(Ir)religiosity

Contrary to the plethora of blog reviews I’ve read, I don’t think Brian McLaren goes too far in his newest book.  I think he doesn’t go far enough.  I’ll explain.

One of McLaren’s major claims in the book — in fact, the claim on which the entire book rests — is that traditional biblical hermeneutics have been limited to what he calls the “six-line Greco-Roman narrative” which constructs the rigid dualisms and binaries with which we are all familiar: spirit/body, heaven/earth, form/substance, good/evil, etc.  When applied to Scripture, this interpretive lens results in the following trajectory that has prevailed in traditional, conventional Christianity for quite some time: (1) perfection in creation, (2) fall into sin, (3) condemnation, (4) the possibility of salvation, and either (5) eternal damnation or (6) a return to perfection in heaven.  The picture below gives you sense of the movement of the lines.

McLaren maintains that this Greco-Roman narrative has been transposed over Scripture as a narrative overlay.  As such it guides interpretation of the text and, in turn, the trajectory of theology.  For McLaren, this is the dominant way of reading and interpreting Scripture, it is, quite literally, the water in which every Christian swims.  The deeper question, though, is whether Scripture is being circumscribed and restricted by this narrative overlay.  That is, whether the arc of the Greco-Roman narrative is actually indicative of Scripture itself or whether it has been imported to the text.  McLaren thinks it has.  And he spends a good deal of time drawing comparisons between the six-line interpretation of Scripture and Platonism.  I’ll spare you that piece and simply throw up another picture that does the trick. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve been reading more reviews of McLaren’s newest book and assessments of emergent, both positive and negative.  And still, I find myself a little disappointed with the tone, the rhetoric and the posturing coming from both sides.  For all its emphasis on “the postmodern” and getting beyond all the old binaries, it seems that, in some ways, the conversation is still beholden to modernist forms of thinking and theologizing.  Or maybe that’s just part of the human condition.

A I lecture attended last night at BUSTh sent me to some of John Wesley’s sermons (something I’m sorry to say I haven’t done in a while).  I guess I still had these latest developments on my mind because I found myself drawn to “The Catholic Spirit.” I almost feel like Wesley is commenting on the blogosphere. Here are a few choice quotes.

[A]lthough a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences. These remaining as they are, they may forward one another in love and in good works. [...] Every wise man, therefore, will allow others the same liberty of thinking which he desires they should allow him; and will no more insist on their embracing his opinions, than he would have them to insist on his embracing theirs. He bears with those who differ from him, and only asks him with whom he desires to unite in love that single question, “Is thy heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?”[...] And how shall we choose among so much variety [of opinion]? No man can choose for, or prescribe to, another. But every one must follow the dictates of his own conscience, in simplicity and godly sincerity. He must be fully persuaded in his own mind and then act according to the best light he has. Nor has any creature power to constrain another to walk by his own rule. God has given no right to any of the children of men thus to lord it over the conscience of his brethren; but every man must judge for himself, as every man must give an account of himself to God. [...] I dare not, therefore, presume to impose my mode of worship on any other.  I believe it is truly primitive and apostolical: but my belief is no rule for another.

[A] man of a catholic spirit is one who, in the manner above-mentioned, gives his hand to all whose hearts are right with his heart…one who, retaining [God's] blessings with the strictest care, keeping them as the apple of his eye, at the same time loves–as friends, as brethren in the Lord, as members of Christ and children of God, as joint partakers now of the present kingdom of God, and fellow heirs of his eternal kingdom–all, of whatever opinion or worship, or congregation, who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ; who love God and man; who, rejoicing to please, and fearing to offend God, are careful to abstain from evil, and zealous of good works. He is the man of a truly catholic spirit, who bears all these continually upon his heart; who having an unspeakable tenderness for their persons, and longing for their welfare, does not cease to commend them to God in prayer, as well as to plead their cause before men; who speaks comfortably to them, and labours, by all his words, to strengthen their hands in God. He assists them to the uttermost of his power in all things, spiritual and temporal. He is ready “to spend and be spent for them;” yea, to lay down his life for their sake.

