Social Bookmarks
Final Thoughts on Pagan Christianity
This will (probably) be my last post on Pagan Christianity, (the previous two being here and here) and I wanted to address some comments (and an email) that I have received over the past few days.
The book (Pagan Christianity) has apparently been a bit of a controversial deal on the blogosphere, it seems that every time it’s mentioned there are both proponents and opponents that are vocal about their support/dissent. Any time you have this sort of discourse then the time must be taken to understand both sides of the argument.
The common theme I am hearing is that Reimagining Church, puts in place a new construct after PC tore the old one down. I, however, have a problem with this concept from the start. Pete Rollins in a podcast with Josh Case from The Nick and Josh Podcast (now the Josh and Josh podcast, as Nick’s gallivanting the globe) discussed the idea of deconstruction ending with reconstruction, and said (paraphrased here) “Deconstruction is the lava that keeps the flow of ideas moving, we should never stop deconstructing.” I completely agree with Rollins here, and I hesitate whenever I hear the word “reconstruct.”
The reason far my tepid outlook on reconstruction is the fear that what we reconstruct will simply become another monstrosity of “orthopraxy” (I say orthopraxy in the term of right practice in regards to how we do church) that must again be torn down. When we reconstruct we make the assumption that we have found the “right” way of doing things, which seems to be an arrogant statement in light of how long we (Christians) have been chasing the idea of orthopraxy.
I’m not saying that any reconstruction is bad, in fact we will certainly reconstruct as we go, but we need to keep the urgency of deconstruction with us at all times, lest whatever practices we build, to better engage in our (post)modern culture, become standardized and passed down to later generations in which they will have little (or no) effect.
That being said, I will indeed read Reimagining Church, if for no other reason than I’ve now been told by several people that I should do so.
I have also been told that I misunderstood the intent of Viola/Barna in Pagan Christianity. From the e-mail I received:
you seemed to have missed the point. Barna and Viola are NOT arguing to go back to a biblical blueprintism. They are instead tracing where the protestant traditions came from and raising questions. Frank’s new book REIMAGINING CHURCH — the constructive follow-up to PAGAN CHRISTIANITY –deals with the very issues you address, like contextualization.
While this may be true, I still feel that I what was being laid out in PC was this ideal of “Biblical Blueprintism” (good phrase by the way), and I don’t think I’m the only one who was under that impression.
One final statement: This book, regardless of whether or not those who read it agree or disagree with it, has sparked a great deal of conversation in regards to how we “do church,” and if for nothing other than that fact the authors need to be commended.
Pagan Christianity(?)… my thoughts
Pagan Christianity By Frank Viola and George Barna
I finished Pagan Christianity shortly before leaving for my family vacation last week, I had time to post something beforehand, but I’m lazy, so here it is… only a week and a half late.
I found that I actually enjoyed Pagan Christianity more than I thought I would originally. I think there is a largely mixed bag of reviews out there about the book, so I was rather hesitant before actually purchasing it (the poor selection of books at the store I was in helped out a bit). A little backstory on the authors, if you didn’t know, Frank Viola is a big house church proponent and loosely affiliated with the Emerging movement, and George Barna is and evangelical and the creator of the Barna Group, which has put out some pretty controversial poll findings.
Form not Power
(Grandiose and superfluous HT to Blake for this)
When do we have the form without the power of religion?
When we develop church growth strategies that target the middle class instead of the poor and marginalized, then we have the form without the power.
When we spend more of our resources on constructing and maintaining Church buildings and property than we do on feeding the hungry, then we have the form without the power.
When we spend more on pastor’s salaries, benefits, and pensions, than we do on clothing the naked and sheltering the homeless, then we have the form without the power.
When we turn stewardship into financial campaigns for the Church, rather than sacrifice for the poor, then we have the form but not the power.
When we blame poverty on the sloth of the poor rather than the avarice of the prosperous and the indifference of the comfortable, then we have the form but not the power.
When we furnish our sanctuaries and social halls in such a way as to make the prosperous comfortable rather than make the indigent welcome, then we have the form but not the power.
When we dedicate Methodist institutions like universities and hospitals and retirement homes to the needs of the affluent rather than the needs of the impoverished, then we have the form but not the power.
When we preach a grace which saves us without changing us, then we have the form but not the power.
Above all whenever and however we make of Methodism a preferential option for the middle class, we have the form but not the power of religion.
Powerful, this.
I must look over this list and ponder, how often I’ve missed the point, and how in by missing the point I’ve done more damage to the power of ressurection than I’d like to admit.
I think if I could add to this list (and make it somewhat more personal) I’d throw something out there like:
When we blog about the resurrection of mankind, without going out and actively being that resurrection, we have the form but not the power of religion.
What would you add?
futures
Where am I headed?
If you had asked me a few years ago where I wanted to end up, I probably would have responded with something like a restaurant owner, police officer, or world famous musician.
How funny are the changes with time?
Two of those things would have involved large amounts of wealth for me, something that I was quite desirous of for nearly all of my life, the other would have been enjoyable for me, and I’ll admit sometimes I still think about how I’d enjoy being a police officer. But the crazy thing is, none of those are really possibilities in my life any longer.
