EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE or EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED? 2 My questions for Brian McLaren on His View of the Kingdom
Monday, March 31, 2008
Last post I blogged on some of the highlights of Brian McLaren's Everything Must Change (EMC). To just reiterate, I found EMC to be a compelling statement for the emerging church's theology (read prior post here). I highlighted several aspects of the book that I felt were valuable contributions that furthered the emerging church's theology. I could have talked about several more. Having said all that however, I also think the book illustrates why emerging theology/writers are often misinterpreted or criticized. For emerging church theology often leaves crucial t
hings unsaid. I see this problem with EMC. As far as specific criticisms of EMC, Tall Skinny Kiwi (TSK) recently posted here some questions on his blog that are similar to mine (and for that matter Scot McKnight's). Where is "the church" in this book? Is EMC's eschatology too immanentist? What do you mean by "the kingdom of God"? I urge you to read TSK's interview with Brian. To me the interview substantiates this problem of emerging writers "often leaving crucial things unsaid."What I'd like to do in this post is concentrate on Brian's theology of "the kingdom of God." I think Brian is often too opaque in his descriptions of "the Kingdom of God " in EMC. I think he implies things he might not really believe if pressed. I think this then weakens his message as a provocation for change. I hope this little post, along with all the others, furthers the upcoming DeepShift conversation (at Oak Park, it's still not too late to sign up) and encourages Brian further. For I have great hopes that an invigoration of the church can come forth by the Holy Spirit through Brian's leadership. And I think this could be furthered by some clarity from Brian on some issues concerning the Kingdom of God. So here are my questions in brief:
BRIAN - ARE YOU IMPLYING WE SHOULD SEPARATE THE MESSAGE OF JESUS (THE KINGDOM OF GOD) FROM THE MESSAGE ABOUT JESUS (HE RULES AND REIGNS)- if so why?
Brian seems to differentiate "the message of Jesus" (the kingdom of God) from "the message about Jesus" (see for example p.22,98 - this is something I have heard Doug Pagitt do more than once). This hearkens back to the basic questions driving NT Theology at the turn of the last century. For Brian, "the kingdom of God is a framing story (which I agree it is) yet somehow I sense Brian wants to distance this message from the message that indeed the person and work of Jesus Christ as reigning Lord is the means by which this Kingdom is taking place. Am I imagining this? I could be wrong. Because I am sure that Brian would agree that Jesus, the Son f God, having won the victory over sin, death and evil on the cross and in the resurrection, is now sitting at the right hand of God ushering in His Kingdom through the Spirit's work until its final completion. But somehow this seems to be missing. Brian simply does not talk about the Kingdom of God in this way in EMC. Brian seems to be asking us to follow the message of Jesus, the way of Jesus, and if we believe in it then "everything must change." My contention is "everything has already changed." God has begun His reign over evil and sin in Jesus Christ through the resurrection, His exaltation and His reign. Let us now begin to live in/under this change, this inbreaking reality. Is this missing in EMC? Or am I being picky?
BRIAN - WHAT WILL KEEP "THE KINGDOM" MESSAGE FROM GOING THE ROUTE OF THE FUNDAMENTALIST'S JESUS MESSAGE?
Brian's argument is that the proto-type American evangelical gospel domesticates Jesus into a middle-class gospel that has been flattened down and no longer challenges the social status quo (p.3,4,29). Most of us agree wholeheartedly with Brian (including myself!). This is one of Brian's great appeals to us disenchanted evangelicals. But if the above is true - that Brian separates the message of Jesus from the message about Jesus - what is to keep "the kingdom of God" from going the way of this middle class gospel? What is to keep the "kingdom of God" as concept from becoming domesticated in the same way as Jesus was by the American evangelicals: i.e. made comfortable for the same middle-upper middle class American Christians.
