I know I said I would be posting chapters 5 thru 10 today, but I found so much to chew on just in chapter 5, "Why I Am Missional", that I thought I'd just stop there for this week. I feel like there is a ton to discuss here: What is our mission? What does it mean to be a disciple of Christ? What is the proper place to hold a view on heaven and hell? How do we share the gospel in a pluralistic/relativistic world? The list goes on (and on and on and on). I still don't want to drag the book on forever, but I didn't want to rush through discussion on some of these ideas...
Greg recently posted about another book, The Community of the Word, and observes that "the term missional aims to move us 'beyond narrow definitions of mission as merely one among the various programs of the church, and to find ways to think about the church’s calling and practice' in what is now 'the multicultural global church.' Mission is not just an extra add on, but essential and central to the purpose and action of the church." I agree with this, and I also applaud McLaren's desire to blaze a new trail beyond our traditional understandings, but, like any trailblazer, I think he's bound to make some missteps.
If the focus is on being missional, it is vital to define what the mission is. What do y'all think of his definition as "To be and make disciples of Jesus Christ in authentic community for the good of the world" (p. 107)? I headed to Vine's Expository Dictionary and looked up 'disciple', and found the definition there as "a learner - indicating thought followed by endeavor." My immediate reaction is to want to add something about relationship - community between both me and others and me and God, which I think is vital to spirituality. However, I also agree with him that our focus in the church has been far too focused on the idea of personal salvation. My understanding is that Christ came to save the world. As part of the world, I am included in that, but God's redemptive purposes are far larger than 'me'. We see this individualistic understanding of the gospel all over the place in the church, and I like the way he uses the diagram on page 108 to reset the context of personal salvation within a much wider story.
I think this understanding is crucial for giving our lives purpose here and now in the world. Too often we've focused, as I think he rightly notes, on whether we're going to spend eternity in heaven or hell. We've had this apocalyptic vision of the world in flames that has on at least some levels allowed us to use and abuse creation and each other. I believe we were created for life on earth, and I think scripture points to 'heaven' as being a renewed 'here', where we will still cultivate the land, work, sing, create art, etc as embodied creatures. This hugely impacts how we live now. We are to be a blessing to the earth, and I love how he describes Christianity as being universally good news (p.110) as we live out our mission, following the way of Jesus in striving for social justice, feeding the hungry, helping widows and orphans, etc. That said, I feel as though he's replacing our historically faulty focus on the eternity side of the picture with an equally faulty focus on the now side of the picture. Both are important. We ought to feed a hungry person soup, but we ought also offer them the bread of life. I don't believe that the one should be contingent on the other, but I think both are crucial. Sharing the gospel has always been difficult, and in our current context it remains so, especially as it can easily come across as self-righteous or judgmental. Any thoughts on how we ought to proclaim the word of God in today's climate?
He obviously has a tender heart for the world at large, and through that lens I applaud his sympathy towards a universalist view, critiquing it as potentially leading to a "magnanimous apathy" (p. 110). But I think the problem with a universalist view of salvation is bigger than that. While he says that "they have the highest opinion possible about the efficacy and scope of the saving work of Jesus" (p. 114), I would say it largely empties the cross of meaning. He held out his arms to the whole world, but not everyone will choose to pick up their cross and follow him. In many ways it disavows choice and freedom, which I think McLaren would want to affirm. It gets tricky to say free will doesn't matter when the outcome is good, but personal responsibility is the focus when the outcome is bad. I don't know what that means as far as 'who is in, who is out', and I truly believe that God's love and justice is far greater than my finite mind could ever comprehend, but I believe that I'm not just saved for eternity - my salvation is today. My relationship with God through Christ is now, and changes everything about the way I see the world and live in it. I want to offer that to people. Not to save them from hell, but so that they can experience grace and hope in our world, and know the joy that flows from that.
15 comments:
These next few chapters were interesting. I think I may have pegged McLaren too hastily on some things. Just wanted to start with that.