If you have had your finger to the pulse of the emergent conversation lately I would encourage you to read the whole sermon (it’s not too long) and I would submit it as a modest plea for more charitable and constructive dialogue.  As Wesley makes clear, this does not mean indifference of opinion nor does it require us to gloss over theological difference.  Critical theological engagement is a requirement — but it should be done with a catholic spirit.  And I find that lacking.  In many ways, social media and disembodied online communication only exacerbate the problem but I am confident that a more generous and mutually beneficial dialogue can take place.  And I hope it does.

The best example I have seen of this so far is Nathan Glimour’s review over at The Christian Humanist (also home of a podcast worth checking out).  Glimour raises so of the same issues I have wondered about in ANKOC, namely McLaren’s use of sources and his reading of history and the tradition.¹  But the point is he writes an critical evenhanded review that doesn’t fall into the various forms of rhetorical drama that seem to be popping up.

Emergent has always imbibed a catholic spirit.  I just hope it is not forsaken in favor of various dogmatisms.

1. For instance, I find McLaren’s description of Greco-Roman as a cultural monolith and his casting of Aristotle as some sort of Platonic heir rather than a supplanter a bit dubious.  I’m also beginning to wonder how useful it really is to place a narrative overlay on Scripture, whether it is the six-line Greco-Roman narrative McLaren castigates or his alternative.  What is lost when we circumscribe the entire canon to a singular arc?  Perhaps I’ll post on this soon. [↩]

“Emergent is dead” and emergent “break-up” posts seem to be in vogue lately.  The latest round have to do with the release of Brian McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity.  In the eyes of some he’s gone way too far; for others he is finally clarifying his own positions.  I tend to fall in the latter category.  I am still a few chapters shy of finishing, but it seems to me that this book is the next logical step in the evolution of Brian’s work over time.  In other words, ten years later he is putting more substance to the wild ride he started with A New Kind of Christian.  And the result is the most cohesive and the “best ordered presentation to date of emergent theology.” That last statement has, quite frankly, pissed some people off because Brian hasn’t conformed to their expectations or notions of “orthodoxy”¹ (although I think the subtext to some of the more vitriolic reactions has to do with some built up disdain over the trajectory of the conversation for the past several years) .  Hence the eulogies and dear John letters. The problem, though, is that people had fixed expectations.  This isn’t that type of conversation.  I’m of the opinion that emergence isn’t dead, rather it is evolving and maturing.

Among the more charitable critiques are those offered by Jeremy Bouma who, along with bidding emergent goodbye, is submitting some of the thought to some much needed, though perhaps misguided, thoroughgoing theological critique.  I raised some issues on a few threads that I think are worth exploring here a bit more.

Bouma’s main issue that is that the trajectory of emergent in the past several years (he cites Doug Pagitt, Peter Rollins, and McLaren among others) has departed from “historic orthodox Christianity,” a monolith to be determined by “the rule of the faith.”  In other words, emergent fails the litmus test.  The real question, though, is what is this rule of the faith and who gets to be the arbiter of orthodoxy?  Here Bouma cites both the Nicene and Apostle’s Creed (which, for the purposes of this post, I have no qualms with) alongside his own constructive theological interpretation of them.  This is where we run into problems. Read the rest of this entry »

1. I’m not one to suggest issuing moratoriums on buzzwords, but if I were this word (along with maybe “biblical,” “scriptural” and “heretical”) would be one of them.  It has lost virtually all of its meaning and is only used as a rhetorical trump-card [↩]

Ok — first of all, until now I knew nothing about bloggingheads.tv.  This is an awesome site.  Sort of the YouTube for what they are calling diavlogs.  What is amounts to is two people getting together via the site and participating a dialogue (or conversation, or debate, or whatever you want to call it).  Like I said, an awesome site.  Like many other web2.0 outlets, the realm of public discourse and conversation is no longer restricted to the circle of elitist experts, academicians, or TV talking heads.  It’s fair game for anyone.

Anyway, I first found this diavlog between Brian McLaren and Richard Land via the Progressive Revival blog over at Beliefnet (ht. to Todd).  It’s a really interesting conversation, especially for those of us that tire of the old left/right polarity of modernity.  McLaren and Land provide a great example of conversation, proving that civil conversation between differing parties, regardless of media portrayal, is possible — and very much needed.