Many of us believe this already happened once - in the first articulation of a gospel around "the Kingdom of God." In the mainline protestant social gospel of the 20's 30's to the 70's, the "kingdom of God" became a gospel preached in protestant churches which enlisted thousands for the government programs of justice, "the Good society." The church then, with the job of God's justice being taken care of by the State, settled into its comfortable middle class life. Just as "Jesus" became domesticated into a upper middle class gospel about the afterlife that asks nothing of us socially and politically as a people (evangelicalism), so also the message of "the kingdom of God" became domesticated for ulterior purposes as well: i.e. the kingdom of God became a social program (via the protestant social gospel movement) under the auspices of the government which many would argue became the servant of democracy and capitalism, the very socio-political systems which encoded power, wealth and privilege in the first place. INSTEAD OF EVERYTHING BEING CHANGED, very little was changed.
To just rehearse this theological history, Ritschl, Harnack and others of 19th century protestant theology preached the Kingdom of God was the primary message of Jesus. In the aftermath of the sweeping acceptance of the "Quest for the Historical Jesus": (Schweitzer et. al.), it was accepted that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, yet the message of Jesus, the Kingdom of God, was the truth of the matter. This "Kingdom of God" got interpreted to refer to what God was doing in the world as understood in the surging progress of democracy (most notably by Rauschenbucsh) and all things liberating the individual from economic and social oppression. Democracy became the stand-in for "the kingdom of God." Ironically, fundamentalist evangelicals (read here pres.Bush) follow in this shadow seeing American democracy and freedom as the hope for the world's salvation.
I have argued this before, that once the church was taken out of the engagement for social justice in society, "the kingdom of God" became used to further the agenda of the powers including the state, capitalism and the multi- national corporate hegemony. Racial justice was all but usurped by government economic aims, the war on poverty and exploitation became servants of a sweeping global capitalism. The "kingdom of God" theology, which placed its hope in democratic ideals and economic progress ala the structures of a benign capitalism, became engulfed by the dominant powers which have formed the basis for what Brian calls the Suicide machine in EMC (I know I sound too much like Foucault here). Many may disagee, but the progress for racial justice in the US got derailed once it left the church (it was M L King of the church who started it) and became a set of institutions fed by State and corporate money. Many may disagree, but the progress in the struggle over poverty got derailed once it became a massive social program that depended on the poor for its enduring existence and profits. I know this can sound excessive, but I look to people like Shane Claiborne to make the same arguments more gracefully. So I think it is a fair question to ask Brian: WE'VE TRIED THIS BEFORE - HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT?
Today, there are some who see late democracy, and its collaboration with global capitalism, as the main culprits of this hideous suicide machine that Brian so brilliantly exposits in EMC (I'm talking about post Marxian Continental political theorists). Yet I argue, this is what happened with the first "social gospel" of the Kingdom. How does Brian's theological proposals in EMC avoid the same fate? I think Brian's work could be helped, as well as many emerging writers', if they would spell out the difference. Emerging folk complain often that they get accused of being protestant liberals falsely. I believe they are pursuing a different direction. Likewise, to many of us informed by postmodernity (obviously not all), protestant liberal "kingdom of God" theology is a failed social strategy. It would further the Kingdom and the emerging movement if Brian could clarify these issues for us.
BRIAN - SHOULD THE TITLE BE "EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE" or "EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED"?
I come away from reading EMC with the sense that, according to all of us who agree with Brain about this Suicide Machine (and I am one of them), EVERYTHING MUST CHANGE, and now "it's up to us!" And of course it is up to us. Yet in a way, IT'S NOT … you know what I am saying? The reality is "EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED" and now we must join in and cooperate with the ongoing work of God to usher in the consummation of His Kingdom. This guaranteed Final Victory is part of our Framing Story (is this what TSK was getting at with his questions concerning eschatology?).
This problem can be solved simply by linking the Kingdom of God inextricably to the affirmation - "Jesus is Lord." Nothing is lost here. For we are not asserting a new universalist coercive foundationalism (Lesslie Newbigen) We are telling the Story we believe to be key to the future of all creation (the Secret Message). To me one cannot read NT Wright and miss the power of this (nevermind the host of NT scholars that went before him (Goppelt, Cullmann, Guelich, Ladd etc.). I read hints of this Lordship Christology throughout EMC. But does it seem to be muted in the book? Why? The funny thing is, I'm convinced Brian believes all of this and more. Is this just in my imagination? Other bloggers, help me out here if I misread Brian here.