I went from having a fairly certain life (with a goal of financial gain) to a life of uncertainty. We may be moving to Baltimore in a few years, which for us is a fairly big deal, I think it was kind of always assumed that I wouldn’t be traveling to far from “home,” yet Maryland is pretty far away from Georgia.
While I wasn’t wholly certain on where exactly I would end up, and what exactly I’d be doing, having a feint notion of a future path wasn’t at all comfortable to me. Really it wasn’t. I remember long miserable swaths of time where I would yell at God about not revealing my future to me in whole. Funny thing now is, I’m not at all certain what I’m going to be doing in a year, let alone the rest of my life, and I’m completely fine with that fact.
I’m completely comfortable with a completely opaque future. Sure, I have some things that I’d like to see happen (more on that in a second), but if they don’t happen I’m fine with that. There’s something far more exciting and intoxicating about not caring if you know your future or not. In a day in age when college messages revolve quite often around knowing “God’s plan” for your life, I’m somewhat of an intriguing dichotomy to that system. It feels good that way.
So, what are the things that I’d like to see happen? (Note: I’m quite interesting in coming back to this post in a few years and seeing if any of these things actually happened).
Well, I want to go to seminary. I’m a bookworm, I love knowledge, and while I doubt that I’ll ever be in a ministry position with a Church (As their known today), I still desire to know as much as I can.
We also want to travel, similar to Nick Fiedler and his wife, we’d like to spend some time just going around the world, doing whatever we’re given the opportunity to do, meeting friends and hanging out. There is something romantic about traveling the world, something beautiful and wholly thrilling to my mind. I desperately hope that we’re able to do so.
Finally, I kind of want to open up an alternative fuel shop. Kind of weird sounding, but it’s been there for a few months now. I really want to open up a bio-diesel location somewhere in Atlanta. Convert over some veggie oil and make up for some of the crap that I’ve put in the air with all the big trucks I’ve been driving since day one.
Will any of those happen? Who knows?
Will I be distraught if they don’t? Not at all.
thoughts on challenges
There’s been some conversation in my life over the past few weeks that has disturbed me quite a bit.
There seems to be a prevailing belief that whilst someone is a “new Christian” we shouldn’t challenge her or him, seemingly at all. It appears like we’re in love with setting up the good old bait and switch, making new “converts” believe that this life is so easy, only to latter in life open them up to challenges (or in some many cases, we never do so).
I’m not saying that we should force people to move beyond where they are, but we should at least give them the opportunity. I’m all for meeting people where they are, but I think we should be constantly challenged, and not freaking sheltered. When someone protects me from an experience that I may learn from, it hinders me more than helps me.
I’ve heard a couple examples of this recently. In the first there was some disappointment in a small group that had a “new Christian” (please forgive me for all the quotes, I’m not a fan of certain language, but it’s usage is seemingly necessary), but the group was reading through a book that could cause “doubt.” I’m not talking about “Misquoting Jesus,” which could change a person’s life, I’m talking about another book which can be seen as challenging certain aspects of “orthodoxy.”
The other example is of a whole ecclesiastical organization that refuses to corporately push for a goal, which their leadership claims to embrace. The reason? (In fairness, a lower echelon leader of the organization gave this reason to me) Many of the members are “young in their faith.” Seems like a copout to me.
Like I’ve mentioned before, I believe in a God who is meets us where we are at and invites us to take the next step forward. I think when we are discouraging challenges we are essentially slapping God in the face. We’re not to coddle our brothers and sisters; we’re to help challenge them.
Growing up I would hear sermons on “The storms of life” and through them you would grow, even today I can hear the occasional storms of life message (but I guess that’s getting a little less common now that we’ve moved towards the happy life junk) in regards to financial crisis’s, death, sickness etc, and we’re all expected to learn and grow through such experiences. Yet, it seems, we are to be protected from actual faith challenging excursions until a date yet to be determined.
Why the dichotomy between the two? Are we worried about people running away from the faith that we cling to so strongly? Are we scared of the doubters infecting our flock?
I think it’s the doubt that we’re afraid of. If we find doubters around us, we may be forced to face our own doubts. While some of us have grown to embrace the doubt as growing experience, others seek certainty. It, I think, is truly the epitome of the modern/postmodern dichotomy.
When Jewish students were asked a question from their teachers the proper answer would be another question. This form of constant questioning is, to me, the purer form of knowledge. If we don’t learn to question then we never really learn to grow. If I take everything I am given for granted than have I really learned anything? It’s actually through the process of questioning that I find I gain more certainty. It’s through challenges of my beliefs I find which ones I actually believe in. Not just believe in thought, but in action, in faith, and in life.
So lets stop hiding from challenges, and face them head on. They’re not easy, they’re not always fun, but we were never promised ease and enjoyment.
whose apologetics?
