I saw an article over at Beliefnet by a member of the LDS church who was looking at Mormonism in the light of Emergent Christianity. This of course caught my attention because I would be classified by many as Emergent (I am at least on a similar trajectory) and because I live in the heart of Mormondom.
Beyond that, I have developed an affection over the past 6 years for Mormon believers and their faith. In reading a few books on the Mormon faith and catching some video teachings, I came across one author/speaker in particular, Robert Millet, a BYU professor who shares my love for C.S. Lewis. For my 40th birthday, my wife phoned his office and asked if I could meet him after a conference he was speaking at. He did one better and we grabbed lunch together the following week. Through my conversations with Bob, I became convinced that God resided under no single banner. Many of my evangelical friends would disagree, but I have met few people whose desire to know God burns as strongly as Bob's.
I don't suppose too many Emergents know much about Mormonism. There are probably few Mormons who have read any Emergent authors. I like em' both, so this article brought to mind the old Reese's commercial where the chocolate crashes into the peanut butter.
In the article Ms. Riess asks, "What does Emergent offer to me as a committed Latter-day Saint?" Later in the article she comments "Part of the Emergent story is that we are more likely to encounter Jesus when we step outside our comfort zones and stop doing church primarily because that is what we're expected to do."
Ultimately, I think there lies the potential common ground. In all strands of religious thought, people are asking questions. Why do we do this? Why do we feel this way? How should I be relating to others? How can we do better?
Of course, in each religious group, there are voices trying to quell the questions, to get everyone back in line, back in the pew.
So in answer to her question, I think what we can offer each other is our perspectives, what we have discovered, and a safe place to ask those questions.
That was what Bob offered in each of my conversations with him. His perspectives, what he has discovered, and a safe place to ask questions.
It is a rare thing, and something I hope we all get better at offering one another.
I was invited to write a blog entry as part of a synchroblog event leading up to the Big Tent Christianity conference being held in NC in September. Some of my favorite speakers and authors will be there, but it is nearly a continent away, so I won't be able to make it. The focus of the conference seems to be - how to get Christians together in some semblance of unity, despite coming to Christ from radically different worldviews. The questions for the blog are:
What does “big tent Christianity” mean to you? What does it look like in your context? What are your hopes and dreams for the Church?
From my view, the church has always had one fundamental Achilles' heel. Its members cannot help but see themselves as "in" while others are "out". Typical solutions to this situation have been to be more stern, or more relevant, or more entertaining, or more... whatever... so that we can get a growing number of folks "in" with us. The goal is to get people in.
This foundational attitude creates the dichotomy which Dr. Seuss so brilliantly gave example to in his book "The Sneetches". There were Sneetches with stars on their bellies... and those who lacked "stars upon thars". Like the Pharisee and the tax collector praying before the temple, the star-bellied sneetches were grateful for their stars and thought less of those without.
So what is my hope for the church?
At the conclusion of the Sneetches story, the various Sneetches are running through a machine - either trying to get stars added to their bellies or stars removed. The star-bellied Sneetches are desperately trying to remain distinguished so that the lines drawn between the inner and outer groups can remain. In the end, they all run out of money to go through the machine and are hopelessly mixed... unable to distinguish the "in" and "out" groups any longer. In that moment, they discover that it was not the stars that were important... but that they were all Sneetches.
My hope for the church is that somehow our dividing lines would become hopelessly mixed up; that, like the Sneetches:
"until neither the Plain nor the Star-Bellies knew whether this one was that one... or that one was this one or which one was what one... or what one was who."
"If we, every Sunday, deploy people into the world who are being sent out to love their neighbors as themselves - that's really good news for Muslims, it's really good news for Buddhists, it's great news for atheists. But if we send out people who are just out for themselves, or out for their religion, out for their political party.... well, we know where that leads. That's what we have now.
This for me is a great moment of great opportunity, a great opportunity for a new kind of faith."
~ Brian McLaren speaking at a Westminster Town Hall Forum in Minneapolis. Listen here.