"What does it mean to make disciples of Jesus Christ in an authentic community for the good of the world?" I guess that would all depend on how you define what it means to be a Christian and what the Church is. And those definitions differ widely among Christian groups.
I don't know exactly who the historical Jesus was or what he taught. (There are some scholars' conclusions that seem more convincing than others.) I do think you could make a good case that Jesus was interested the kind of thing McLaren was talking about: a community of people concerned with promoting the kind of social justice and cooperation among it's members not found in most of larger society, i.e. the "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven". In that respect, you could say that an authentic disciple of Jesus is interested in promoting the kind of society that Jesus was (or at least the one his followers were).
I don't think Jesus set out to create a new religion. I think he was interested in reforming the Judaism he was born into, who’s leaders and followers had become too cozy with the Roman Empire. I think the rapid growth of the earliest Jesus followers was due in a large part because of the radically different social justice and community being practiced among the proto-Christians. People liked what they saw. They were used to a hierarchical, aristocratic society with the rich, noble, strong, lucky, and popular on the top and everyone else scrambling and suffering on the bottom. Jesus' offered a new, radical, and better kind of society.
If Christians are interested in making new disciples, I think they should look to this example. The world of human society hasn't really changed that much in key respects even after 2000 years. Isn't authentic missionary or missional work, showing people outside of the Christian community that being on the inside of the Christian community is so much better and attractive than anything they know, that they just can't not join? Not with glitz, marketing strategies, branding, threats, fear-mongering, legislative threats attempts, pep-rallies, TV evangelism, consumer based, mall-like McMega churches, etc. Cut through the hype, offer something authentic. If there really is something different and better about Jesus' teachings than the way the world works, Christianity should sell itself.
I think McLaren is onto something good here. The problem is I think a lot of Christians might be just as ready to betray and crucify someone today who calls for something like an authentic community of disciples as were the people in Jesus’ own society. “The secularists”, atheists, liberals, etc. aren’t a real, significant threat to Christianity. That’s convenient scapegoating to shift the blame. How about this, the biggest threat to authentic Christianity are inauthentic Christians, i.e. Christians who aren't interested in an authentic community for the good of the world. Instead of wanting to transform the world for the better, inauthentic Christians are more interested in having their Christian communities to be moulded to the pattern of this cut-throat, you-gotta-get-yours-and-I-gotta-get-mine, materialistic world.
Long, maybe redundant and rambling off-target, but it's what came to mind. (BTW, I think I'd disagree with the idea that the cross gets emptied of meaning without things like hell or judgement, but that really depends on some basic presuppositions about what Jesus' crucifixion was all about and would require an even longer answer, so I'll hold off and let someone else post.)
David-
So, just out of curiosity, how would you define what it means to be a Christian and what the church is? Or anyone else? You're right - there are a multiplicity of definitions, and maybe we should narrow it down for the purpose of discussion.
I agree that Jesus was interested in the same things that McLaren has pointed out. I guess I would just want to add more. His concern was to bless the world now, but (and sorry if I'm being redundant) it was also to offer life, and life everlasting. He spoke of a kingdom beyond this one, and I don't think it can be ignored without doing some major gymnastics with the text. But then, I'm starting with a different presupposition - I believe that scripture is God's revealed word, and therefore I give it a higher authority than you might.
I'd be curious to hear what other people think about Jesus setting out to form a new religion, as well as the question of universalism. I really don't want to dominate the discussion, so I'm going to wait for some of you other folks to pipe up. Other folks? Pipe up!
I really like what you said about the greatest threat to authentic Christianity being inauthentic Christians. So true. And I don't want to excuse the deplorable behavior, but at the same time, I feel confident that we're never going to get it totally right. We're people, we're stupid, and we're subject to the same trials and temptations as everyone else. We're bound to fail sometimes. I don't think that means we should lower the bar - I really really think that if we believe what we say we believe, our actions should drip with greater love and grace than the surrounding culture. We should be attractive and Christianity should sell itself. But I also think it can be kind of a cop out to judge Christians by an impossible standard and then dismiss the whole thing because of it. Frankly, that's where I stood for a good long time before revisiting the whole thing.
