Tag Archives: 2568

The Murky Marriage of Love and Truth

23 Saturday Dec 2006

Posted by in Brian McLaren, Emergent Conversation, Generous Orthodoxy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

In an interview by Next Wave, Brian McLaren defines the purpose of his book, A Generous Orthodoxy (which I am enjoying and have been responding to over the last few days):

In a sentence, A Generous Orthodoxy is an attempt to remarry two things that never should have been divorced — truth and love….

This reminds me of an old “Father Knows Best” episode in which the teenage daughter is trying to change her boyfriend’s character, and Robert Young says,”why don’t you try something easy, like moving the Rocky Mountains.”

Truth and beauty, even, would be a lot easier, as they do not require us to bend our minds to embrace what repulses us.

For all my adult life I have pursued Truth with a capital T. Sometime in my late 20s I started adding Love to that quest. This dual pursuit became for me the impossible dream, because Truth took me beyond the boundaries of my Christian upbringing, and began to make my concept of Love grow broader than was normal in my denomination. Truth and Love were at war, and the more I was able to reconcile them in my own mind and philosophy of Christian fellowship, the less my longtime brothers and sisters could handle it.

Initially, love seems to take the lead, arguing in defense of those who seem nice but don’t fit our “truth” definitions. For example, as a young man I learned this Joaquin Miller verse and kept it with me as a tolerance builder:

“In men whom men condemn as ill
I find so much of goodness still.
In men whom men pronounce divine
I find so much of sin and blot.
I do not dare to draw a line
Between the two, where God has not.”

It has only been in recent years that I have begun to discover how the Bible resolves its own seeming flip-flops in preference between Truth and Love..

It is indeed a murky area, where the ability to embrace paradoxes and to have a healthy degree of self-doubt seem to be pre-requisites for making progress.

Tomorrow I will explore the story of the Prophet from Judah who was killed by a lion for not obeying every detail of God’s word to him. Within that story, I believe, are some important clues as to why love and truth must learn to coexist within the emergent, unfinished, presently-divided Christian community.

My McLaren Colloquy: 3. New fields of opportunity

21 Thursday Dec 2006

Posted by in Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy, orthodoxy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,


On page 140 of A Generous Orthodoxy Brian McLaren writes:

When I imagine what a generous orthodoxy can become, I realize I must seek to honor both conservative and liberal heroism. And when I do, I want to consider myself both liberal and conservative. I must learn from their mistakes, and when I do, I don’t want to be boxed in either category. Instead they can look up for a higher way and look ahead to the new fields of opportunity and challenge that stretch from here to the horizon….

In my own journey I was once characterized as a liberal, and my response was that I am only liberal if one takes a rather narrow slice of conservatism.
That is the trouble with labels — they are snapshots taken by someone else, usually with a macro lens and with a specific point of view. And yet labels are the stuff that Protestantism consists of.

So I greatly appreciate, and strive to copy in my own ministry, the inclusive, kind, non-polemical, post-protestant spirit I observe in Brian, in Jim Henderson, and in other “Revolutionaries” I am meeting.

Where are these attitudes taking us? As Brian put it, into new fields of opportunity. New fields that were anticipated, as usual, by the Master himself.

Matthew records a most amazing promise, a signed blank check that empowers all followers of Jesus, whatever label they answer to:

And Jesus said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has become a disciple of the kingdom of heaven is like a head of a household, who brings out of his treasure things new and old

To me this means that any scribe or writer/teacher of the Word — (greek, grammateus) — is like a steward who is empowered to bring from the storehouse both old things and new. The old things, it seems to me, are what the Bible says directly, what we learn from the text itself … things that all disciples of Christ have seen more or less clearly. The new things, to my way of thinking, could be realizations about spiritual truths, about the fulfillment of prophecy in our own time, and insights into the character of God that come from our personal walk — meditations, interactions with others, etc. There is room here for the rational as well as the mystical/poetical insights that Brian writes about in the next chapter of AGO.

Knowing God is the very fountain and purpose of eternal life, and all who have experience with God, as students of his word, are enriched and empowered to record meaningful insights along their way. These are the sources of one type of the heroisms, plural, that Brian refers to (it seems to me), coming from both sides of the spiritual aisle.
Think of all the scribes, past and present, who have recorded their insights and yet whose works are lost to us because they were not part of our particular ism.