BRIAN - DOESN'T EMC CALL FOR A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF THE CHURCH? WHY SO LITTLE TALK OF THE CHURCH AS A STRATEGY FOR SOCIAL REVOLUTION?
Very simply, if "the kingdom of God" cannot be separated from "the King," this places a renewed emphasis on the local church as being the instrument of a new politics, the politics of justice, righteousness and social renewal. It is indeed these people, called out ahead of time to recognize the inbreaking Kingdom, who recognize Jesus as Lord already, who shall be empowered to be the subjects of the new dynamic, the victory over the powers that threaten the earth. Indeed Brian talks in EMC as if this is indeed what he is calling for (pp. 291 ff.). Yet it seems this message somehow gets dissipated in the book. The church does not take the central role here. Yet I can only imagine if a person of Brian's stature called for the church to begin a micropolitics of subversion WHOOOAH .. can you imagine 1000's of tiny communities of Christ, gathering under his Lordship to resist the foreign powers that threaten the world. (I think this emphasis on an incarnational subversive ecclesiology is the main difference between the missional movement and the emerging church movement). Somehow this dynamic is present in EMC, yet it misses the punch for the reasons I have stated before, and for a lack of a robust ecclesiology. Again, am I misreading here?
Brian, thanks for your contribution to the coming of Christ's Kingdom. I think you agree with everything I have just said. I just want you to more bold about it.
I'm open for discussion here. I'm open to being wrong. Heck, I want to be wrong. What are your impressions? Blessings on EMC and DeepShift.
Posted by David Fitch | 10:03 AM
COMMENTS:
I know it might be hard for some of your readers, but I think that our new "framing story" has to include an evolutionary view of creation. We limit our understanding of escotology so much if we do not include it.
When we proclaim "Jesus is Lord" does that mean we are willing to wash another's feet, or wait on tables, or are these things reserved for those who are not a spiritually blessed? I worry that all this kingdom mentality is reinforcing a spiritual heirachy in our churches such that we can't even listen to donkeys in our little fiefdoms.
Fortunately, we don't have know what the "kingdom of God" will look like in the human realm. But I imagine it will imitate the natural world quite a bit. I think there's a reason Jesus used so many gardening analogies.
Dave, I get the impression that you think society hasn't made any social progress in the last 2k yrs. I don't think that's a very fair assessment -not even for the last two hundred or so years. But I agree we need to make more.
1:22 PM
Thanks for your post Dave - some very sound and important questions I think. Excited for the follow up discussion. I hope this makes it around to Brian cause I think he'll have some insightful replies.
2:15 PM
Dave - Why do you assume that the term "Kingdom of God" must imply the traditional evangelical or liberal protestant ideas? What if, as Brian and others repeatedly claim, this is something different that can't be brushed aside as "oh I've seen this before"? Have you even tried to read his book without projecting these assumptions into it?
and I know that I'm not addressing your questions here, but so often recently it feels like completely different languages are being spoken in these conversations. I have to wonder if people are actually reading McLaren or just trying to find themselves in his work.
2:34 PM
Hi David - I haven't read the book yet so my comments come from previous exepreince.
I appreciate what you say and am aware of the issues - they seem to dog us at times - not saying boldy enough what we actually do believe.
We have tended to refer to the kingdom of God as being the circumference, but Jesus as Lord being the centre of that 'circle'. I think the holding together of these two truths is critical to a robust future.
Then again prophets usually say stuff in extreme ways so maybe Brian would be less heard if he put it this way!
4:04 PM
Julie,
I guess I don't mean to characterize the Kingdom in terms of evangelical notions - I think evangelicals have ignored it, neither am I asking us to characterize the Kingdom in the terms given us by 19th century protestantism - indeed I am asking for us not to do that. So I don't understand the first part of your question. As for "projecting assumptions"? Sorry about this. I guess none of us can be free from projection. I certainly was aiming for a fair reading.