Didn't imagine I was going to end up a lone voice talking here. But, since nobody else has got anything to add, I'll post again.
How would I define what it means to be a Christian and what The Church is? Well, that's a really complicated question. I'd have to reiterate that it all depends on how one chooses to define those words which further depends on a person's starting assumptions. I personally don't have a single, definite answer. Or maybe my answer is that there is no one single answer to those questions. (How's that for a little McLaren-esque vagueness ;)
No, seriously I'm not trying to sidestep your questions. I say these things as a student of religious history. At one time I would have said you that a Christian is what my particular church body says a Christian is, and that the larger (Invisible) Church is everyone who believes x, y, and z. But, now I'd say that what it means to be a Christian and what The Church is has been many different, and changing things over the last 2000 years, all depending on who you were and where you lived.
Even during those earliest years after Jesus death there were disagreements as to who Jesus was and what it meant to be his follower. Still today not all Christians are in agreement. Some people answer these questions according to the opinions of their particular church. Some say the answer is what the Bible says. (I'd just like to point out that there is no such thing as just "what the Bible says", because different Christians interpret the Bible differently, and it is impossible to get around interpretation.)
If you were to ask Dr. James Dobson and the Religious Right, Marcus Borg, Pope Benedict, John Dominic Crossan, a liberal mainline Christian, a fundamentalist Protestant, an Eastern Orthodox Catholic, a Pentecostal, a rural Kentucky snake handling Christian, and a suburban, non-denominational, mega-church Christian what it means to be a Christian and what the Church is and you'd get different answers. Who's right? Who's wrong? And how would you determine that? Is there a right and a wrong answer? Are these irrelevant questions? I honestly don't know.
I do know that you'd get different answers from each, and you'd get different reasons backing up each of those different answers. Is being a Christian mainly determined by correct doctrine and scholarship, possessing charismatic gifts of the Spirit, belonging to an age old Church institution, a born-again experience, working for social justice? Is The Church a visible church body, a group who all believes the same things, a group engaged in certain activities, a group that worships in a certain way? And how do we know these things? By our feelings? Intuition? By studying and making a rational selection? By the tradition we were raised in? I don't have an answer, just lots and lots of questions. All I can tell you is that I don't think there is a single right answer.
About that inauthentic Christians stuff, I don't mean to beat up on Christians. No, nobody's perfect. It's more that I see Christian groups headed in the wrong direction. It's not that they're necessarily making mistakes. It's more that their whole focus is out of whack. Is Christianity about creating a Christian version of American pop-culture or in fighting culture wars with everyone outside of their circle? In that case, I think that these Christian groups have really lost anything vital about their heritage.
Thanks for the discussion! Sorry if my (overly) long posts are somehow inadvertently scaring other people off or something.
Hi Guys, here I am. Here I am "piping up!" I apologize though...this is a very overwhelming book group. I read the book, and then I read Jasie's post, and then I read these massive responses that are full of very deep thought out questions/comments....and then I'm left feeling like I have no where to start and nothing profound to say. So here's my best shot for tonight. Jasie, how can we make this less overwhelming?
I think David, you have a very valid point about everyone having a differnet opionion about God/Christianity/Truth etc. I, like you, have a million questions and I'm not sure I have an answer either.
But what you said at the end about inauthentic people having the wrong focus seems to play a HUGE part in the discussion. Cultures are colorful and different. There is beauty in the diversity, that's something people often try to recognize. But if I might steal a "Greg-ism", I'd say that when share a common focus, all of our differences of opinions are "related but distinct". It's like the "Seven Jesus" chapter...different emphasis, but the same God. So I might wonder if even though we all might have a differnt answer to the question "What does it mean to be a Christian"...could they all have something to offer? But then I might have to ask how we find a common focus.
