(Ir)religiosity

Most people usually have strong opinions has to the nature of God, specifically whether God is personal or impersonal, transcendent or immanent.  I wonder if this is really just another false dichotomy that we have constructed for ourselves to put us at odds with one another.

What if it’s not either/or?

What if there is some truth to both positions and by recognizing that we come even closer to wrapping our heads around God?

It seems to me that that is the case because God is beyond our conception, beyond our images, and beyond our language.  All of these can only begin to point to God.

I wonder what happens when we insist that others adopt the same names and images for God that we do?

Recently I was commenting on a blog post about inclusive language and the use of personal pronouns and gender references for God.  As I read and commented I was struck about something.  By insisting that God is completely personal and that others must refer to God in the same way that we do (same pronoun, gender, etc.) are we not essentially de-personalizing God for someone who may have a different connection than we do?

Here’s another way of putting it.  In our overly zealous contention that God must personal for all in the way that S/He is personal to us, are we not making God impersonal for others? Does the act of personalization reverse itself here?

I think it may.  What do you think?

This is why I love Jon Stewart.

I’m really liking Ron Martoia’s new book Transformational Architecture: Reshaping Our Lives as Narrative. Most books of this genre, at least most of the ones I’ve been exposed to, concede that we have essentially gotten the Christian message right from the beginning and simply need to change our method — so it is cooler, more attractive, and most of the time, more enculturated in the American ethos of consumption and individualism –  to “reach” more people. Ron’s book challenges that assumption.  He questions the institutional church’s interpretation of the Christian story suggesting that, “Our problem isn’t just one of method, but of message as well.” I like that.  And I think that part of it means to follow the way of Jesus is the humble willingness to question everything, even our appropriation of the story itself.

One of the sub-sections of our assumed story that I struggle and wrestle with is evangelism.  Without going into too much of a diatribe, it has always bothered me that a lot of what passes as “evangelistic outreach,” when you really look at it, has amounted to nothing more than coercion aimed at creating cookie-cutter Christians.  Of course the fear of hell is usually incited and contrasted with the eternal bliss of heaven, somewhere, someday.  Rarely is actual transformation spoken of and there is usually no follow-up or attempt at discipleship.  The number of “converts” almost always trumps any suggestion of radical lifestyle alteration, because we are all just waiting for Jesus to come back right?

Now, that may be a bit overstated.  But I think there is some truth to it.

I think evangelism is part of the message that we have gotten wrong.  And I think we should reevaluate our approach, our definition, and maybe even our use of the word itself.

In the book’s introduction Ron offers an interesting alternate definition of evangelism that I think bears some reflection.

God’s original architectural plans for human “heart space” designed us with cravings, longings, yearnings, that sit at the intuitive level of our lives.  These primal elements, architected deep in the core of our being, drive our desire for transformation.  In other words, “evangelism” is really about helping people along in a journey for which they have desire already built into them at the center of their hearts.

I like that.  I think it is a good new working definition of evangelism.

Here’s why:

• It’s about finding a personal story, an extended narrative, not just a conversion — and sometimes coercive! — experience that will later lose its luster.
• It’s about finding community, a place where the personal narrative can be sustained and nurtured, not restricted and truncated.
• It’s about God’s ongoing story of redemption, restoration, and renewal, not a one-time event, but a process of holistic transformation.

So instead of dominating others with rigid dogmatism, instead of insisting that persons essentially assume the same script and the same story, freedom of creativity and imagination is allowed as persons are encouraged to find their voice and then within a particular local, and contextual community, live that story out in their own peculiar way within the larger framework of God’s narrative of restoration and renewal.

With this approach tangible transformation and actual response to grace are demanded and expected as individuals and communities continually participate in the life of God and partner in the work of realizing the divine commonwealth.

To me, that looks more like the way of Jesus than what has passed as evangelism in the past.

What do you think of Martoia’s definition?  Do you think this more narrative-centered, conversational approach might be more effective than the modern approach of the past?  And, do you think there might be a better word or phrase besides “evangelism” that could be used, something with less baggage that might better communicate the invitation to participate?

