Review Part 1: Atonement.

Review, Part 2: Hell.

——–

Final thoughts.  The book’s been a big hit in the anti/emergent literature subcultures, leveling it to the category of “one of those books you should read just to be aware of what’s being said, if for no other reason.”  But people ask what I liked about the book. I actually do have such a list.

Pros and Cautions I found helpful for the emergent conversation:

-Be the action you say you believe. A lot of people on one side tell emergents they need to do more theology, while those on the other say “you’re just a bunch of young white guys talking theology.  Get out there and practice what you idealize.”  So while if you’re getting criticism from both sides then it often means you’re doing something right, take note: faith without works is dead.

-Don’t be a rebel, and don’t be arrogant.  Which is easy to be when you think you know more than everyone.  But then you’re brash and nobody will listen to you anyways.  There’s always something to tear down, but humility is the key to winning people.

-Don’t just be a new Left.  A common trend with emergents is having been raised in a conservative home and church (and as a voting block for a political party).  But going Left as a reaction to being right is just as lame as being Right because you think the left is foolish.  The church has long been in bed with the Republican party, but hopping into bed with the Democratic party just because you think you’ve seen the light that your parents or church were blind to is just as sinful.  To me, the drive should be to become post-Left/Right.  And be generous while you are being orthodox.

-It’s popular to search for God, but not so cool to find Him.  Mystery and philo/theological humility is huge, but mystery and ambiguity for there own sakes can lean toward sloppy theology or flat-out confusion.  Be careful not to take too much of a good thing.  And be ok with admitting that, yes, I actually am quite sure of a lot of theological positions which I tend to remain vague on because I fear the reaction from people. That’s something which I, because of flack I’ve taken in a couple of different church settings before, struggle with a lot.

Now for a few thoughts I scribbled down while reading, thoughts that I wished very much I could call up and talk to DeYoung and Kluck about:

- I’m still not sure why DeYoung and Kluck feel, as the title suggests, that they should have been emergents.  Is it because they are youngish and Christian?  Is that their take- that it’s purely a conversation of youngish idealists thinking out of youthful ignorance?  I can’t tell for sure, because they didn’t really explain the title all too well.  But if this view of emergents is, in fact, their characterization, then that could be very telling of the undergirding philosophy behind the book.

-Emergents don’t reject knowledge or real truth- that is while they generally read so prolifically. I think this is a lot easier to see than people make it.  Emergents genuinely are searching for truth, but they generally have a lot more informed perspective on the word Truth, largely because of the education they are packing behind those ears (and yes, it is true that the average emergent generally tends to be much more educated theologically than their average Evangelical counterpart, hence much of the disconnect).

-emergents don’t reject teaching or preaching- that’s why podcasting and reading and blogging have taken off and driven much of the conversation.  If they aren’t getting stretching teaching at home, they go home and subscribe to 20 pastors from around to globe to meet that need.  I’m what I like to call a podcast-whore, and learning from a global community of pastors, writers, and leaders has given enormous fuel to my spirituality.

-on Hell: it really, it isn’t a clear subject in scripture (hence the debate throughout the ages), so please don’t throw the heresy card just because someone knows enough to be uncertain.

-It’s not that “social action gets priority over the Gospel.”  Instead, emergents see social action as part of the Gospel.  If you care for the poor, you really aren’t leaving Jesus behind.

-“Emergents don’t care about theology,” is a bad way to confess “Actually, I’ve just never heard it put that way before.”

-When criticizing Emergent Village, please quit quoting Piper,  Driscoll, Al Mohler or D.A. Carson.  I don’t know what else to say; they just don’t get EV and show little desire to.  Quote Scott McKnight or others that are inside or show understanding of it.  Quoting Carson makes me instantly think “Oh, you mean that guy that’s never even talked to an emergent?”  Consulting with Mohler for perspectives on emergents is like consulting with Sarah Palin for advice on… newspapers.

-If your religion is all about dying well, you may be a gnostic.  It is very telling that DeYoung feels (p.120) that if your faith doesn’t get you into heaven, then it’s irrelevant.  I’m not saying this is an important question, but it is very telling when this is the primary lens by which you see the world of faith and philosophy.

-If you quote someone like McLaren, who uses profuse hyperbole throughout, don’t pretend like a two sentence quote actually communicates his belief on something.  In fact, don’t do that with anyone, ever.

-Thank you for parroting Driscoll’s slander that Emergent Village promotes sexual promiscuity.  I’m still not sure how that even started.