This has been on my mind for a couple weeks now, it was something that Becky and I talked about during one of our somewhat famous Taco Mac conversations (ok, they’re really not that famous, but we love them anyways, if anyone ever wants to join in just tell us, seriously, we’re starved for good conversation at times). We were talking about the upcoming “Truth Project” thing, as well as the previous apologetics lesson we had sat through, and she interposed something that severely bothered me (she has a tendency to do such things).
She stated, essentially, that to grasp a “true” apologetics course, then all sides should be discussed. I think we, at the time, were mostly discussing evolution, so this has some pretty deep ramifications. It would require those hosting said forum on apologetics acknowledge both sides of the argument, at least in their core, legitimate, which either side seems loathe to do.
We were not addressing, by the way, the issue of an atheistic perspective of evolution, but a wholly God inspired vision of evolution.
The question in my mind remains, is it really possible any sort of apologetics forum to host both sides of this particular issue? Would there be any church willing to legitimate both sides of the argument?
** This will seem kind of disjointed, but I began writing this two days ago, and after thinking about it, I’ve picked it back up. **
After giving it some time, I don’t really think it’s possible to really do this sort of things, at least in the normal church setting. I think within a smaller grouping context, IE a cohort, or house church, then such discussion would be possible, but I would seriously doubt both the willingness of any institutionalized church to do so, or the ability even if the desire was there.
So my question is then, would there be any benefit to this sort of thing? I’m really curious as to everyone’s thoughts on apologetics, so lets have it out.
an open letter to my brethren on the right
For some years now you have viewed yourselves as championing the cause of Pro-Marriage legislation, which is more plainly stated: Anti-Homosexual legislation. You have felt the turning tide of public appeal fall favorably on Gay marriage, and see this trend as an affront to your very core being. Your leaders have imposed if Homosexuality were to be found out as a genetic predisposition, they would break their moral and ethical values against abortion to stop a homosexual child from being born. In saying this they have shown that making humanity fit within the narrow confines of their ideal image is more important than the protection of life itself.
For years they have silently encouraged their children to degrade homosexuals by calling them derogatory names, they are complicit in their silence and lack of condemnation for such acts. For years they themselves as well as many of you have even fallen to the levels of using these same derogatory terms to describe homosexuals. You, yourselves, have used the very term “Gay” as a negative word; much the same way that Jews in the day of Jesus used the term Samaritan. You have subjugated homosexuals to a lower level then yourselves by denying them the right of marriage, claiming it a sacred system, which you yourselves have utterly desecrated with your divorces and affairs.
The treatment you have brought upon homosexuals is not the first of its kind, nor will it be the last. Your ancestors have just as vehemently protested causes such as women’s rights, civil rights, and acts against institutions such as apartheid, yet progress persevered. In the end the overwhelming tide of equality has persevered over the diminishing forces of inequity and bigotry.
You cannot claim to be both the protectors of the Bible and deny its very core message of equality. You must see that the God of the Bible is a God of change, a God who loves all, and a God who will not abide such bigotry that has been shown throughout the past decades against homosexuals. Perhaps your most grievous act is this ignorance of this progressive theme that the Bible portrays.
Your misunderstandings have caused immeasurable hurt over the years. Where you should be sowing seeds of Justice, Equality, and Love, you have created a field that is full of the weeds of pain, suffering, and injustice. This act has cast, in the eyes of those who do not hold to the cross, an ill shadow upon the Father who became flesh that all may be reconciled and equal.
My friends, this tide will not be turned back. You may delay it, you may attempt to ignore it, you may fight it will all of your might, but this tide is strengthened by a God who will not be turned back, nor denied. Join us, champion the cause of equality, truly live out a life freed of legalistic oppression, and see true change in the reconciling name of Christ.
books, beer, and wings
It seems like my wife and I have the most interesting conversations at Taco Mac. For those of you not familiar with the chain it’s a bar with a restaurant attached, with a selection of hundreds of beers, and pretty good wings. But it seems that when we sit down the theology light switch gets flipped and that’s all we really discuss the entire time.
We don’t normally argue or disagree during these conversations, but we tend to build upon each others thoughts, it’s pretty fun. Now, in the case of Saturday we did have one argument going on, in which I was completely, to say it politely, pwned.
We were discussing our reading habits, Becky, an English major, reads through fiction all the time (she’s on a Flannery O’Connor kick if you’re interested), and I spend all of my time reading non-fictions, mostly emergenty stuff. So we we’re discussing who’s form of reading presented a purer form of information and theology.
I could not, for the life of me, see how information could be garnered from a fictional book the way it is from a non-fiction. And the argument continued on for some time that way, she insisting that fiction does indeed provide a purer source of information, because you are not told what to think, you are given various perspectives and gain insight based on those. I didn’t agree with her because most of the books I read don’t tell you what to think, they just give you information on various topics and let you build your own conclusions around them.
But then it happened, in one statement my whole argument was nullified.
My viewpoint on the Bible is such that I don’t feel like it should read like a non-fiction, I feel like it’s the story of a relationship, not basic instructions before… eh you get the point.
So Becky came out with: “For someone who thinks that we can gain insight from understanding the relationship portrayed in the Bible, you sure do loathe to let that happen elsewhere.”
Game, set, match.
Thoughts? Opinions?