Jasie, I really like where you keep going with the "Jesus was interested in MORE" idea.
I think that we have a tendency to take Christ's teachings and make them into an easy to follow formula for good behavior. People use biblical principles for life in a million different ways from child-rearing to business ethics. But there's so much more to the Bible, and so much more to Christianity and so much more to Jesus Christ.
It is amazing how empty things can become if we avoid the reality of who Jesus is/was, and what the message really is. Yes, unless you come from that same place of believing that the Bible is written Truth, everything is fuzzy. But it's a point that means something and.....now my brain is tied up and I'm not really sure what to say now.
Hey April!
Glad you ‘piped up’! I’m so sorry if this is overwhelming. My intention was to try and create an open forum where everyone would feel free to jump in and chat about stuff. I’ve never done it before, and would welcome any suggestions for how to make it less intimidating. I definitely want discussion – I’m not super interested in a monologue, and if no one chats I feel a little like the girl who threw a party that nobody wanted to come to. Stupid insecurities, right?
It seems like maybe we could take some time to try and lay out a few bare bones about what it means to be a Christian. Try and strip away some of the excess and find a firmer foundation. While I think lots of people would have different answers, I do think there would also be lots of commonalities, like April said. And if they are all completely different, I would hazard a guess that some of them are wrong. So what is right? I think some of the creeds that McLaren mentioned (Nicene and Apostles) are good starting points. What do y’all think?
David, I agree that it gets super tricky to say that the answer is in ‘what the Bible says’. We can’t get around the fact that we must constantly interpret things, but (and you knew there was a but) I do think there are limits to interpretation. You cannot reasonably interpret my statement that “I’m going to lunch with April” as “Jessica is a salmon.” Okay, seriously stupid example, but you get the point. There may be a couple of ways to interpret things, but there are not a couple of thousand. And some are infinitely more reasonable than others. The text is actually saying something – it’s not completely up to us to give it meaning (sorry, Mr. Fish
). All that to say, while there are definitely some grey areas, I think some things are pretty clear. Scripture makes some claims that I don’t think we can sidestep by interpretation. So to start at the very beginning, I think that to be a Christian would mean assenting to the truth of Genesis 1 – that there is one God who created all things. For me, that is the non-negotiable. Did He do it in 6 literal days, did the days signify huge time spans, or is it a literary genre that is more poetic than descriptive? Well, that’s up for debate. But even then, there are only a limited number of interpretations that the text allows. It’s not totally open.
Interpretation and the limits thereof - oh man, a huge topic all unto itself. I'm not sure that the limits of interpretation are as fixed or clear as you might imagine. I don't say that to be (annoyingly) relativistic in a speculative, what-if kind of way. Let's take a look at real Christianity, playing out in real history.
One episode of Christianity that has stuck with me for years is the account of the Marburg Colloquy, a Reformation era meeting attempting to reconcile the differences in understanding between Luther and his faction and that of the Swiss Reform leader Ulrich Zwingli and his faction. For me, this is an ultimate testimony to the irreconcilability of differences of interpretation between people committed to different ways of understanding, different presuppositions, different personalities, etc.
Luther and Zwingli were unable to agree on their interpretation of the Eucharist. Luther held to an understanding closer to that which had been taught for centuries in by the Catholic churches, that the bread and wine literally contained the real body and blood of Christ along with being bread and wine. Zwingli argued that the tradition of the Eucharist held only symbolic meaning. Both Luther and Zwingli go back and forth. The reported dialogue gets really heated at times (it almost sounds like pro-wrestling). Both Luther and Zwingli back up their arguments by interpretations from the Bible. Both are committed to their presuppositions about the Biblical text. Luther holds that "This is my body/blood" clearly means that "This IS my body/blood." Zwingli sticks with Bible passages that separate the spirit from the flesh, which to him means that the Eucharist is a spiritual, symbolic thing. In the end, both men were unable to reconcile.