A topic Brian talked about in this audio, which resonated with me, is the issue of identity. So often in Christianity, people partaking in other religions is seen as a threat to Christian identity. They are "other" who must be assimilated or marginalized. This attitude has caused many people of conscience to leave the Christian faith or radically reduce their own identity. Brian suggests a third way (similar to Samir Selmanovic in It's Really All About God) in which Christians can be secure in their traditions yet not see others as a threat or target for conversion.
I know the typical response is "But that is our calling - convert people." I used to believe this too, but over time it became apparent to me that maintaining this viewpoint made it completely impossible to truly love those around me - and loving those around me is my higher calling. I think sometimes we have to pray like Meister Eckert, "God, save me from God."
Usually, when I get a letter from a reader of my Truth Project articles, the writer lambastes me for how I am deceiving Christians, or how I am deceived and going to Hell, or that God is going to get me, etc...
The following letter stood out in that it was systematic, and the writer asked me questions that he genuinely seemed to want a response to. I wrote him back and asked if I could answer his questions in a post. Since it was going to require a fair amount of writing on my part, I have a natural inclination to want to post. Also, I feel his questions probably address the thoughts of a number of people who would typically be supportive of the Truth Project view point. So, I have put his questions in blue italics with my answers beneath.
Mr. Hackman,
I am reading your posting on the Truth Project, and I was wondering if you could clarify a few issues for me. I am about to start a Truth Project Study.
1)You state that Christianity cannot have a worldview, and that disagreement between different groups suggest that “Many voices must be heard.” I think that the point of the study, however, is to determine what the Bible says about what our worldview should be. That is, there should be a range of what is a “reasonable” set of beliefs, and what is not, given what Scripture teaches. To determine what the relevant range of worldviews would be, however, you don’t need to interview people. You need to look at evidence. Another way of saying this is that The Truth Project is meant to be prescriptive, not descriptive. In light of this “narrowing” view of the project, why do you need to hear multiple voices? Why do you need any voices other than Scripture?
I need those voices because I do not believe that scripture speaks without them. When my theology was of a more "hell, fire, and brimstone" bent, those were the scriptures I read and those were the ones I quoted. My eyes seemed to skim past "It is your kindness that leads us to repentance".
Everyone brings their vested interests to the table. No one reads scripture cleanly or without lenses. Everyone interprets. Anyone who denies this simply desires that their view be the default view. They want to be able to play a theological trump card. When the Truth Project puts forth that there is "A" Christian worldview (theirs) they are stepping beyond their grounds. I am a Christian. I do not agree with the Truth Project overall. So either, I am not a Christian, or there must be other Christian worldviews to be heard.
It reminds me of a scene at the beginning of Gandhi. Gandhi is about to be thrown off a South African train because he will not leave first class (for being colored). He explains that he is an English lawyer and purchased his ticket at home. He is told by the conductor that there are no colored lawyers in South Africa. Gandhi exclaims that since he is a lawyer and is, as they say, colored, then it can be surmised that there is at least ONE colored lawyer in South Africa.
Have you ever experienced a time when a scripture took on a new nuance or meaning because of something someone said? or an experience you had? Without those voices, yours as well as others, the words sit inert on the page.
2)You state “The presenter states that there is no area where God has not given the answers.” I am pretty sure that he says that there is no area where God has not SPOKEN. This is very different.
When you go through the series, see what the wording is.I thought he said answers, but I could be wrong.In any case, I don’t think that God has spoken clearly on everything (if he had, I do not think there would be 30,000+ Christian denominations and groups).I think it is our natural desire to want a sure fire answer to everything… but I think there is always going to be plenty of mystery when it comes to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
3)About your teacher perspective, you are right that you need to teach your students to think rather than to just get the right answers. However, you need to teach them the correct way of thinking about an issue. I am not necessarily saying that there is only one correct way to think about any given issue, but there are plenty of blatantly wrong ways to think about an issue. This is certainly true in the subject that I teach. By the way, what do you teach?
I teach 6th grade in an inner-city school.
I understand your overall point, but I would never state it so strongly. I would be very leery of teaching someone "the correct way of thinking about an issue." Not to say that I do not have a view, but I feel that any view that gets imparted in that way tends to get very distorted down the road. Again, it seems a short-cut; giving them an answer without the perspective, experience, and ethos that caused me to develop my answer.