I think where I disagree with you is that I believe "the Kingdom of God" is not something different or new, but a deeply robust extremely grounded core of the Story of God in Christ. It is what God is doing. I think therefore that the question - what is the Kingdom of God? - is one of the central questions here - certainly worthy of asking. The fact that different languages are being spoken here is indeed what needs to be brought out. We need to ask which languages are robust and which can be subsumed by the sinister powers (of the suicide machine)without us even knowing it.
Peace ...
5:07 PM
Dave,
Thank you so much for these last two post. They have helped me very much so frame some of my own questions for the emerging conversation. I appreciate your clarity and your insight.
Peace,
Garret
8:15 PM
Thanks David. A couple of thoughts relating to both posts:
Are we asking too much of Brian? Mal Garvin of Fusion Australia cites (The Divine Art of Networking, pp. 109-118). the work of Dr. Anne Dosher in studying phases of genuine movement of social transformation, where she describes the four roles that play a key part in a communicating network or series of networks becoming agents of transformation. These are the agitator/catalyst; the prophet/myth-maker; the statesperson, and the administrator. Do we look to Brian to be all of the first three – or at least the middle two? BTW, this is why I value your contributions – you aid in rounding out the responsibilities of the movement.
Second, a pair of quotes from Alan Lewis, “Between Cross & Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday”. These illustrate the great value of Brian’s, and NT Wright’s work in using the Story to re-shape theology:
“How can dogmas, rendered static, finished, absolute, recover their dynamic and be reformed other than by critical subjection once again to the church’s originating, self-identifying story? Whereas the purpose of doctrine is to preserve that story, there are times and instances when it is necessary for the story in turn to critique and reform the church’s doctrine, thus exercising its own priority as God-given Word over the reflections, conceptualizations, and formulations of the church.” pp. 140-141
“For theology is the servant, not the master, of the story, and as we have said above, although doctrine can and does vitally safeguard the story by giving it conceptual precision, it may also blunt and betray aspects of the gospel, or allow it to stagnate and ossify within the bounds of absolutized dogma, rigid orthodoxy, or cultural conditioning. The reality, veracity, and power of the Word itself is confirmed when the story breaks free of those chains, subjecting our axioms to critical judgement and creative refinement. “ p. 165
10:03 PM
This post has been removed by the author.
4:30 AM
I was going to review EC but I might just link to TSK, McKnight, and yourself with the tag line "they already said it."
McLaren, whether consciously or unconsciously, has set himself to be a mix of all the above mentioned roles, particularly "prophet/myth maker" and "statesman." He may have been put there by others, but I think that is how he is perceived.
I think everyone should appreciate your way of giving Brian the benefit of the doubt, while still asking the questions that need to be asked. I, like you, think McLaren believes most of the things you have laid out here--he just needs to spell them out (as does most of the Emerging Church). When the big question about how this "kingdom of God" is distinct from Protestant liberalism's "kingdom" gets answered more publicly, people like myself will be more apt to throw ourselves into the label "Emergent" without the apologetic tone and sunglasses to disguise our appearances.
4:33 AM
David, I keep thinking of what was said by one speaker at the Ecclesia conference we were recently at, "Ecclesiology is a sub-category of missiology." This presupposition seems to explain why there is "so little talk of the church as a strategy for social revolution." This confuses me since the church is the primary concern of God and expression of the kingdom of God on earth.
7:04 AM
I think this discussion is right on.
Jim, your comments are helpful about what Brian's role is in working for this grand vision of change. Perhaps we should only expect so much... and I like your last two quotes.
I see Brian as a friend. The few times we have been together, he has been an encouragement and support to me personally. I hope by pushing him here, I am also seen as suporting him and pushing his influence further.
Having said this, struggling for theological clarity is part of what I feel this conversation should also be about. The emerging "conversation" can be seen by outsiders as avoiding such clarity, any clarity is seen as exclusionary. The danger in this? is that the gospel loses, what Zizek calls, "the subversive core of Christianity." What I am pursuing in this post is exactly this question, is what Brian does with "the Kingdom of God"(along with other emerging writers) preserve enough of "the subversive core of Christianity" to work the monstrous changes Brian is calling for. I worry that by not making the cross, resuurection and the Lordship of Christ central to the Kingdom of God, we mitigate the very source of the gospel's power to subvert the suicide machine in small subversive communities. According to Julie, this is an issue of different languages. But Brian, I and others would say language and narration is (in a sense) everything.