And an example closer to the present - the rapture and the Left Behind style end times theology. I was raised Christian, but all of this tribulation stuff is foreign to what I was learned. That's because the rapture and the tribulation end times theology has only been around in Left Behind form since the 1800's where it originated among fundamentalist Protestants. Whereas Catholics, Lutherans, and mainline Protestants understand certain portions of the Bible to be metaphorical and symbolic in one way, Christians who teach the rapture believe that books like Revelation are a kind of map of real political, historical events that are going to happen in the future. Rapture proponents believe in their interpretation very strongly, and will say that they are just following the clearly revealed meanings of the Bible. Christians who do not teach the rapture say that they are following a clear interpretation of the Bible based on the writer's intent and a historical understanding of the apocalyptic genre. Both sides claim to have the correct interpretation. Both sides refer to the Bible.
So, although there might be some limits to the possible interpretations of Biblical texts, the range of possibilities within those limits can still be quite numerous and widely divergent. Each different method with their own kind of logic. How much of what Christians take as fairly plain, literal fact about Jesus, the Hebrew Bible, and the New Testament is actually fairly plain, literal fact? To paraphrase John Dominic Crossan (again, sorry I'm on a Crossan kick. I think he's got an intriguing take on Christianity, and I recently finished his latest book God and Empire), is it possible that people have long misunderstood Bible narratives as being literal when they are meant to be something more like parables in the tradition of Jesus, a teacher of parables? I think so. Which, of course, is one interpretation among the possibilities, my own.
My question for McLaren and the Emergent Movement: who then determines what is essential to Christianity based on what interpretive criteria? The Eucharist, (in a more Catholic understanding) is something essential to Catholicism and the kind of traditional Lutheranism I used to belong, too. This is not at all so for Protestants, I would imagine. On the other hand, you talk to some Protestants, and they'd say that things like born-again experiences or charasmatic speaking in tongues is essential to Christianity in their understanding. Not at all so for Catholics or traditional Lutherans.
These are real issues the Emergent Movement is going to have to deal with if they want to be something more than well-intentioned idealists.
Touché, David. I pretty radically oversimplified the limits of interpretation, didn’t I?
I get what you’re saying. I won’t deny the reality of multiple interpretations that spark some seriously acrimonious debate among Christians and divide us along denominational lines. However, and this is where I actively try to simplify things (and potentially too much), I think the problem has been the focus on the distinctives rather than the commonalities. And a healthy dose of humility and grace has been largely absent. In your example of Luther and Zwingli, I’d point out that they both embraced the importance of participating in the sacrament of the Eucharist. Or with the apocalyptic inanity, that they are all in agreement about the return of Christ. I certainly wouldn’t cast doubt on the authenticity of the faith of any of them.
I don’t want to eliminate the distinctives, per se. I definitely hold my own opinions about interpretation. And frankly, I’m pretty confident on some of it. But if I intellectually assent to something, but do so without love for the other, I’ve lost the core meaning of Christ’s teachings. If I dismiss someone who holds a different view, or hold my own with an arrogance that disallows dialogue or isn’t open to critique, I’ve lost the point. Even with someone like Luther – obviously he’s a key player in Christian history and thought, but even so I’d pretty heartily disagree with his interpretations on women and his anti-Semitism. But I still have much I can learn from him.
I agree that the emergent movement is going to need a great deal more than good intentions to have any lasting relevance. I don’t want to make McLaren the spokesperson for a whole movement, but that’s one of my biggest problems with the book so far. Great heart, great critiques, but what is he really offering? What are the essentials? The movement in general is, I think, identifying some of those essentials. (By the way, I for one wouldn’t identify much of any of the things that you listed like tongues, the Eucharist, etc. as essentials. I think it’s much more an issue of believing in Christ the son of God, crucified and raised from the dead, and following his example of loving God and others. The rest seems more like religious practice. I’m not saying it’s unimportant, but it’s not central.)They seem to be trying to seek some ‘interpretive criteria’, but moving more towards a hermeneutic of love rather than suspicion. Which has its own problems, but I think it’s a good start.