4)I am pretty sure that when he says that the culture is anti-God, he does not mean that you should not have gone to the theater to see Dark Knight. Rather, he is saying that our culture is, by and large, built on a bunch of lies. An easy example of this is to look at the unreasonable expectations that society has for women and their bodies, how society says to a girl that she only has value if she will have sex (sorry, my wife watches Tyra, and I am overhear these things, so I have a bit of a bias). Don’t you think that a culture that teaches us that our worth is built on such frivolous things rather than being children of God is, well kind of evil?
I agree that when we objectify women, or teach such things to our children, we need to change our way of thinking.However, I do not think it is simply a matter of broad brush painting present culture as evil.I think this causes us to romanticize or criticize things that are not real.For example, the “old” days are often romanticized by some conservatives when wanting to contrast how sinful our present society has become – conveniently avoiding the tolerance of abuse, slavery, racism, and oppression that was allowed in the “old” days.In that light, society has become much LESS sinful over the decades.So which is it?I would say neither, because each plank of our culture must be judged on its own.
5)Why do you think it is appropriate to quote Yoda in a religious discussion? He is a guru of a form of Eastern religion or philosophy, so what he says must be investigated in that light. I should point out that anger is not necessarily wrong, because Jesus got angry in the temple before he drove the money changers from the temple. Therefore, there is a big divide between Yoda and Jesus.
I have three thoughts on that.A.Why do you think it is inappropriate to use that quote in a religious discussion?For myself, a good quote is a good quote.You yourself state in question 10 that “Truth does not depend on who says it”.
B. My point in that section was that all of the us/them rhetoric creates a fear and paranoia… and that those emotions take Christians down a path we are not supposed to go.Jesus’ anger was not generated as a result of fear, so his end result was not along the same trajectory.
C. I do not find anything inherently wrong with Eastern views.Christianity is Eastern in its origins, we have simply Westernized it.
6)What do you mean by hate? Some in our culture want to define certain beliefs as inherently hateful, and I wanted to check what you mean. Also, you should evaluate a religion on a reasonable outcome of its beliefs, not by the abuse of its beliefs.
I consider hate to be anytime we despise someone else.That is why I have always felt that the line “Love the sinner, but hate the sin” (aside from the fact that it is not scriptural) to be so unhelpful.99 times out of 100 when I hear someone use that line, the disdain and contempt is right on its heels.I think Christianity and the cause of Christ would be better served with “Love” and leave the but out of it.Since I have yet to adequately master the first part, I see no reason why I should touch the second.
7)Your argument that he is proof-texting is irrelevant, because John 14:6. Jesus did not say that you can look to him for truth, but something far more fundamental. He said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, but by me.” This is a very bold statement. It says that Christ is the very definition of truth, and that all other forms of truth must be judged in light of him. This is what us math types call an axiom.
Also, when you list the other reasons that Christ came into the world, none of them contradict his interpretation. By testifying to the truth, Jesus has saved sinners. You seem to have some beef with the line in the sand. However, Del did not draw this line, Jesus did. One quick example is Matthew 25. There are clearly sheep and goats. The question is where the line is, not the existence of one.
We will just have to disagree on this one.I still contend that it is a twisting of the intent of scripture to imply that the purpose of Jesus coming was to set a truth line in the sand and shove everyone to one side or the other.In fact, I think that goes against his very nature.
As to the sheep and the goats, I think Jesus was speaking to ways of living that bring either life or death… and in the words of the OT, he wants us to choose life.If you take that story as literal, than the evangelical way of interpreting salvation goes right out the window (which I am fine with btw).
8) You are taking Romans 2 horridly out of context. Romans 1 just told the history of the world, that we all reject God. Romans 2 and 3 gets into why following the law alone is not good enough, because we are not perfect.
Actually, I agree with you in some respects.I think Romans 1 lists how we all fail (can we all not place ourselves somewhere on Paul’s list?).I just think Romans 2 is Paul’s follow up, saying how absurd it is for any of us to get too “us/them”, in light of everything he just said.
9)“Our battle is not against flesh and blood…” The Bible uses the war metaphor repeatedly. Of course, it also uses the runner, the boxer, the farmer, and others. I just thought I would point out to you that regardless of how much he uses war metaphors, any reasonable Christian would never take up arms.