-DeYoung and Kluck seem in way over their heads with Peter Rollins.  I’ll admit, he can be a hard writer to grasp, but I got the feeling they were merely looking for things to criticize without even trying to understand.  He’s a big name, and not that much easier to read that the brilliant philosophy giants like Derrida and Levinas.  You really have to let the writing work on you, and be willing to read the same page five times over.  If you don’t get it at all, then better to leave it alone than to criticize in ignorance of his point.

-DeYoung mistakes a lack of heavy criticism of certain sins for “tolerance of sin.”  And, of course, he only seems to care about certain sins here.  You know the ones; they are always the same.

-My question: is Emergent just getting attacked because it’s becoming a big thing in the broader, global Christianity?  Would the Neo-Calvinist camp’s attacks be the same against another group if there was a resurgence of Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, the Coptic’s, etc.?  I suspect so.

-Do we usually attack theology in person the way we lash out at writers behind the safety of a book’s page? Why the difference in attack?  Because it looks easier to attack when you aren’t face-to-face.  Is any of this helpful?  Intellectual disagreement is a good thing that, quite honestly, this whole conversation needs more of.  But misrepresentation and slander only set emergents up for pain and ostrasization, furthering the “us” and “them” divide in a faith community.

-I think the strong artistic correlation with Emergent probably says something about who “gets it” and who is left saying “that’s stupid.”  You may simply just not have the type of mind that sees things this way.  Note>> I’m not saying this is a bad thing, but it’s worth noting.  It really doesn’t surprise me that these two guys, given their background, don’t get into the philosophical rhetoric.  Not trying to be insulting, just honest. (Weak analogy alert) I don’t understand sports at all (no, I seriously could not name a single NFL team that Kluck spends all day writing about at ESPN; I just don’t care), but you won’t see me trying to pretend like I do and bring the hell-bound heresy charge against people who are really into it and think this team or that team is going all the way this year.  That would be beyond ridiculous, and that’s because it’s just imprudent to criticize what you don’t know or try to understand.  If only we applied that understanding to conversations that matter.

-DeYoung, when you say we should avoid ambiguity, that the Apostles we’re vague when giving answers, I think Good thing too, because if the Apostles had ever been vague, then there might be all sorts of different interpretations of Scripture out there.  Er… wait…

—–

For those of you who have asked for a recommended reading for an introduction to the emergent church conversation:

-For a fantastic introduction that may change your life, as well as a simple primer for what postmodern Christianity may look like:  A New Kind of Christian, by Brian McLaren.

-For a very short synopsis of the broader, global Emergence we are seeing in Religion/Culture/Politics/Economics/Etc., read The Great Emergence, by Phyllis Tickle.

-For a history: The New Christians, by Tony Jones.

-For a postmodern philosophical and theological primer: How (Not) To Speak of God by Peter Rollins.

A long time ago in an ancient kingdom, the young peasant decided one day to go throw rocks at the king’s castle.

As the young peasant was walking along the street with an angry look on his face, an old fellow with a big bushy mustache and a thick German accent came up to the young lad with an inquisitive look upon his face.

“And where might you be going?” asked the old man.

“I am heading to the castle to throw rocks at the king’s windows.”

“And why might you want to do that?”

“What concern of yours is it old man?” the young peasant replied.

“Ah, have you not heard of me? I am the greatest spectacle this town has ever seen. My name is Zarathustra. Many find me crazy. Many others hate me. But I hold out hope that one day someone will grasp my teachings. Until then, it is my curse to be mocked – ever since I came down the mountain to enlighten this…this…herd I have had nothing but mockery!” Zarathustra let out a frustrated laugh that made the young peasant think that this man was truly mad. “Now, let us walk to the castle to throw stones at the windows and along the way tell me why you have such a desire.”

As they walked along the path, the young peasant opened up to Zarathustra and began to tell him why he desired to throw rocks at the king’s castle. The peasant said it all began when his farm was burned to the ground five years ago. He had just inherited it from his father and was beginning to make a profit on the land when raiders from the underworld burned his crop to the ground. The king did not send an army for vengeance; in fact, the peasant theorized there was no army at all. This had happened to other farmers as well – so if there was an army, why weren’t they fighting?

The second incident that raised the ire of the young peasant was that the local town – which was supposedly under the sovereignty of the king – was left lawless. People were left to fend for themselves or to form police forces. This, however, did not stop the constant fighting, brawling, rapes, and even murders. It seemed that if the king were sovereign over such a town, certainly he would intervene to stop such lawlessness.