I am so angry! I just spent the last TWO HOURS!!! posting on Chapter 5 and the silly computer says it can't find that server and deletes it!AArgh!!!
Mom
NO! That one goes through but not the dissertation. Maybe God is trying to protect us all! Your mother
Well, I figured you knew that matters of interpretation among Christians was a little more complicated than that. I was just re-emphasizing the fact by pointing to examples. ;)
Like you said, I think Jesus was more interested in a community governed by principles of love than he was in traditions or customs. So, returning to this approach would be more in line with the spirit of what he and his earliest followers were up to. As one of the gospels portrays it, when Jesus is asked what the greatest of the commandments is, he says that all of the Torah and of the Prophets are summed up by the command to love.
You said things like speaking in tongues and the Eucharist are non-essentials for you. What do you think in the case of most or many Christians out there? I know there's supposedly been a mass outflux of people in the U.S. from denominational churches to non-denominational, mega-churches. (I wonder what the percentage really is. Any statistics on that that you know of?) Does that mean that Christians of all stripes are interested ina radical break with their traditional forms of Christianity to become something more unified? Or, is this a shakeup that will be followed by new realignments and splits?
Again, like you said, it sounds like the Emergent Church Movement is finding it's way as it goes along (and maybe it would be more accurate to talk about Emergent churches plural each finding their own way.) I suppose A Generous Orthodoxy wasn't meant to be a logistical manual charting out details, so it's not fair to expect it to be one.
What do you think about these statements? "McLaren is more intersted in action, social welfare, and getting people together to participate with each other than he is in the specifics of belief, or in people's understanding of Christianity. He thinks it's more important that Christians of all faiths and creeds get together and start helping the poor, the sick, the lost, making peace, and to start working for greater social good than it is for them to sit around arguing who's really Christian and who isn't or who has the correct doctrine and practice and who doesn't ." Is this a fair estimate of what McLaren wants? Is it a legitimate way of Christianity? Is it possible to keep all these different kinds of Christians together in peace? I think people on the outside of the Christian community would have a high regard for these kind of Christians. What about someone from the inside?
Questions, questions, always more questions...
Mom-
I am so sorry about the lost post. I know how frustrating it is…
David-
I don’t know any statistics on the outflow of folks to non-denominational churches, and most of my evidence is anecdotal, but it seems to me that the number of ecumenical Christians from all walks (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc.) is rapidly increasing. I don’t necessarily think that means that people will radically break from their traditions, but I’m hopeful that it means greater acceptance and love of the different traditions. I’m also hopeful that it won’t mean more division, but I don’t know… people seem pretty eager to draw lines in the sand, despite ‘knowing better’.
As far as the statements you listed… phew. I don’t want to attempt to guess whether or not McLaren would agree (though he seems to), but I don’t think I would with the first sentence. Change a few words, however, and I’m in. How about: “I am as interested in action, social welfare, and getting people together to participate with each other as I am in the specifics of belief, and in people's understanding of Christianity.”
I think social action without faith is a legitimate and popular lifestyle. I don’t think it’s a legitimate form of Christianity, primarily because Christ, while definitely interested in these things, talked about a whole lot more. Again, he’s a paradoxical figure committed to unity and striving for greater love and community, yet by nature he’s divisive. To call him Lord is to do more than commit yourself to a cause. It’s to enter into a relationship that transforms you, which in turn flows out to the world.
My question for you would be: Would it be equally attractive for those outside of the Christian community if Christians exhibited these traits while at the same time holding orthodox beliefs?
Would it be equally attractive for those outside of the Christian community if Christians exhibited these traits while at the same time holding orthodox beliefs?
Yeah, I think so, with some qualification. Although, now that I think about it, how many people is that really? I mean like 80% of people in the U.S. claim to be Christian. Maybe it would be better to talk about how society as a whole ( i.e. specifically people who aren't very religious or very actively engaged in Christianity) view Christians who exibited these traits while at the same time holding orthodox beliefs. (I know I keep talking in terms of the U.S. That's because it's McLaren's focus. What things are like in Europe is a whole other thing, I'm sure.)