That is my point… that our battles are not with flesh and blood.However, much of Christianity is, and is being encouraged, to view their fellow human beings as the enemy.I think the “us/them” rhetoric encourages this view.I believe we turn people away from Christ when they feel they are viewed in this manner.
10)Your ad hominem attack on their interviews are unjustified. I could just as easily argue that you would better understand the Bible if you were disabled, because that one kid seemed to always have the right answer. I know you are trying to strike a race tone here, but that is irrelevant. Truth does not depend on who says it.
I think if that was my only contention, you are probably right.However, it just stood out so boldly to me on top of everything else.That is why I said it “devolved into a bad caricature of itself” at that point.It just struck me humorously.
11) Us/Them thinking. Again, back to the Judgment Scene – Jesus divided the world, the project didn’t. Again, you are quoting Paul in I Tim 1:15 so as to suggest universalism. This seems really silly, given Paul’s rant against false religion earlier in the chapter.
You caught me… I am a universalist.However, I don’t think that necessarily invalidates Paul’s “rant”.Universalism does not say that everything is ok… just that everything is/will be redeemed.But in any case, I still believe strongly that us/them thinking damages the cause of Christ.
Anyway, I was just wondering how you would respond to these questions. Thanks for your time. I am sorry if some people are not nice to you in their emails. I know that there is a behavioral bias that people are harsher in email than in person. Also, some things get lost by being put into text. I hope nothing I said sounded too harsh. I sometimes write aggressive words, but that is just because I am getting excited about the discussion.
Thanks,
David
PS Looking at your profile, why do you need to “abandon your certainties?” There are some things you can take to the bank.
I abandoned my certainties because I found that so many of the things I thought were iron-clad, turned out not to be.Certainty is something our churches emphasize, and in doing so, I think we perpetuate a disservice.Certainty, very often, causes people to live in denial.They have to live in contradiction in order to keep the certainty safe.I have seen too many people jettison their faith because they were taught that Christianity operates in this or that way.When they found that not to be true, they either had to abandon the Faith, or become more fundamental and rigid than ever.I have found fidelity to be a necessary third option.Fidelity applies to relationships.It can withstand the ups and downs, the silence and the paradox, in ways that certainty simply can’t.
David – I appreciate your approach and I hope this clarifies some things.I do not seek to convert you to my way of thinking on these issues, I just hope to more clearly explain why I think the way I do.
Richard Rohr was one of the speakers at the Emergent Church conference in Albuquerque last month. He is a Franciscan priest and his organization, the Center for Action and Contemplation, hosted the event. Although I had not read his books or heard him speak before; I left the conference determined to get some of his books in my collection.
I have been listening to some of his audio on the web, and I was really drawn to this quote by him:
"Judgment is not, by and large, a search for Truth. It is certainly not a path toward Love. What it is, is a search for control - a way that the Ego positions itself as better, righter, above, correct, in charge, in control. Once you see that... judgment starts losing its fascination. My great disappointment in so much of institutional religion is that it actually trains us to be judgmental".
This was a question that was repeated many times throughout the Emergent conference in Albuquerque a few weekends ago. It was the central question of a talk given by Phyllis Tickle as she shared ideas from her book The Great Emergence. Her basic premise was that every 500 years or so, the church (universal) goes through a rummage sale of sorts because the institutions of Christianity become overly bogged down with themselves. Then "reformations" happen, when everything goes on the table, and the church must look again at where its authority comes from.
Everyone had thoughts on this throughout the weekend and it was interesting to hear the different perspectives. Most agreed that Luther's assertion of Sola Scriptura had the unintended consequence of forming a myriad of schisms... as different groups took away different priorities and interpretations from said scripture.
The central problem with schisms, according to Brian McLaren, were not the schisms themselves; but rather that each schism tried de-legitimatize every group above it (or below it).
The question of authority still remains, but here is my take on it. Any authority other than yourself is always going to be problematic. The minute you start relying on statements like "What my church teaches is...." then you have outsourced your discernment to someone else. You have removed yourself from accountability (or at least tried to). That is why, I believe, Peter set a standard of a priesthood of ALL believers. Hebrews concurs "in the past, God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets... but in these last days, He has spoken to us by his Son."