I ran across this thought by Moby reading something else last night and I can’t get it out of my head.

i actually think that the teachings of christ accomodate most of the new ways in which we perceive ourselves and our world.
the problem is that although the teachings of christ accomodate this, contemporary christianity does not.
here’s more seriousness dressed up as flippancy:
christ: acknowledging quantum realities.
christiantiy: depressingly newtonian.
does that make any sense?
well, to me it does.
and to some of you it might make sense, also.

That’s rich.  And interesting.  What do you think?

I got a new batch of books and other cool stuff from Mike Morrell and The Ooze over the holiday break. I started this one this evening.

I’m almost halfway through and I’m really liking it. I hope to post about it next week before school gears up.

Kevin Watson, who blogs at Deeply Committed, has started an experiment to see how much social capital Methobloggers have. This experiment was prompted by the feeling among some Methobloggers that United Methodism does not always do as good of a job as it could at getting the Wesleyan message out there, particularly online. So, Kevin wants to see how many views a YouTube video can get if Methobloggers work together to promote it. The experiment is to see how many hits the video will receive in two weeks.

If you want to participate you can: First, watch the video below. Second, copy and paste this entire post into a new post on your blog and post it. Third, remind people about this experiment in one week.

Based on the results of the experiment, Kevin will get in touch with the folks at Discipleship Resources and let them know the ways in which Methobloggers are often an underused resource.

I think this is an excellent idea.  And I’ll be interested to see what comes of it.  The sooner us Methodists improve our presence and ability to mobilize online the better.

You can find the other participants in this experiment here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and here, and here. And here. Oh…and here.

There has been a recent surge in publication of various “special-interest” bibles.  For the comic book and graphic novel geeks there is the Manga Bible, for the hipsters the Bible Illuminated, and for the Methodists the Wesley Bible. Don’t fit into one of those groups?  No problem. There’s always the all-purpose People’s Bible

It just not cool anymore to have plain Jane NRSV or NIV.

The Green Bible is another of these new, hip bibles.  I have mixed feelings about it.  Now, to be sure, all of these new bibles can be useful.  Each of them takes seriously the need to speak in contemporary language with contemporary images and metaphors.  The Green Bible goes a step further, understanding the need, if we are to be faithful bearers of the good news, of taking seriously contemporary problems and providing alternatives.  Many Christian, especially younger ones, are tired of the old ways of “doing” church and “living” theology.  They wonder if their bible has anything serious to say about contemporary issues and if their God cares about what is happening in the world.  And these new bibles communicate that much more effectively than King Jimmy.

According to its website, “The Green Bible will equip and encourage people to see God’s vision for creation and help them engage in the work of healing and sustaining it.”  Which is wonderful; that is indeed part of our task — to understand and take seriously God’s dream for the entire world, the entire cosmos even, and participate in the actualization of that dream in our own peculiar way and in our own particular contexts.  That is good.  That is important  I get that. Read the rest of this entry »

If, God forbid, the internet suddenly ceased to exist today I think I would start a revolution.  I, like many of us, am very dependent on the internet.  I use it for just about everything: communication, shopping, news, reading, etc.

But other than knowing that it wasn’t invented by Al Gore and that the internet and the world wide web are not the same thing, I know next to nothing about the history and development of the internet.

So, here is a brief history of the internet, going all the way back to 1957.

(ht)

I posted this on my site at Missional Tribe last night.  Given its importance I thought I’ve throw it up here too.

In light of the new Tribe that is forming over at MissionalTribe.org, I’ve decided to revisit some previous posts.  Last April I participated in a missional sychroblog hosted by Jonathan Brink over at Missio Dei.  It was a very rewarding experience and allowed me to work through some of my thoughts and feelings about why I call myself a missional Christian and why I am drawn to the larger emergent conversation.  So, what follows is a reworking of two different posts (here and here ).  My thought has really changed much — though I feel like I could probably flesh this out in a small book — so I’ve only reworked the material so it will fit together cohesively.

What is Missional Living?