The third and final incident was when the young peasant passed a group of starving orphans. These children had not eaten for days, but the king’s generosity was no where to be found. The young peasant decided that the king must be responsible for these evils.

“I plan to throw a rock for each evil act I witnessed.” the young peasant said with determination.

“Ah, we shall see.” Zarathustra replied with a smile on his face.

As they walked along, the young peasant saw the gates of the castle, but did not see the tops of the castle. That is odd, he thought to himself. As they approached the gates and he peered in, he saw that there was no castle, just an empty field. What’s more is he saw there were no rocks to throw.

“I…I don’t understand…”

“Would you like me to explain this to you, or would you rather wallow in your disbelief?” Zarathustra asked almost triumphantly.

“Please…explain.”

“There is no king. The king is dead and we have killed him; we murderers of murderers. I do not mean that at some point the king existed, that we rounded him up and beheaded him and then burnt his castle; you see, that’s the great wonder, the king never existed!“

“But why would people say a king is there?” cried the young peasant.

“Don’t you see young fool? How many edicts have been passed in the name of the king? How many lords and dukes have become richer because of what they have done in the name of the king? How many other lords and dukes, because of how the nobility acted toward the king’s supposed edicts, have been overthrown by the peasantry?

That is why the “king” is there. The “king” exists solely for the purpose of people exerting their own wills. The people need such a justification.”

“But,” the young man sadly interjected. “Why not create a castle? Why not make a fake one?”

“For what reason? You cannot make what cannot exist. Do you see the beauty of this position? The Monarchists are hard pressed to answer how a good and sovereign king can exist, but evil persists within his borders. Yet, when you realize there is no king, the problem goes away.” Zarathusra said with a smile.

“No! It’s not that simple! Yes, it is hard to explain why a good king would allow destruction in his kingdom, but at least you still have a king to turn to! After seeing that there is no king, I have no grievances! I can throw no rocks! My anger over what I have seen means nothing! I have only a field of grass to answer to, a field of nothingness…” wept the peasant.

“How can I live like this?” the peasant asked after he had finished sobbing.

“If you do not like children starving, then take food from the glutton and give it to the famished. If you do not like barbarians raiding your farm, then kill the barbarians. If you do not like lawlessness, then kill the lawless.”

“But…I am a young man. I am no match for seasoned warriors.” said the distraught peasant.

“Then you must cunningly convince such people that your view of the world is superior and preferable to their view of the world. You must use your wits peasant!” Zarathustra said mockingly.

“I am but a poor peasant. I have never been educated! I have no wits, nor am I cunning.”

“Then you must deal with such a fate. If you cannot will to power your ethical views, then your ethical views do no matter. There is no king, there is no castle, and there are no stones. Any rage you feel toward what you perceive as an injustice has no more moral weight than your like of meat or the type of mattress you like to sleep on.”

“This is a nightmare! This can’t be reality! Such a world has no good or evil; how can such a world exist?” the peasant said, breaking into tears again.

Zarathustra grinned darkly, knowing he was to apply the final blow. “There are no nightmares. There are no dreams. There are simply states of consciousness. There is no good. There is no evil. There are simply acts.

Nature does not care for you. The fire that warms you and cooks your food, or it can take away all your possessions or burn you. Whether it harms you or helps you, it is indifferent. Such is nature – that is the world you have come to realize exists. There is no king to blame, no castle to deface, and no stones to throw. Likewise, there is no king to fix these problems, no solution to the problems, no place of shelter from the problems, and there are no legitimate grievances. These ‘problems’ simply are events that occur, they are not good, they are not bad, they simply are. This is the world without the king.”

“We have too many Christians discussing the evils of global corporations while sitting in Starbucks, and they don’t see the irony”  -Peter Rollins

My wife and I are trying to explore a few intentional steps to live more simply and sustainably.  We are eating more simply, using less energy, biking where we can to cut fuel usage.  It’s been a blessing so far.  I live in the Hillcrest district of Little rock, and I love it.  I’ve been biking more, and feeling the need for caffeine, I rode to The Station this morning to supplement my addiction.  The Station is a small grocery/café that sells all organic and/or locally grown products.  And while I love me some Starbucks, the “green” in me was feeling the need to tap a locally owned business today.  The coffee is better, anyways.  It got me thinking.