It is for this reason that I feel called to disregard sectarian fences and to pray to God for the strength to make the assembly and compilation and comparison of all these different heroic threads — writings from every Christian stream of thought — for the edification of the present and future generations of disciples. That is what my dream of the Grammateus Institute is all about.

For me, this is one of the great, new, fields of opportunity created by the convergence of Web 2.0 technology and an Emergent, Revolutionary ethos among Christian brothers and sisters.

My McLaren Colloquy: 2. Restorationism

20 Wednesday Dec 2006

Posted by in Brian McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy, restorationism

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

One of the most fascinating and vigorous sectors of protesting Protestanism has been “restorationism” — a belief held by a succession of groups through church history that, by finally getting the last or lost detail right, they now represent a full-fledged restoration of “New Testament Christianity.” – A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 128

Like Brian, I was raised with such an ethos. And my experience jives with his: “if you are part of a restorationist group, the group dynamics of your group will be nearly identical to those of every other restorationist group.” And while I no longer identify with the “group dynamics” of my spiritual heritage, I appreciate and share the kind sentiments with which McLaren describes the individual Christians within it:

Fortunately, beneath these squabbles over distinctives, one nearly always finds an idealism among restorationists, a belief that Christianity should be and can be better than its common manifestations. This is a good thing, and needed….One often finds a beautiful, sincere, childlike desire to follow Jesus whatever the cost and however lonely the road.

I am not sure where Brian is headed with his search, now that he appreciates the strengths and weaknesses of many different spiritual streams. At times he seems to envision a sort of ecumenical fusion — gaining a kind of institutional strength from many people who, it would seem, would have to miraculously lay down their points of difference and grow silent on the areas that up till now have been their sources of identity.

For myself, I think the model will be more like WIKI — devoid of institutional frameworks and fully free to embrace individual distinctions of thought and action.

I agree with McLaren, though, that the revolution must embody kindness, not as a surface gloss but as a defining, foundational principle. And in so doing it will radically depart from constant “protest”-isms.

Thus I expect that the Lord’s people who Barna says are now leaving the institutional church in droves will gather around Jesus, will sense the spirit of Christ in each other, and will be driven by humility rather than sectarian pride toward common understandings of the kindness of God and his happy plans for the human race.

It seems to me that the processes which will serve this gathering will incorporate both the rational, evidential tradition of Protestantism and the poetic, visionary disposition that is emerging through post-modern influences. Both isms are dangerous and extreme. But we do not need to choose either extreme, or lukewarmness either. We can, in Brian’s gracious words, find a balance that through generosity and humility walks that edgy middle road of Christlikeness — and honors what has been good in both the orthodox and heterodox thinking of preceding generations.

The only restorationist movement that will ever work is the inclusive, broadminded, and kindly one that God fuses together from every corner of His world.

Barna Friday: Revolution Defined

03 Friday Nov 2006

Posted by in barna, Christian trends, George Barna, off-the-map, revolution, revolutionconference

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Here at the RevCon the first speaker was George Barna.

Here are my notes of his content, unnedited with my take…..>>>>>

Most Americans have always viewed the goal of life as ongoing shared experiences
We work to enjoy comfort and options and control in all facets of our lifee — including church.

Yes, there’s a revolution of faith — but it’s triggered by many other revolutions
[He enumerated several which are mostly obvious to all of us.]
Websters definition of Revolution: the repudiation and thorough replacement of an established system.
Or: A radical and persuasive change in society or social structures, systems, routines, or rules.

There are millions of devout followers of Christ who are repudiating the systems, routines, and rules of the institutional Christian church.

20 million people are involved in this revolution today.

For these “revolutionaries”:

1. God is their top priority
Many claim this, but the question is,
What are you REALLY committted to?

2. They want more of God in their lives, but are willing to do whatever it takes to get that.

3. They want to live their faith, not just understand and talk about it.

4. Their ultimate goal is not selfish, but having more of God in their lives.

In a nutshell, they are God Crazy.