So, here’s the diavlog.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Tony Campolo: The Changing Politics of Evangelicals
• Who should I diavlog with?
• Bloggingheads Goes Big Time: Little Video Site That Could Adopted By NYT

At the moment I’m about 3/4 of the way through Brian McLaren’s Everything Must Change (a great book by the way, if I have time when I finish I’ll post a review). Today I ran across something in my reading today that caused me to really stop and think for a moment. In his discussion of what he calls the “prosperity system” (which along with the security and equity subsystems constitutes the societal machine, a system civilization has abused and misused, creating the destructive suicide machine/system we now live within) McLaren critiques the spiritual ethos of “the corporation.” Drawing from the work of former FBI consultant Dr. Robert Hare, McLaren lists six characteristics of corporations:

1. The display of callous unconcern for the feelings and well-being of others. (As evidenced in worker abuse, exploitation, and outsourcing.)
2. The incapacity to maintain enduring relationships. (i.e. when workers organize and demand better pay or better working conditions the corporations simply fires them and moves on to another vulnerable group)
3. Reckless disregard for the safety of others. (i.e. when persons experience health problems that are caused by a corporations productions and the corporations does everything within its power to minimize the problem so as to maximize thier profit. Watch the movie Michael Clayton and you’ll know what I mean.)
4. The display of habitual decietfulness, lying, and conning others for the sake of profit. (this works in tandem with number 3)
5. The consistent failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.
6. In spite of the faults, they continue to demonstrate and incapacity to experience guilt or remorse and continue in the five previous behavior patterns.

Then, again drawing on Hare’s work, McLaren reports that these six behaviors are derived from The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and together describe the state and behavior of a diagnosed psychopath. Our beloved corporations operate and behave no differently then the people we commit to asylums for having a serious, destructive illness. Clinically speaking, the behavior of our corporations–the so-called “glue” of our theocapitalist society–is indistinguishable from the behavior of those individuals we label as societal pests and parasites.

Just some food for thought.

~bh ><>

**UPDATE**

Helen graciously corrected me. Brian’s “Deep Shift” tour hasn’t started yet. It doesn’t begin until spring of next year in North Carolina. The lecture I originally mentioned was titled “Truth-Telling in “Christian” America: Globalization, Poverty and the Environment” and was given at Dominican University. Although I haven’t read the entire book yet, it seems that this lecture provides the best brief snapshot Brian could possibly provide in one installment.

While I’m on the subject check out Helen’s review of the book. Good stuff.

**UPDATE**

Brian McLaren has hit the road recently, launching a speaking tour to promote his newest book, Everything Must Change. I just started the book and it is fantastic, I highly recommend it–you can’t go wrong with any of Brian’s work. I feel pretty special, I was able to get an uncorrected proof–a reader’s advance copy–that only reviewers normally have access to; so, I’ve been noticing all the nitpicky errors most editors would point out. Not that I’m any good at editing, but I do feel distinguished.

Anyway, I’d hoped to catch the tour when it came close, but it looks like the cost may prohibit me from doing so. BUT–the other day I ran across a link over at Jesus Creed to an excellent set of notes from one of Brian’s lectures about the book. You can view the notes here. I don’t think it’s a complete digest of what Brian is actually talking about on the tour, but I think its a good start.

~bh ><>

I’m currently reading Brian McLaren’s The Secret Message Jesus (which is great so far, I highly recommend it to everyone) and throughout the book McLaren uses the phrase ‘interactive relationship(s)’ (which he admittedly borrows from Dallas Willard, who I’ve yet to read) to describe not only eternal life, but the entire kingdom of God including the participation of ‘kingdom agents’ in realizing and actualizing the kingdom as a present and ongoing reality.

The language of interaction and synergism is interesting and intriguing to me. Since the Reformation, Christianity has traditionally—at least in the West—operated under the assumption that a person must have an exclusive ‘personal relationship’ with God through Jesus Christ. I can’t begin to count the number of sermons I’ve heard based solely on this premise (which is interesting given the phrase, ‘personal relationship’ is never mentioned in the bible, but that’s another matter, another blog perhaps).