I recently finished this picture of Trendy Guy with his trendy skinny jeans talking on his trendy cell phone while pumping gas into his trendy, petroleum-guzzling SUV.  He is starring at African Soldier Child who bears his big smile and AK-47 with three clips duct-taped together… better for the killing of many other children today.  The point is that while the two would never see each other in this world, they are more related that either would imagine.  Most Americans are, at best, only tacitly aware of the relation of petroleum to African tribal violence, and concordantly unaware of how many children are swept up into the fray of warring factions to dominate control of fuel.  Similarly, cell phone parts are mined from ore mines which are also controlled by warring militias.  Injustice to children so often sweeps the industry that makes our trendy clothes.  I drew this picture of a child from a pic online; he is an actual child soldier, and he may already be dead.  The Trendy Guy I copied from is most certainly still alive.  As a shot at myself (who drives a petroleum-using car and took this picture with my iPhone with parts mined from fought-over areas in Africa), Trendy Guy has a “Save Darfur” bumper sticker on the back of his SUV, implying our incognizant complicity in the very things we are against in our cheap words.  It would be hard to drive a gas-guzzler is we understood the relation of oil, al Qaeda, politics, religion, and African violence.  The picture is about Trendy Guy’s ignorance, but it is really about my own hypocrisy and injustice.  Because these luxuries, albeit near certain necessities in America, are still pictures of injustice.

Oil is not inherently a bad thing; neither are global corporations making our coffee, clothes, cell phones, and vehicles.  But where there is much wealth, there is a great temptation for injustice to emerge against those whom we marginalize with ease.  And what can we really do?  Because my biking to The Station will do practically nothing to stop a global cycle of injustice.  It’s true, but at least I removed myself from the cycle of injustice this morning in a few, very small ways.  It’s healthy for the soul.  I’m still wearing clothes made buy who-knows-who, and typing on a MacBook with parts mined from who-knows-where (more tacit complicity), but I can try.

I cannot stop injustice entirely, but I can take small steps toward participating less in the cycle.  I believe the God of the oppressed would have us do what we can to take that road toward simplicity and justice.  We will do what we can to save the world from the soul’s great sin of indifference.

A great illustration from Peter Rollins on how spiritual practice can become empty ritual.  made me laugh and then think deep about how I practice faith too!

There was once a wise teacher who would go to the temple every evening to pray with his disciples.  By the temple there was a stray cat who would wander in every evening and disturb these prayers and disturb the peace.  So, each evening before prayers the teacher would tie the cat to a tree outside before entering.  The teacher was old and passed away a few years later.  His disciples continued to tie the cat to the tree each evening before prayers.

Eventually the cat died and so some of the disciples purchased a new cat so that they could continue the ritual.  After a hundred years the tree died and a new one was quickly planted so that the cat (by now the 18th generation cat!) could be tied to it.  Over the centuries learned scholars began to write books on the symbolic meaning of the act.

from How (Not) to Speak of God

This is the thesis that I wrote last semester as part of a requirement for college (the topic was required, just a thesis). Anyway, as it is quite long, I have put it in PDF format.

I hope you enjoy.

The Christian Response to Postmodernism

• I am so spiritual.   This week, anyway.   Today is the first day of the last seven I haven’t been to a two-hour morning church service.  Living in the same town as the district office of a national denomination has its advantages, especially when they hold a summer camp meeting program with their best speakers and top guest musicians.    …Truth be told, going to church every day doesn’t make you more spiritual, but I have enjoyed the teaching of Dr. Van Johnson, dean of Master’s Pentecostal Seminary, which is a joint venture between the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada and Tyndale University College & Seminary.   “Dr. Van,” as is students call him, stays down-to-earth by also being the worship leader in a local church in Toronto.
• I’m currently reading a book by one of the guest speakers at Rob Bell’s recent “Preachers, Poets and Prophets” conference.   Peter Rollins’ The Orthodox Heretic is a mixture of folk tales and stories combined with remixes of classic Biblical narratives; followed by commentary.   Not surprisingly,  Bell, a co-conspirator in storytelling, wrote the foreword.   I’m still not sure where this title ‘fits in’ to the larger body of Christian literature that’s out there.   The chapters are short, and seem to scratch the surface of something deeper that’s not entirely fleshed out.   Lots of good ideas, to be sure, but ideas alone don’t make a book.   I’ll let you know when I’m finished.  If anyone else out there has read it, I’d love to hear your opinion in the comment section.
• This one arrived too late for yesterday’s link collection, but it’s a YouTube embed at the blog, Human 3rror; featuring a wedding processional with a twist.   After watching it together, we both came to the same conclusion that this probably reflects the atmosphere that prevailed at weddings in Biblical times.   Check out the action, here.
• In doing some research for someone this week, I came across an apologetics website which had previously escaped my radar.   Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry contains several good online articles on major faith groups, plus a few smaller ones you may not know.    They certainly helped with what I needed.  Check them out at carm.org
• After three weeks of being empty-nesters, our youngest son is back from camp, while our oldest is halfway through his ten week mission at Camp Iawah.    (Donations toward his support still count; VISA and MasterCard accepted; just contact us for more info.)
• I know a lot of Evangelicals aren’t big fans of Michael Moore, but we watched Farenheit 911 last night after Mrs. W. picked it up on sale really cheap.    Without wanting to engage a wider, very emotional debate, the movie demonstrates with great clarity that the issues surrounding the American military action in Iraq and Afghanistan are very, very complicated; especially, but not limited to, the complications involve the Bush family itself, and their historic relationship with the Binladen family.    And of course, those issues also bear on the involvement of troops from coalition nations such as Canada, Britain, Italy, etc.
• We spent an hour this afternoon in our ‘rented’ garden plot, mostly pulling weeds.    When you’re getting your hands dirty, it’s easy to recall some of Jesus’ agrarian parables.    The one that came to my mind today — recalled slightly askew — was the one about the weeds and the tares growing side-by-side.   We have a lot of weeds and tares.   They totally choked out the potatoes, and were dwarfing everything else.    But that’s what happens when it’s been eight days since your previous visit; and that visit was nine days before that.    You can’t be a farmer and enjoy summer holidays.