As such, these questions i think are worthy to push Brian on and should be seen as friendly and supportive of the whole emerging church movement.
Peace .. thanks for helping me talk this out
7:29 AM
Two things.. We all know Brian has a huge heart to include the widest possible diversity of people in the process of change. We also know that evangelically he tends to go with "belonging before believing" (as do I). Put these two things together and isn't one likely to lean toward a view of kingdom which is centered set, even though it involves a bounded set at the core (I am thinking of Roxburgh argument in MISSIONAL CHURCH).
Second, I wonder if our tendency to disconnect kingdom from "place" reflects a theological tension we see here and so "reign" becomes something more spiritual than physical? See the recent article at ALLELON..
http://www.allelon.org/roxburgh/?p=28
12:55 PM
in the vineyard they like to say:
the kingdom of God will come
the kingdom of God has come
the kingdom of God is coming immediately
the kingdom of God will be delayed
it's all that living in "the already and the not yet."
2:16 PM
len .. I think you're right in the first part of your comment. and I think this gets at the heart of things. I have no problem with an inclusive Kingdom, and I certainly think "every knee shall bow" is a statment that reflects God's intent in Christ along these lines. What I hope does not happen however is that in the process of inclusiveness, the Kingdom becomes spiritualized, individualised into a utopian political ideal that either does not have legs, or becomes another one of those causes easily subsumed to the dominant order.
Is that what you were getting at in the second half of your comment?
peace bro ..
6:02 PM
David, not sure.. I am reaching to articulate something. Linda gets at it partly.. we are into paradox of the now and not yet. Place is important, yet the kingdom also transcends place (Jesus to the samaritan woman in Jn 4). Even the expression of bounded set in a centered set is way too complex for many of us.. yet I think there is something essential there and it speaks to me of "missional order" or covenant core yet permeable at the boundaries so that "all who will may come." I'm reading sara miles these days and I have to say I feel compelled toward an open table. Yet.. I think we also need spaces and places where a covenant core can express a unique sense of togetherness and shared journey..
8:13 PM
Len ...
Thanks for continuing this. I like that you are trying to hold together place - covenant core alongside elements that transcend place,that call for openess to the world. This seems to me to be what we all should be after. I continue to believe that Yoder does this the best, in proposing open communities of witness... Yoder's way of holding the openess of Christian community together with acclaiming the Lordship of Christ in a humble vulnerability to the Other ... best describes for me what I think we're all after. It is so astounding that Roman Coles, a secular political theorist can't escape its power in his Beyond Gated Politics ch. 4.
I continue to be leary of any view of the Kingdom that spiritualizes it, makes it a message for an individual to follow, without the socio-spatial demands the Lordship of Christ places on any who would enter. In other words, I think it is impossible to separate the Kingdom of God from a specific social politics (of jubilee justice and righetouesness?) it calls into being. This is what is truly revolutionary. Is this lost in Brian's account of the Kingdom in EMC ...
Peace !!
8:19 AM
David, I haven't read YODER in years.. which book are you referring to? Its so good to be walking these trails with brothers like you and Brian, and these brothers and sisters above. I can see the sparks flying from the iron on the wheel..
8:38 AM
I love how when a good question is percolating, "stuff happens." I was looking for something on welcoming the stranger this morning and found this..
http://nextreformation.com/?p=1673
It leads me to this question again of inclusiveness in working for the kingdom.. even alongside those who do not yet confess Christ. I am also reminded of the end of Lewis's story "The Last Battle." I wonder how we hold in tension the "now and not yet" as radical inclusion of those who don't yet know Christ yet are drawn to us, with the radical exclusivity of the confessing and incarnational community. Perhaps the best image is Jesus at the table with sinners... But maybe I am moving too far from the original question? And I feel underequipped and like I need to be working at a theology of religious pluralism..