For me, missional living is participating in God’s work in the world, accepting the invitation of grace and responding to it and being part of God’s story, being part of God’s life. When I see people intentionally and earnestly seeking to discover what God is already doing in the world and when I see people partnering with God as co-creators, participating in divine, redemptive action in the narrative of history, that’s where I see missional living taking place.

But just as important, when I see people living missionally, it is always local, always within a particular context. Missional Christians go to great lengths to understand the context around them and how they might own that context while faithfully and creatively living the gospel message, the good news of redemption and subsequent restoration. In fact, when you think about it, that is the essence of the incarnation. God becoming human, putting skin and bones on, God getting local, pitching a tent among us, and showing us in our context how to live in God’s story and how to participate in the synergetic process of creativity, nurturing an alternative reality of reconciliation, i.e. the divine commonwealth. And it doesn’t get much better than that.

Why Am I Missional?

I am missional because I not only believe it is the best and most faithful response to God’s grace in authentic contextual community as incarnational, synergetic participants in the process of creativity, but because I believe it is the best, most compelling and liberating remedy to the “worldly” (and I use the word with a bit of hesitation) systems of domination and coercive power in which we all live and participate.

And that gives me some serious hope.

We live in a, postmodern and postcolonial world and because of that context we’re beginning to realize our past mistakes in proclaiming the good news and as a result we’re reinventing what it means to live and proclaim (and proclaiming by living) the counter-cultural good news of Jesus of Nazareth.

And really, when you get down to it, it’s not that complicated. It’s just hard to actually do. Mainly because it involves a completely different way of “being” and living. One that denies self and lives for and in service to the entire world; one that takes Jesus at his word.

So, when missional persons read things like: “Love your neighbor as yourself,” “Love your enemies” and “Forgive those who persecute you” they try their best to not reduce them to cute one-line catch phrases but actually put them into action by exemplifying what Paul Tillich calls an “ultimate concern for ‘the other.’”

And that’s why I am missional.

Because it involves living out the good news not just talking about. It involves an ethic that is not divorced from but it vital to the ongoing, interactive narrative of salvation. Rather than humor oneself solely with sophisticated theological or philosophical reflection, a missional follower of the Way participates in theological praxis alongside theological reflection. Furthermore, a missional agent, a missional insurgent, sees any theological reflection that is not preceded, accompanied, and followed by praxis as inherently counter-productive to and Jesus message and God’s dream for the world.

I will never forget the tragedy that happened a few years ago at the Amish school in Pennsylvania. And even more compelling the response of the Amish community to the tragedy will be forever ingrained in my memory. Rather than acting in anger and revenge, the community destroyed the school where the shooting took place and moved on by responding with an overwhelming outpouring of forgiveness and reconciliation. They reached out with compassion, mercy, and grace, grieved along with the family of the perpetrator and set up a charity fund in that family’s name. They attended the funeral of the perpetrator and responded with further acts of forgiveness and love. They became Jesus.

And that is why I am missional.

Because, to me, being missional is the best possible way to live the good news of the Jesus movement and participate in God’s alternative reality (God’s kingdom) in the world today. It is the best possible way to be Jesus in the here and now and to convey the message of restoration and re-creation. It is the best possible way to seek justice, resist evil and do good.

Simply put, it is the best possible way to live.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Missional Theology for a Missional Church ” Missional Church Network
• Big Changes at Emergent Village
• Zizek and Theology by Adam Kotsko

Inspired by some others, I decieded to revamp my “About” page last night.  It was pretty generic and didn’t really give much insight into my rationale for blogging (partly, because I’m still figuring that out.)  And that got me to thinking about the direction and purpose of this blog.

When I started this thing a year and a half ago it was just an experiment, an outlet for my thoughts, and a repository for, well…whatever.  It will still function in that manner.  I enjoy my work and I enjoy seminary, but I have to have some sort of creative outlet.

So my blog will continue to be that outlet, but hopefully it will be a bit more focused.  Check out the about page to see what I’m talking about and let me know what you think (the comment for pages are closed so you can comment here).

We’ll see how this works out.  See if I can do the whole “focused” thing. (Says to self, “I think I can. I think I can. I think I can.”)