To put it bluntly, for the most part, I don't think people really care or think very much about what other people outside of their group truly believe. We live in a pluralistic society, but people pretty much live in their little niche worlds. What different religious groups each believe within their own separate communities is largely unknown to people on the outside, except maybe in the most superficial and basic sense. People admire and have good opinions about Mother Theresa and Gandhi, right? Is that because they have a deep understanding of their beliefs?
Also what does Christian orthodoxy mean, exactly? I don't really think we can speak of a single Christian orthodoxy. I mean, what does Christian orthodoxy mean to you? I don't know. I'm not familiar with the specifics of your Christian background. What is Christian orthodoxy as I learned it? Something different than what it would mean to you I would imagine.
Does Christian orthodoxy include teaching that women cannot be pastors, that men are the God appointed head of the household over their wives, and that women cannot vote on church matters or be in an authoritative teaching position over men in regard to religion? That's an "orthodox" teaching of the church I used to belong to. That wouldn't be very popular with outsiders if they knew about it (not very popular among women in my former church!). All non-Christians are going to hell, homosexuality is a sin, sex outside of marriage is a sin - these kind of orthodox Christian teachings aren't going to score a lot of points with people, either.
That's not the bigger issue though. You can't please all of the people all of the time. The bigger issue is that I don't think marginal Christians or people on the outside really see Christians as being anything special at all. I think they see it as just another insider group. A tradition people are born into. Just another category that people fall into like goths, or country music fans, or stoners. Christians are into Jesus and church like other people are into depressing poetry or line dancing or pot. That's it. They're pretty much like other Americans. Their lives conform to similar patterns. They're preoccupied with many of the same things: fame, wealth, prestige, getting ahead, being popular, becoming successful, moving up in the world, having nice things, being entertained, knowing the right people, being fashionable, etc. What is different and more compelling about Christians that should make people admire them more than other people or which distinguishes them from other people in an admirable way?
To wrap up this long and rambling answer to a simple question, if Christians were to exhibit the traits of noticiable, active work and commitment toward helping to make the world a better place, if they offered a kind of life or mission that people could get excited about, something more nobel and real than a normal life with a brand Christian twist, I think people would start taking notice in a positive way.
What about a Christian who also wants to remain orthodox? New questions for you, could it be that the more so-called orthodox understanding of Christianity has much to do with why Christians are now so uninvolved with changing the world for the better? After all, if orthodox Christians believe that they're on their way to heaven when they die, why should they care what happens to the world - a world that only waits to be destroyed anyway? If the future has already been laid out, everything is in God's hands, the world is seen as a sinful and hopelessly fallen place that God's going replace with something new, why bother? Christianity is about saving souls then, not reforming or improving society. But, if someone thought that the kingdom of heaven wasn't a spiritual place out there somewhere, but a new kind of community of people on earth, would he or she be more committed to transforming the world into the Kingdom of Heaven like Jesus and his earliest followers were? Is it the so-called orthodox understanding that has gone astray?
David-
I agree that for the most part people don’t really care what other people believe, but it seems like that only holds true as long as they’re behaving well. When people start bombing planes, Islam comes under scrutiny; when they start bombing abortion clinics, Christians do, etc. People, for whatever reason, don’t seem to need to understand good the same way they need to understand evil. Which is a problem: if we’re going to talk about the problem of evil, we also need to address the problem of good. But that’s sort of outside of your point.
Again, and I know I’m probably over-simplifying, but I want to get down to the brass tacks of biblical (I know, the interpretation problem) orthodoxy rather than denominational orthodoxy. For me, it is pretty well summed up in the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by most every type of church as foundational. The role of women, homosexuality, extra-marital sex, etc. don’t determine whether you are a Christian. They probably determine which church you choose to attend, but I wouldn’t dispute the authenticity of the faith of any of them. Which isn’t to say they are unimportant issues, and I definitely have my own opinions about them, but I’m not going to tell someone who doesn’t think that women can preach that they aren’t a Christian. It’s an adventure in missing the point.