In the end, I will stand before God to give an account (Hebrews 4:13). I think the awareness of personal accountability is what is causing house churches and spiritual communities to catch on more. For many Christians, the days of being dependent on a Pastor are growing old. I think there will always be a need for an administrative authority in churches, but the assumption of spiritual authority has developed a generation who's discernment has atrophied. They didn't need it.... the pastor/bishop/priest told them what to think. That era, I believe, is coming to a close. I may harness my carriage to a teacher like McLaren or Claiborne at times, but I will always hold the reigns.
I think the upcoming generation will differ in that, rather than trying to de-legitimatize the paths of others, we will be looking to garner something from their view of life, scripture, and God. We will not feel the need to abandon the traditions we grew up in (though we will have the freedom to do so), rather we can view them as a sanctuary, but no longer the destination.
I am down in Albuquerque at the Emergent conference. I am doing this from my phone.... which is tedious. The speakers are challenging and the conversation at my table has been enlightening. I hope this becomes an annual event.
According to the CAC, “The conversation about the emerging church has been attracting a broad array of Christians — progressive Evangelicals and mainline Protestants along with some Roman Catholics — but this will be the first gathering to be planned and hosted by a team of Catholic and Protestant leaders working together for the good of the church at large. There will also be a post-conference for those who want to develop vehicles for deepening and sustaining the emerging energy for Gospel-centered justice, contemplation, and community.”
The conference will feature:
Richard Rohr, OFM (founding director of CAC)
Brian McLaren
Alexie Torres-Fleming
Shane Claiborne
Phyllis Tickle
The conference is being called “The Emerging Church: Conversations, Convergence and Action,” and the post-conference will take place March 22-23.
Oh yes... the fun continues in the Christian subculture.
I quit shopping Christian bookstores a long time ago. I simply found the "secular" book stores had a better and deeper selection of religious books. That, and the "testa-mints" at the counter often left me woozy.
Lifeway stores have recently started adding "Read with Discernment" stickers on books they consider theologically iffy (McLaren, Bell, Miller). They would like you to spend money on best-selling books like The Shack; but they want to be absolved of all responsibility for your going to Hell afterward.
I am wondering when they are going to add the "Buy Hook, Line, and Sinker" stickers to the Piper and MacArthur books, so Christians can just disengage from all thinking processes in general.
We had a great time of discussion at last night's Salt Lake Emergent Cohort. In fact, I noticed that the tone of our conversation was a good example of what Emergent is all about.
As the conversation drifted into politics, California's proposition 8 (ban on gay marriages) was brought up . Amongst the five of us, all three voting possibilities were represented - yes, no, and abstaining. I think at the end of the evening, each person held to their initial position, but the conversation was free from the pressure to capitulate to a certain view. In that atmosphere, I was able to hear and understand valid opinions that differed from my own. In addition, no one's faith or intelligence was brought into question for holding an opposing opinion, as can so often happen in discussions of this nature. There was freedom to listen in our conversation.
This is how the famous preacher Jonathon Edwards (1703-1758) would describe God's feelings towards you:
"The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours."
Lest you think that was simply how it was preached in the 18th century, here is a quote from a very popular present-day pastor and author. He seems to echo Edwards' view:
"You have been told that God is a loving, gracious, merciful, kind, compassionate, wonderful, and good sky fairy who runs a day care in the sky and has a bucket of suckers for everyone because we’re all good people. That is a lie… God looks down and says ‘I hate you, you are my enemy, and I will crush you,’ and we say that is deserved, right and just, and then God says ‘Because of Jesus I will love you and forgive you.’ This is a miracle."
I believe this kind of preaching feeds on itself and spreads like a virus. It produces a natural insecurity into everyone who listens to it and preaches it. It makes the preacher and the listener believe that God's default relational mode with humanity is one of distaste and disappointment.
The quote above reminded me of a certain wedding. The mother did not care for her son's selection in a bride. She tried in many ways, subtle and not so subtle, to break the couple up before they got married. Her behavior and her words caused enormous hurt.
