A theology of the Bible discussed

Hey folks, this is a long email to a friend of mine who I am having a discussion with about the KOG. What I discuss is a way of reading the Bible, and I thought it might be interesting enough to share. I apologize for not editing it down, but I need to hang out with my kid.

 

Ok, I'm gunna finally try to give a decent response to your thoughts here. I have been excited to respond for a while just haven't had the time/energy to put pen to paper (so to speak). Like I've said, I'm excited because I think we are getting to the crux of things, and that's where good conversation happens.

The points in your post I would like to highlight are these:

"I think what has also turned me off a bit to that part of the conversation has been the way of talking about the Kingdom in a way that it is we who are bringing it about."

And

"I would say that I root a lot of my understanding of the KOG in Romans 5, where Paul outlines Jesus as the New Adam and His recapitulation of humanity."

Ok, before I talk more about the KOG (which I might not get into in this email), I wanna talk a second about how I think that you and I read scripture differently. And I only dare discuss this because I feel at this point you know that I respect you as a Christian and as a theologian. So, even though I will be communicating in such a way that proposes my way of reading scripture as being somehow better, please understand I hold that opinion humbly, realize I could be wrong, and regardless do not consider it the measure of a Christian. But it's useless to try and pretend that I think all theologies or strategies of reading the Bible are equally valuable because I don't and if I did, what would be the point of discussing it. Anyway, here it is.

I imagine, from reading your thoughts thus far, that you read the scriptures through the lens of a systematic theologian. Which means that there is a kind of meta-narrative or philosophical schema, a systematic theology is what I'm saying, that scripture then fits into. Now don't hear me wrong here. I trust that your overall structure is Biblical and I'm not suggesting that it is something made up "outside" of the text and superimposed on top of it. We can have conversations about who's overall systematic theology is more biblically sound then the other, and that's a useful conversation to be sure, but I am talking about something different here.

The theology riding underneath your strategy (forgive my assumptions, please correct me where I am wrong) is that of God's, how should I say, hands on approach to the creation of the scripture. I don't know if you go as far as inerrancy but I assume that you believe that God's inspiration of the Bible means a handful of things. For example, that there is coherent "truth" that is represented throughout the text. That there are no serious contradictions in teaching or doctrine in the Bible. That the Bible itself is sufficient for our faith. Etc. How am I doing so far? (btw. don't assume I'm too big a heretic yet, I'm not saying I disagree with all this, entirely)

So what, then, is a different view of the Bible? I believe that God was active in inspiring the events of the Bible as well as the folks who wrote down those events, as well as the communities who edited and canonized those accounts. I also believe that God has been active in the communities that have read them over the centuries, and still is today (no disagreement so far, I bet). However, I also believe that at every step of the way, humanity was active in the process as well. In the events, the stories told, the creation of the text, and the interpretation. I think the creedal statements about Jesus work for scripture as well – entirely God (inspired) and entirely man (man made).

Therefore, I don't believe that the Bible offers us a perfect, consistent, systematizable, truth. Rather, I believe that the Bible is a man made/God inspired text that we read, study and meditate on for a lifetime to, hopefully, through prayer, understand more and more about God throughout our life.

So, I am ok with there being tensions in the Bible, and here's my point. I believe that the stories about Jesus as represented by the Gospel writers (at least Mt, Mk & Lk) present to us a teaching primarily concerned with the Kingdom of God, and our activity in it. Whereas the teachings of Paul are primarily concerned with something else (I'm not sure how to say it, maybe 'the theology and ontology of the Christ event"?). And that these two things, though not exactly at odds, are in tension with one another. Which is why churches have a "canon within the canon" meaning parts of scripture that they concentrate on, dictated, I would argue, by whatever theological superstructure they come to the Bible with.

However, I believe that if we instead come to the scripture without attempting to find an overarching superstructure of truth we will be able to do justice to the tensions that exist in the text.

So, for example, if the question is: Is the KOG up to us, or up to God, the answer can be YES.

Now, to your point about the Emerging Church, do I think that sometimes some of us fall to far on the side of human responsibility, as a reaction to our evangelical roots that we felt were in error on the other side, yes. Which, actually, is why I originally sought you out as a conversation partner, to provide that tension in my own life. Because I believe that the tension is itself, biblical (I'd love to see a systematic theology based around the idea of tension, maybe I'll write one someday).

I'm excited to hear your thoughts on this.

Grace and peace,

jason

Rethinking sermons

I have long been discontent with the style of sermon I often hear in many churches that I visit as well as the style of sermon I was encouraged to preach during my education. I think that I have begun to find words for this discontentment.

"Relevant to daily life" is the goal of all sermons, according to common wisdom. The parishioners should walk away with something they can immediately apply to their life. Some change of behavior, attitude, or sometimes belief.

Of course their is nothing wrong with this goal in itself, but here's my frustration. I believe that ultimately the best thing I can do for my community as a preacher is to give them a fuller, deeper, truer image of Jesus, God and the Gospel. And that if I am successful in that, then that will have a more lasting, and truer to the gospel, affect on their daily life.

But here's the rub. That's hard. It takes intense attention to the text, a willingness to embrace some mystery and paradox and to lay down what we think we know about Jesus and God, not to mention all of my skills as a communicator, just to try and show forth Jesus well. When I do try to make a sermon immediately "relevant to daily life" I usually circumvent the process of true exploration in search of some clever, relevant, interesting soundbite that I think people will remember.

And brother's and sister's in the ministry, I fear I've heard most of y'all do this too.

But maybe, when I've been doing this longer, I will find a way to do both.

The Creeds?