You’re dead on that the bigger issue is that “marginal Christians or people on the outside really see Christians as being anything special at all.” I think that’s what McLaren is trying to address, and lots of other Christians as well. Christianity lived out should look exactly as you described. Like G.K. Chesterton famously observed, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried.”
Your question about the correlation between Christian understanding and the lack of involvement (or worse) in the problems of the world is a good one. Sadly, I think it’s true. But I think the tendency to place the whole problem on the shoulders of Christianity (which I don’t think you’re doing, but I’ve heard the accusation more than once) is a bit reductionistic. We all have our share in the blame.
Personally, I feel like it is most definitely that the ‘orthodox’ understanding has been wrong. End times speculation with visions of destruction by fire and harps in heaven are outside of what scripture teaches and have very definitely led to a disregard for care of creation. I believe that heaven is not “a spiritual place out there somewhere, but a new kind of community of people on earth”, a new earth no longer groaning under the weight of sin. Christians need to embrace a ‘pro-life’ ethic that goes beyond a single issue, but is truly for life in the broadest sense. But that’s a soap box I probably shouldn’t step on or I might not get off…
I agree that for the most part people don’t really care what other people believe, but it seems like that only holds true as long as they’re behaving well. When people start bombing planes, Islam comes under scrutiny; when they start bombing abortion clinics, Christians do, etc.
Exactly. However, when Christians do aid work among starving, disease ridden people in Africa or among poor people in their own communities, I think people do notice. Especially when Christians also make this a significant part of their message focus.
...[T]he correlation between Christian understanding and the lack of involvement (or worse) in the problems of the world is a good one... But I think the tendency to place the whole problem on the shoulders of Christianity (which I don’t think you’re doing, but I’ve heard the accusation more than once) is a bit reductionistic. We all have our share in the blame.
It would be incorrect to say that Christians are to blame for why the world is the way it is. Here's what I'm saying. In a gospel, Jesus said to his followers, "You are the salt of the earth. You are the light of the world." Are Christians today the salt of the earth or the light of the world? If not, why not? I don't see what following marketing models to build churches, when churches are organizational bases of satisfied and loyal Christian consumers, has to do with anything Jesus was talking about. I don't see how making the focus of a Christian church to become preoccupied with venting all kinds of anger, and hate on relatively small groups of "enemies" like homosexuals or secularists in political battles has to do with being either salt or light.
"If the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men." I'm not putting the blame for the way the world is on Christians, but I don't see that most of them are any different than anyone else - part of the problem and not part of the solution (if there is one).
Maybe this is a PR/image problem. I could be wrong that most Christian churches (or at least the growing, thriving ones) are focused on either the marketing/entertainment direction, or on the reactionary, angry, social conservative direction.
So then, will the the Emergent Church movements represent a third way that gets back to the roots. Will it lose it's soul to the corporate marketing beast? Or will it stay true and strong and reform and renew the larger Church? Only time will tell.
"I don't see what following marketing models to build churches, when churches are organizational bases of satisfied and loyal Christian consumers, has to do with anything Jesus was talking about."
Me either. You're right. Christians have largely failed in our call to be salt and light in the world. There are lots of Christian groups and individuals out there working like crazy in really positive ways for change, but we have a long way to go. We've largely fallen prey to our culture, succumbing to the consumeristic, bigger is better mindset. But I can't give up hope. I don't know that the emerging church is going to be this new and improved unifying factor, but I think that there is a new awareness growing, especially in my generation and younger, that the old ways are not good, not Christ-like. And people are calling for change. They're stepping away from the old paradigms and seeking new perspectives. We'll undoubtedly find (and create) new problems, but I'm hopeful that on the whole, we'll get closer to authentic Christian spirituality and not further away. Like you said, time will tell.
Post a Comment