Who are they?

a. Some have tried literally everything else in life — and come back to God via futility.

b. Some were pursuing God, had a profound experience, and couldn’t settle for anything less

c. Some had dormant faith, many churches, groups, activities, programs, and eventually found it meaningless … then came back and found God in more significant way

CRs (Christian Revolutionaries) have:

*No use whatsoever for churches that play political or religious games
*No use for churches that provide entertaining events rather than transformational whole-life experiences
*No use for church stewardship campaigns — which serve their own institutional building needs or salaries or power
*No use for churches that soft-sell sin to expand their institutional turf
*No use for pastors more concerned about their own popularity instead of truth
— who measure success by numbers of people, square footage, number on staff, money raised
*Decided that no longer should the church be expected raise their family spiritually
*Made a decision to not enroll children in spiritual babysitting instead of preparing for spiritual war
*Choose to leave places that promise Christian love but exemplify lifestyles that are indistinguishable from the world system.

The Revolution is about Transformational Christianity.

CRs are NOT rebels, but revolutionaries — an important distinction. CRs major on those elements that matter most to God. In taking a stand, they are simply choosing to honor God — to honor Him, not human institutions.

Church — little c institutional church — is what people made up to control processes.
As humans we’ve made that processs “holy” while losing the sense of what is truly sacred.

So they say, “let’s go back…”

Instead of thinking of worship as an event each week, choose to learn how to engage in worship every day

Learn that work, family, neighborhood contains daily opportunitites provided by God for each of us — to live out our lives as an act of worship

God made us to worship him, not manipulate people into salvation

God called us not so much to preach Jesus but to be Christ to the culture

It is more about caring than competing

More about being vulnerable and real in conversation than being right

CRs are embracing their own personal responsibility for growing — acknowledging that when they appear before God, they won’t be able to say, “but my church let me down…”

CRs do not worry about tithing — money…. they don’t really own anything — everything was given them by God
CRs are portfolio managers for the kingdom of God, so to speak

CRs dont’ think about voluntaring some of their free time for “the Lord’s work”.

Instead, they are sensitive to the opportunities that God gives us every moment of every day

Not merely content to be a “member”…. but a participant in genuine community — even though smaller — they seek to love, care, support, accept … and experience a true sense of community

CRs recognize that it’s not a chruches job to raise up their children. Friends, families, faith can help — but ultimately its our job

DIFFERENT LIFE

The journey of a CR [is unique?] each leads different life.
[Common thread?] a growing sense of dissatisfaction;
… a search for greater authenticity…insight…. leads each one to the foot of the Cross.

They find it,
they get excited,
they go back to their conventional church and explain to their leaders what excitement they’ve found —
and the leaders typically patted them on the back and and said, “get plugged in”
“we are the professionals — fit yourself into our structure” —

DIFFERENT MODELS

But now, being transformed people, they can’t sustain their engagement in that system any longer.
So they extricate themselves — sometimes from anger — which becomes a spiritual issue they must deal with.
But in [working through] their isolation, frustration, irritation, eventually they lead completely different lives.

Now, their moral perspectives are different.
The way they view money is different.
Their belief system is different.

When you look at the many denominations of the institutional church, there are few actual differences [in belief or personal character traits] across denominations.

With CRs, there are significant differences:
During the time of their Investigation and initiating of spiritual transformation, they got involved in something in a more meaningful way.
Often, they tested new forms or structures.
Frequently when they made those connections, they joined spiritual minimovements:
homeschooling, spiritual discussions or study groups, parenting groups, parachurch ministries, prayer groups, networks… Each was a shared affinity anchored around their faith.

It was through that web that they began to be transformed —

Many of those individual connections are morphing into new forms of the church.

In the Bible — “church” is a called out people — who came together to love each other.

New forms, that ignore the non-biblical traditions: cyberchurches, intentional,
3rd place, marketplace ministries, house churches.

DIFFERENT IMPACT

These different forms have a different impact on culture.

Reshaping contours — In Year 2000, 65% – 75% have their spiritual main point of contact through conventional church

by 2025 — only 30-35% will rely on conventional church.
Where will the rest be? in the alternatives now springing up: house churches, cyber churches, independent worship, marketplace and parachurch ministries, etc.

People are taking their faith out of sanctuaries and into the world.

The essence is not about changing methodologies — style of music, titles of people who run, methods of teaching or preaching…
that’s not what revolution is about
Nor is it about allowing greater freedom.

It’s not even about allowing emerging generations to develop their own styles, or new leaders, or new places/venues to meet.

The Revolution IS about facilitating transformation through an intimate relationship with God —
a holistic approach — the top priority in life — not about going to church, but about BEING the church — because that’s what we’re called to be.

I don’t really have the authority to do this but… anyway…. I’d like to invite you to be part of this Revolution!

>>> End of George Barna’s morning message notes