Finally the wedding day arrived. The inevitable was happening, so the mother put the best face on that she could. At the end of the ceremony, the bride was radiant. Her happiness to be married to the man of her dreams filled the sanctuary. As is customary, the happy couple went to hug each set of parents.
The bride warmly hugged her new mother-in-law. The mother-in-law whispered in the ear of the bride, and the bride's face fell.
The mother-in-law was a very religious woman. To her, the thought of divorce was anathema. So when she hugged the bride, she let her know that from now on she was going to support them as a couple.
It is no surprise that the bride was crestfallen at those words. She knew that the mother-in-law did not truly accept her... it was under duress. Because the mother could not tolerate divorce, she would support the marriage.
I believe this is the message that is preached by the men above and others in their circle. God does not love you... he at best tolerates you. Because of Jesus, the Father will grudgingly accept you. If God's love is as these preachers describe, then He is no different than the rest of us and may even be worse.
When these preachers describe the "love" of God, they are describing the attitude of the older brother in the story of the Prodigal. They are describing the workmen hired early in the day who were jealous of the workers hired later who received the same pay - they are envious when God is generous.
I think that people who are "converted" to Christianity under such preaching end up not too dissimilar from battered spouses. They will proclaim their love, and maybe even have some happy times, but they are always on the edge of a flinch or a shudder. They are never totally secure in where they stand.
But here, I believe, is the GOOD NEWS! God doesn't love you that way!
Unlike everyone else on this planet, GOD loves you without condition. His very nature reaches out to you in kindness, compassion, and mercy. It is that kindness that leads us to repentance, heals our wounds, and purifies our hearts. There is NO end to his patience and his mercy knows NO bounds. God does not love us because of Jesus.
God gave us Jesus because he loves us!
Matthew 12:20 A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory.
There has been a fair amount of critique of Brian McLaren for appearing in this video endorsing Obama. Though I actually agree with some of the concerns, I don't recall hearing too much resistance to that behavior when Christianity spent the past three or four decades stitching itself to the Republican party.
I was in my late teens to early twenties before I realized that there were Christians who were Democrats. It took a while to sink in. As my political views became more moderate, I was wary at first of voicing my opinions in the decidedly Christian circles in which I traveled. Anything but the Republican/Conservative mantra would get you mocked or shunned. In many (most?) Christian circles today there is not a lot of grace given to those with differing political views. You simply aren't allowed to think any differently.
So I think the message of this video is actually, in many ways, about more than Obama. This is a message to the world that not every Christian is a right-wing Republican. It is a message to many Christians that they can give voice to things they have been thinking about (but had felt bullied into silence). It is a challenge to all Christians to listen to the many voices that are speaking on the landscape, and not just coast to the voting booth to do as they have always done.
One article I read felt that this video was a low-blow aimed at McCain concerning his colorful marriage history. Fair enough. However, I think the bigger jab is to the Religious Right which has used "family values" as a club against opponents .... yet seems to quickly dismiss the importance of it when it does not suit their political positoning. I think the video shows that stark contrast.
So.... I am a Christian of 25 years and I support Obama. However, you will not find me mocking McCain on these pages. I am embarrassed by the Christian bloggers who use their blogs to mock Obama. You can do better.
I have been listening to a lot of George Carlin since his death; great social and political commentary. However, if you get queasy at the F bomb, you won't last 2 minutes.
George stated in a very succinct way one of the most glaring inconsistencies you hear coming from modern evangelicals.
George Carlin: And [God Says] if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place...
...full of fire and smoke...
...and burning and torture and anguish..
...where he will send you...
...to live and suffer...
...and burn and choke...
...and scream and cry...
...forever and ever...
...'til the end of time!...
But He loves you. :)
There it is, clear as crystal. On the one hand you will hear Christians state that God loves you with an EVERLASTING LOVE. That God's love is different because, unlike everyone else, His love is UNCONDITIONAL. But if you do not subscribe to certain particular beliefs (which vary from Christian group to Christian group) God will subject you to suffering beyond imagination for eternity.
So which is it? Unconditional love? Or love with the biggest condition the universe has ever seen?