9:01 AM
Len .. good stuff ... on Yoder, here's a piece I wrote last year that deals with some of the stuff (http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/2007/02/pluralism-and-witness-of-open-community_03.html). There's important stuff in Yoder's Priestly Kingdom, and already mentioned,read Roman Coles, Beyond Gated Politics ch. 4 ... where he deals with Yoder's obscure essay on Jeff Stout "Meaning After babel"...
Blessings ...
9:12 AM
Len and David,
Perhaps I'm speaking out of ignorance here, but the problem I see with the whole “centered set” paradigm is that it tends to deconstruct the identity of the church. If there are no beliefs, behaviors, or belonging we can point to, then everything is relative (and conveniently non-demanding). The identity of the church evaporates. I think the weight of Scripture is just too great to make this leap (“You were once not a people...”, “He has transferred us from darkness to light...”, “They were devoting themselves to the apostle's teaching...”, “Ye are the light of the world...”, etc.).
This doesn't mean we are isolated from the non-Christian world, but our distinction from the world is its salvation. From another Mennonite, John Driver, “In reality, the biblical images of the church can only be radically understood in a church committed to be God's contrast society in the world.” Christ was present to sinners, but He presented an alternate way to be in the world even at the expense of alienating those who couldn't or wouldn't follow that way (John 6:66).
If I'm off the mark in this discussion, just smile and gently right my course. Thanks.
11:38 AM
I see the point you are making Adam, but think you might be pushing the centered set metaphor further that it can go. Since the metaphor hinges on an identifiable center, in our case, Jesus, then there is a real way in which even centered set models are in fact "bounded" - it's just a different kind of bounded.
The centered set model, at least in my opinion, actually radicalizes the importance of the church as the identity of church communities (and church communities derive their identity from things like doctrine, practices, convictions, etc) functions as the "borders." Each and every church community has to come to some sort of understanding of what it means for Jesus to be at the center of who they are. But, if this is done in humility - by emphasizing the importance of Jesus as the center, rather than the identity of the particular church community as the border, then there is more of an opportunity to live in the reality of the Kingdom instead of spending our time and energy trying to figure out who is in and who is out.
That may or may not be helpful, just trying to add to the good discussion.
12:08 PM
Jrrozko,
That is helpful hearing it put that way. If the centered set versus bounded set paradigm is a metaphor for communicating what the Christian ultimate orienting motive should be, then I am all for it. Churches closed in on themselves due to selfishness or simple laziness certainly do not reflect the fundamental values of Christianity.
However, I can't see how you can (or should) avoid trying to figure out who is in and who is not. Because I am able to figure out who is in my marriage and who is not I am able to sustain an intimate, monogamous relationship unlike any other kind of relationship I have in my life.
I appreciate what it seems this model is trying to accomplish, namely, moving people out from their parochial orientation to a truly generous good news mission for the world. To the degree it can get Christians to go this way I am happy. But might it not also undermine the commitment and change demands of the gospel?
4:12 PM
Actually, I think it is precisely the "demands" of the gospel which dictate that we not get too distracted by trying to decide who is in and who is out. Jesus himself didn't seem to find this a good use of his time. Instead, we see him acting out the life of God and inviting, even if by way of repentance, people to join him in it. I suppose as I read the unfolding biblical account, I see God's people, time and again shifting their focus from responding to the grace of God in favor of taking control in a selfish need to defend their idea of who God is and what God is doing in the world. God does not need our defense and the church ought to be willing, with Christ, to absorb the misunderstandings and even evil of others who know not how to respond to the agape love of God.
4:02 PM
For Brian, "the kingdom of God is a framing story (which I agree it is) yet somehow I sense Brian wants to distance this message from the message that indeed the person and work of Jesus Christ as reigning Lord is the means by which this Kingdom is taking place. Am I imagining this? I could be wrong. Because I am sure that Brian would agree that Jesus, the Son f God, having won the victory over sin, death and evil on the cross and in the resurrection, is now sitting at the right hand of God ushering in His Kingdom through the Spirit's work until its final completion. But somehow this seems to be missing. Brian simply does not talk about the Kingdom of God in this way in EMC. Brian seems to be asking us to follow the message of Jesus, the way of Jesus, and if we believe in it then "everything must change." My contention is "everything has already changed." God has begun His reign over evil and sin in Jesus Christ through the resurrection, His exaltation and His reign. Let us now begin to live in/under this change, this inbreaking reality. Is this missing in EMC? Or am I being picky?