We have often written about the so-called “white elephant in the emergent room” (i.e., the way in which so much of the emergent movement has largely evolved among affluent Eurocentric white males), but we haven’t paid as much attention to the white elephants in the progressive room, which are just as apparent.  To be sure, with an influential cast of leading emergents such as Brian McLaren, Tony Jones, Shane Claiborne, Peter Rollins, Doug Pagitt, Dan Kimball, Rob Bell, etc., focusing on the white elephant in the emergent room has been easy to do.  However, progressive Christians have been just as apt — if not more so — to substitute paternalistic rhetoric for authenic transformation.  Time and again, affluent North American whites have championed causes of justice and equality, yet when their own privileges and ways of being have been called into question, they’ve been quick to distance themselves from change.

These concerns are readily seen in relationship to the resignation of Dr. Brad Braxton from the pulpit of New York City’s progressive Riverside Church.  For decades, Riverside has been a leading activist and voice for social justice. It represents a community in which Protestant liberalism once flourished.  It has a long history of fighting for civil rights and has been of the frontlines of interfaith dialogue. Martin Luther King Jr. preached his famous sermon against the Vietnam War from the Riverside pulpit.  However, over the last several years, this historic congregation has struggled embodying diversity on its own pews.  While in theory Riverside strives to be a multicultural church, the reality is that they still live with the tension of measuring everything ‘good’ according to the standards of dominant white culture.  The truth of the matter is that white progressives often use rhetoric to stand up for justice, yet at the same time become threatened when such rhetoric demands something of them. Rita Nakashima Brock puts it this way:

Western Christians-conservative, fundamentalist, evangelical, and progressive-share a root problem in addressing racism. They are more concerned with their own goodness than with profound transformation or intense emotional engagement that can survive the inevitable conflicts around difficult issues (unity being key and conflicts being scary and bad). They want people of color who will raise the racism issue to be part of their communities, but not if they are too different and don’t already fit in, or if they actually try to get at the root causes of white privilege and systemic white supremacy.

What happened at Riverside is just a microcosm of the struggle within progressive Christianity as a whole.  Brock seems to think that progressive Protestant liberalism is too deeply tied to historic white privilege in order to offer something profoundly new.  If the vision of progressive Christianity is to be realized, she writes, something new must be birthed:

If Western Christianity finds a new, post-enlightenment, post-colonial, feminist/womanist/mujerista, anti-white supremacy paradigm, it will have the energy needed to carry something else forward. I have caught some glimpses of this outside mainline white churches, but that work is virtually ignored in them. The old paradigms have huge momentum and force, not just in the minds of clergy but also in liturgical materials of hymns, prayers, and texts that embed them deeply in the psyche. We lack the resources, tools, and time to engage the profound transformation required to move beyond our comfort zones and set points.  I think the wrong question of progressive Christianity is “what makes it Christian?” We’ll only know what questions to ask of it when we get a glimpse of the different paradigm.

Progressive Christians from affluent North American (white) backgrounds must always remain open to transformation.  Yet they also need the humility to follow the lead of others, rather than thinking that their particular way of doing things is the norm against which all others should be measured.  As much as progressives talk about the value of difference, we’ve had a mighty difficult time embodying it.