I just realized that the acronym for Salt Lake Emergent Cohort is SLEC. That sounds like a sound you make when something is stuck in your throat. This may be a case where it is wiser to not use the acronym.
The Cohort will be meeting this Wednesday, June 25th at High Point Coffee in West Jordan. It is a time to enjoy a good roast while wrestling through our common pursuit of God from our varying perspectives. If you are in the area, come join us! (Kay?)
I also wrote another article on Hope recently for our Salt Lake Emergent Cohort blog (I just don't think I can use SLEC). Go here to check it out.
I was Google-ing the Truth Project today and found that my blog articles are some, of very few, that critique it. So I started to drift through the many blogs and articles that praised it.
One of the more common praises is a relief amongst Christians that the Truth Project is standing up and defending "Absolute Truth". In fact, I think in many circles, clinging to absolute truth has become synonymous with (or has even surpassed) clinging to Christ.
Somewhere in Christian history the notion that some truth is not relative became NO truth is relative. In fact, the word relativism has become a swear word or an insult. In fundamentalist camps it would be a low blow to refer to someone as a "relativist".
Well, I am a relativist. I think we all are. God sees the whole picture. The rest of us are peeking through our lenses and vested interests from our different perspectives and angles. How could it be any different? The difference between myself and someone who claims to cling to absolute truth is that I recognize that the ground on which I stand is positional in reference to God. Therefore, I must keep moving to gain a better view of God. The absolutists believe their position to BE the baseline and if everyone would just come and stand where they are standing - all would be clear.
This is why I feel programs like the Truth Project can be so damaging. It makes the listener feel they are putting on layers of armor... when actually it is mere papier-mâché. You have all seen this or heard it in action. A Christian who has read a book, or seen a DVD, or heard their Pastor, has become an expert and tries to engage someone from the "other side" - except it doesn't sound like a discussion, it sounds like a lecture. The Christian gets befuddled by the most sincere contradictory questions (because their beliefs have been given, not earned) and goes back to repeating what they have already stated. Finally the Christian, in frustration, walks away muttering something about the other not "having ears to hear the truth" or other such nonsense. The Christian tends to learn NOTHING from an exchange like this because they usually make very poor assumptions:
He or she already has the Truth
The other is against them
Anyone not of the Christian Faith brings nothing of spiritual value to the table
If the other does have a spiritual insight, it must be tainted
To me, phrases like "absolute truth" are the shield and club of the lazy. They want everything ready made and pre-packaged (like the rest of our lives) so that nothing requires work or effort. We just want to be in the right group with the proper beliefs, and we want an iron clad solid response to anyone who would say otherwise. Mystery and ambiguity leave too many loose ends. Let us simplify God so he can be properly sorted out.
Paul was a relativist. He was completely comfortable being a Jewish believer. He just felt that Gentile believers didn't need to be Jewish believers. Many Jewish believers felt that there were obvious markers to who was in the Faith and who wasn't. Paul rejected this - not the markers themselves, only their enforcement on others. However, he gave grace for people to personally do what they felt they needed to do, "If anyone regards something as unclean... then for him it is unclean." Today in Christendom, we would want to press Paul for a straight answer. He would give none. He would shrug and say, "It is a matter of your conscience". I tend to think most of the Christian Testament writers would be unpopular in Christian circles today.
Paul spoke positively about freedom. Why is the Christian community so afraid of it?
I am frustrated and I feel confined. Words are escaping me at the moment. No, not escaping... too many to say.
Terry Taylor has expressed in poetry and song what I cannot seem to say presently in prose.
Love is a question mark Life's in a shadow box God hides himself sometimes Inside a paradox
And there may not ever be Anything new here to say But I'm fond of finding words That say it in a different way
Does everybody want it nicely Lined up in little neat rows? Does anybody know precisely Just where the wild wind blows? I can hand it to you brightly Wrapped up in ribbons and bows
We could dance the same old dances Learn all the same old ropes Roll out the same safe songs Tell all our tired jokes
We've got some walls to climb We've got some gates to crash We've got a fire to light Burn down the pious trash Ribbons and Bows from the album Mr. Buechner's Dream by Daniel Amos
.jpg)