I think McLaren and Willard offer perhaps a new (or old, depending on how your view it) way of living as followers of Jesus. First, the emphasis on the kingdom of God, not just as a future reward for believing particular dogma, but even more consequential, as a present reality, on earth as it is in heaven, moves the action of kingdom agents from the confines of the institutional church to the world at large, as a physical, tangible force of transformation. This changes everything. It changes how one views politics and religion, economics and finances. It changes how one views education and government. Most importantly it changes of one sees and treats others. And that leads us back to the idea of interactive relationship(s).

There is a common theme throughout Jesus’ life and ministry (indeed, there are many, but I’m choosing to address one): in any given situation, confrontation or opportunity, Jesus always chose the human relationship and human need over the alternative (the Sabbath, the tradition, ect.). Jesus chose to acknowledge the spark of the divine within whomever he came in contact with, especially, the outcast, the marginalized, and the oppressed. Jesus recognized people as bearers of the image of God. In short, Jesus defined what it meant to be a people person.

Even bigger than human interaction, this idea of ‘interactive relationship’ can be used to describe how one relates with and ‘interacts’ God. History is the narrative of God’s cosmic process of restoration, healing, and renewal. As ‘kingdom agents’ human beings participate with God in this synergetic process. John Dominic Crossan describes this as ‘sapiential eschatology.’ In other words, God acts through us. God cannot act without us (sound familiar? the body of Christ? the hands and feet of Jesus?). Thus, we are an extension of God’s dynamism at work in the world. Indeed, we ‘interact,’ imitate and cooperate with God in building the God’s kingdom.

Finally, opting for ‘interactive’ language rather than ‘personal’ language shifts the emphasis from individualism to holism. Again, this has too often been the temptation and the persuasion of the Western church. Salvation is almost always individualized and personal, individual growth outside the community is, I believe, often over-emphasized. Look at the common praise and worship song. The language is usually exclusively individualistic. At best this kind of thinking can bring about personal transformation without regard to community, at worst it glorifies the individual leading to among other things, (as history has shown) imperialism and colonialism. Conversely, interaction language demands a more holistic and communal type of salvation, an ongoing cosmic narrative of sanctification and maturation. The community of faith and virtue cooperates and participates in the God’s process. Human beings are treated as a reflection of God. Divinity and humanity are woven together permeating the fabric of being itself. Perhaps if this idea of ‘interactive relationship(s)’ can be adopted we can begin to overcome the vice of western individualism and exclusivism. Perhaps.

~bh ><>

In preparation and anticipation for his upcoming book Everything Must Change, emerging church leader, Brian McLaren has joined forces with Aaron Strumpel over at Restoration Village in creating a new music project called “Songs for a Revolution of Hope.” I haven’t been able to find a track listing , but one of the songs, ironically titled “Atheist” has found its way onto YouTube. The song has evoked some feedback and as one can imagine, most of it is critical. I’m sure the whole project will spark many reviews, but the only two one I read (or cared to read) on the single was over at The Slice and The CCM Patrol. The former is more of an attack on McLaren in general, the latter is more of a critical review.

Anyway, I can see why the critics might be upset. I’m sure if they haven’t yet, they’ll accuse McLaren of creating his own deity to serve his own agenda. But seriously, what’s wrong with the “agenda.” What’s wrong with a God of peace and justice, non-violence and mercy? Perhaps it would be better if we called the “agenda” what it really is–the truth. I suppose “blowback” should be expected when one assumes the role of prophet. The truth is hardly comforting at times, but it must be told. I found the song refreshing especially considering what gets labeled as “christian music” these days. People like McLaren and Derek Webb are reclaiming the prophetic voice by using subversive art. Somebody’s got to do it. Someone as to rise above all the “noise” and ask the tough questions.

We need these modern day prophets. We need them to tell us that violence will never be redemptive or salvific. Just as Jesus pioneered a new way of non-violent subversion and truth-telling, we need McLaren and Webb, et. al to hold our (and I use the term “our” very, very broadly) actions and their underlying theological ramifications accountable, to hold them up to a mirror of truth.

It’s not a popular thing to do, but I for one applaud it. I’m waiting for the next video…

~bh ><>