David, did you make it to EMC? I didn't see you there (but that doesn't mean you weren't there).
I mentioned this question to Brian yesterday and said, "Is this why? "Jesus is Lord" has been co-opted by a domination framing story and that's what you want to distance himself from - the wrong association, not Jesus is Lord." He said yes and asked if I'd posted that - I hadn't, but now I have :).
In fact later that morning, one of Brian's talks was called "Which Jesus?" In it he went into detail about Peter's Caesarea Philippi answer, which then led into everyone reading the description of Jesus pre-eminence in Colossians 1 out loud together. He rejected Jesus who triumphs/will triumph through violence and bloodshed and force in favor of Jesus who triumphed through his own blood being shed. He didn't reject or play down Jesus being Lord.
Another of your questions referred to the church and he bring up the church's role a few times. In the morning cohort meeting he said the role of institutions is to solidify changes made by grassroots movements. The strength AND weakness of institutions is that they don't change quickly. Which means it's very helpful when they incorporate something new and good because they'll hold onto it. But because they hold onto the last new and good thing, it's hard to get them to embrace the next one. Or something like that.
Anyway you need to ask someone who takes better notes than me if you want more information :)
6:19 AM
Helen ...
Thanks for the update! As it turned out, I had a board meeting to be at Saturday which messed up my plans to be there.
I'll be interested to hear more and gain additional clarity from Brian's writings.
It's great we can have these conversations and I'm sorry I missed this one.
5:50 PM
David, thanks for your response. I'm sorry you weren't able to make it.
6:46 PM
I think some of this conversation has to do with belonging and membership (e.g., centered set vs. bounded set; an anabaptist understanding (from Yoder?) of the Kingdom of God vs. an emergent understanding (from McLaren?) of the Kingdom of God--realizing this sort of categorization can be more problematic than necessary). This is a topic I have found helpful over the last couple of years, as I have been caught up in and faithfully sustained through a process of re-articulating my faith.
Wendell Berry speaks from a distinctly knowledgeable place about these things when he says through his "wayward" character Burley, "The way we are, we are members of each other. All of us. Everything. The difference ain't in who is a member and who is not, but in who knows it and who don't. What has been here, not what ought to have been, is what I have to claim" (The Wild Birds, p. 136-137). He has figured out a way to conceptualize the love God has for all of His creation in practical terms--enemies, sinners, and saints included.
Jayber Crow, another one of my favorite Berry characters, says about the town where he lives, "It was a community always disappointed in itself, disappointing members, always trying to contain its divisions and gentle its meanness, always failing and yet always preserving a sort of will toward goodwill. I knew that, in the midst of all the ignorance and error, this was a membership; it was the membership of Port William and of no other place on earth. My vision gathered the community as it never has been and never will be gathered in this world of time, for the community must always be marred by members who are indifferent to it or against it, who are nonetheless its members and maybe nonetheless essential to it. And yet I saw them all as somehow perfected, beyond time, by one another's love, compassion, and forgiveness, as it is said we may be perfected by grace" (Jayber Crow, p. 205). This was coming from a would-be preacher, who "forsook" his calling in order to become the town's barber. His story is about finding Christ in the world as it is, and yet there is a persistent call for hope and transformation according to what ought to be the community's standards of membership (for me and Jayber Crow, a criteria set explicitly, if not mysteriously, by Christ's model, local "body," and teachings).
This comment has become quite long and you'd think I wouldn't have much left to say...well...you'd be right. I'm finished.
2:31 PM
Jason ...
I love the Wendell Berry quotes ... said like nobody else could say ... I look forward to this conversation going on ... for a long time
9:57 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home