Last night at the DC Emergent Cohort we had, I think, one of the most interesting conversations that we have had in a while. Consistent Cohorter and member of Church of the Common Table Ryan Page, led us in a honest questioning of the value of saying the creeds in our common life as Christian communities.

Now I am a fan of the creeds so I have to admit I wasn't excited about the topic going in, but Ryan made me stop and think. Not so much about the value or theology of the creed themselves, they have their weirdness's, but all and all I think they are strong and useful. But about the potential threat against hospitality to the un-churched visitor in reciting the creed in our church services. Here is the analogy he made, I found it haunting.

There is a scene in 1984 where a character is being tortured for the purpose of brainwashing him. And as mice are eating his face he is being instructed to say that there are 5 lights in front of him when there are clearly only 4. This first lie, or breech of integrity, is all the brainwashers need to eventually re-program the characters thinking.

To Ryan, this is what it feels like (without the rats, of course) to be pressured by a group of people to stand up and recite a bunch of words that you don't yet believe or understand.

That made me stop and think. I don't know what to do about it, but I think its worth thinking about.

Random personal tidbits...

First. I just got a new Blackberry, and I love it! I think the lesson for me is that I am not a super early adapter (the last few phones i have gotten have been 'the latest thing' and I've been unhappy with them). When it comes to technology, give me the thing that's been out for a couple of years, has got all its kinks worked out, and the best version has risen to the top. Like the blackberry. :) Oh, if any blackberry user out there has advice for me on how to get the most out of it, I'd love to hear it.

Second. The family and I are going to Phoenix to spend the week (two Sundays!) with my folks. This will be the first (and second) Sundays I've had off (not counting the Sundays spent in the hospital) since we planted CPCP August of 2006.

Third. A friend of mine just had a baby and these are the cutest pictures ever!

Fourth. I need a new XBox 360 game to play when I get home. Any suggestions?

Third “mark” of an Emerging Church: Community based theology and ecclesiology

Saying that authentic community is important to the Emerging Church doesn't distinguish it from other churches. Most churches have “building authentic community” as one of their missions or goals. You can see this in the time and energy spent on small group ministries or Sunday School. I will leave analysis the effectiveness of those two models for another time. Because what I believe is different about the Emerging Church is that this community focus must make its way both in the way we do theology and the way we structure our churches (ecclesiology).

“Will the generation that created Wikipedia be content with a traditional top down church hierarchical structure?” (Hat tip to Mike S.).

This question has helped to shape my thinking on this subject, because if the answer is no, and I believe, for most of us, it is, then that has serious consequences on how we form our communities. It doesn’t mean there is no leader (Wikipedia still has a CEO) but that the leader’s role in the community is different than it has been in the past. More facilitator and less boss, more coach, and less charismatic leader, more friend, and a little less priest.

And it means that we must create opportunities for our Christian communities to be shaped and led by everyone in the community who shows up. Not just the pastor, or staff, or leadership team, or the longest standing members, or the biggest givers, or whatever. All those people have roles to pay, but so does everyone who calls the church home.

But its more than structural, it’s theological also. I believe that the spirit is just as likely (if not decidedly more likely) to speak truth to the community then it is to speak truth to me. I believe the spirit is just as likely to give us guidance through the community as it is to give guidance to me. And believing that has consequences on how we do church as well. A simple example in my community is that after almost every sermon there is a time for discussion, for questions, for thoughts, for places where someone might disagree with me, etc. it’s a small thing but it seems to have a big affect on people.

Test

This is a test of Microsoft Word's blog creation software.

Jason

Second “mark” of an Emerging Church: Experimental theology and worship

For a church to be an Emerging Church in my mind in needs to be at least exploring new ways of communicating with, and about, God.

By new ways of communicating with God, I am referring primarily to things that might happen on a Sunday (or whenever the community gathers together for “worship”). This includes all the things you might normally think of when you think of an Emerging Church: stations, labyrinths, body prayer, discussion based sermons, etc.

Probably the best known and most interesting examples of this are Grace church in the UK with Johnny Baker and Icon in Dublin with Pete Rollins. But other churches are doing more humble things that I think are just as invigorating (e.g. The Common Table in Vienna VA, and my own community, CPCP in College Park, MD).

Ultimately, however, I think that experimental ways of communicating with God are hollow if they don’t allow for and encourage new ways of talking about God. This is one of the reasons why I think starting an “Emerging Service” within an established congregation can be so difficult – they often don’t have the stomach for new thoughts about God.

So let me just list some of the ideas about God (and broader theological issues) that I see being put on the table and rethunk in various Emerging Churches:

• Foundationalist understanding of truth
• Biblical inerrancy
• Predestination
• Original sin
• Eternal damnation
• Penal substitutionary atonement
• Homosexuality as sin
• God’s nature as being omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent
• And more…

Now, of course, I’m not saying that to be an Emerging Church a community must tackle all of these, and I certainly don’t think that to be an Emerging Church you have to come to the same conclusion on all (or any) of these. In fact a community might consider one of these things and decide that they still think the way they have always thunk is right, hopefully coming to a deeper and more nuanced opinion on the matter in the process. All I am saying is that I think for a church to be truly an “Emerging Church” it needs to be able to have an open conversation about things like the issues represented here, and if questioning any of these undermines your faith in the living God, well then I wouldn’t suggest seeking out an Emerging Church to worship in.

On the other, I don’t believe, as some might argue, that everything is up in the air in Emerging Churches. There are traditional theological ideas that I don’t see being questioned, but actually embraced whole heartedly as the real “stuff” of Christianity, and the way forward. Examples would include:

• The Trinity
• Incarnation
• Resurrection
• And more…

I would love to hear what others would add (or remove) to either of these lists.