You might be...

...emergent?

After reading nearly five thousand pages of emerging-church literature, I have no doubt that the emerging church, while loosely defined and far from uniform, can be described and critiqued as a diverse, but recognizable, movement. You might be an emergent Christian: if you listen to U2, Moby, and Johnny Cash’s Hurt (sometimes in church), use sermon illustrations from The Sopranos, drink lattes in the afternoon and Guinness in the evenings, and always use a Mac; if your reading list consists primarily of Stanley Hauerwas, Henri Nouwen, N. T. Wright, Stan Grenz, Dallas Willard, Brennan Manning, Jim Wallis, Frederick Buechner, David Bosch, John Howard Yoder, Wendell Berry, Nancy Murphy, John Franke, Walter Winks and Lesslie Newbigin (not to mention McLaren, Pagitt, Bell, etc.) and your sparring partners include D. A. Carson, John Calvin, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and Wayne Grudem; if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Desmond Tutu; if you don’t like George W. Bush or institutions or big business or capitalism or Left Behind Christianity; if your political concerns are poverty, AIDS, imperialism, war-mongering, CEO salaries, consumerism, global warming, racism, and oppression and not so much abortion and gay marriage; if you are into bohemian, goth, rave, or indie; if you talk about the myth of redemptive violence and the myth of certainty; if you lie awake at night having nightmares about all the ways modernism has ruined your life; if you love the Bible as a beautiful, inspiring collection of works that lead us into the mystery of God but is not inerrant; if you search for truth but aren’t sure it can be found; if you’ve ever been to a church with prayer labyrinths, candles, Play-Doh, chalk-drawings, couches, or beanbags (your youth group doesn’t count); if you loathe words like linear, propositional, rational, machine, and hierarchy and use words like ancient-future, jazz, mosaic, matrix, missional, vintage, and dance; if you grew up in a very conservative Christian home that in retrospect seems legalistic, naive, and rigid; if you support women in all levels of ministry, prioritize urban over suburban, and like your theology narrative instead of systematic; if you disbelieve in any sacred-secular divide; if you want to be the church and not just go to church; if you long for a community that is relational, tribal, and primal like a river or a garden; if you believe doctrine gets in the way of an interactive relationship with Jesus; if you believe who goes to hell is no one’s business and no one may be there anyway; if you believe salvation has a little to do with atoning for guilt and a lot to do with bringing the whole creation back into shalom with its Maker; if you believe following Jesus is not believing the right things but living the right way; if it really bugs you when people talk about going to heaven instead of heaven coming to us; if you disdain monological, didactic preaching; if you use the word “story” in all your propositions about postmodernism—if all or most of this tortuously long sentence describes you, then you might be an emergent Christian.

...reformed?

After reading nearly five thousand blog posts of Reformed Christians, I have no doubt that the so-called “Young, Restless, and Reformed,” while loosely defined and far from uniform, can be described and critiqued as a diverse, but recognizable, movement. You might be a Reformed Christian: if you listen to Caedmon’s Call, Bob Kauflin, and Derek Webb’s She Must And Shall Go Free album (but never his later stuff), listen only to expository sermons through Romans, drink orange juice to the glory of God, and always use an Amazon Kindle to read publications from Crossway Books; if your reading list consists primarily of John Piper, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, Michael Horton, Wayne Grudem, Bruce Ware, Tom Schreiner, Kevin DeYoung, and Ted Kluck (not to mention Mahaney, Mohler, Dever, Duncan, etc.) and your sparring partners include Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Greg Boyd, and Rick Warren; if your idea of quintessential Christian discipleship is John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Owen, John Bunyan, Jonathan Edwards, or anyone just named John; if you don’t like Barack Obama or conversations or contextualization or egalitarianism or Left Behind Christianity; if your political concerns are abortion, gay marriage, abortion, gay marriage, abortion, gay marriage, abortion, gay marriage, and abortion and not so much health care or the economy; if you are into singing Psalms, hymns, or Puritan Paperbacks; if you talk about penal substitutionary atonement and the sovereignty of God; if you lie awake at night having nightmares about all the ways Pentecostalism has ruined the church; if you love the Bible as a inerrant, infallible, verbally inspired book that can be used for psychiatric diagnostics and scientific proof of a young earth; if you search for unity with other believers but aren’t sure it can be found; if you’ve ever been to a church that teaches exclusively out of the ESV, has a large Reformed bookstore, promotes several conferences a year all with basically the same speakers; if you loathe words like story, narrative, relational, open, and seeker-sensitive and use words like God-centered, hedonist, regenerate, error, heresy, discernment, and authority; if you grew up in a Christian home that in retrospect seems semi-Pelagian, naive, and about works righteousness; if you forbid women in all levels of ministry, cater to white suburbia, and like your theology systematic instead of practically relevant; if you disbelieve that God really wants to save everyone; if you want to stop dating the church; if you long for a community that exercises church discipline, thinks criticism is a good thing, and doesn’t allow dating; if you believe the “loving your enemies” prooftext gets in the way of the Just War criteria; most of humanity is predestined to hell and no one can do anything about it; if you believe salvation has a little to do with responding in faith and repentance and a lot to do with sovereign grace and limited atonement; if you believe following Jesus is about being doctrinally correct but not necessarily walking as he did (because that’s impossible!); if it really bugs you when people talk about wanting to see heaven getting into people instead of getting people into heaven; if you disdain efforts to help the poor as liberal or supplanting the gospel; if you use the word “justification” in all your arguments against NT Wright–if all or most of this tortuously long sentence describes you, then you might be a Reformed Christian.

(Thanks to iMonk for the post and the link)

Rollin' with Rollins

Here's another great little story from Peter Rollins' book "How to [Not] Speak of God":

There was once a wise teacher who would go to the temple every evening to pray with his disciples. By the temple there was a stray cat who would wander in every evening during these prayers and disturb the peace. So, each evening before prayers the teacher would tie the cat to a tree outside before entering. The teacher was old and passed away a few years later. His disciples continued to tie the cat to the tree each evening before prayers.

Eventually the cat died and so some of the disciples purchased a new cat so that they could continue the ritual. After a hundred years the tree died and a new one was quickly planted so that the cat (by now the eighth-generation cat) could be tied to it. Over the centuries learned scholars began to write books on the symbolic meaning of the act.

Rollins had a particular point he was making with that story, but to me it seems to have even broader application (read the book to know his intent).

The story reminds me of another book "A Canticle for Leibowitz", that describes future history after a third world war (nuclear) ravages the world and a new dark age follows. Some of the traditions and myths that are formed over hundreds or thousands of years are hilarious (especially the prophecies of The Poet and his famous line "Non cogito ergo non sum").

Of course, none of these references clarifies what this post is about. Then again, it's not just about one thing. I'm struck by many things that remind me of the symbolic cat tied to a tree and the canonization of Mr. Leibowitz:

* Plymouth Brethren communion services
* Asking Jesus into your heart
* the song "Mansion Over the Hilltop"
* The modern use of the term "saved"
* Systematic theology
* Neo-Reformed Fundamentalists
* The Religious Right as a political force
* "culture" and "truth" wars
* Bible version wars (especially KJV-only)
* The terms "heaven" and "hell"

There's probably more, but that's probably enough of a taste to get this iconoclast improperly branded. Sometimes I think God cares more about the poor cat tied to the tree than our loud prayers as they tried to drown out its mewling.

Two Perspectives

There is an old anecdote in which a mystic, an evangelical pastor and a fundamentalist preacher die on the same day and awake to find themselves by the pearly gates. Upon reaching the gates they are promptly greeted by Peter, who informs them that before entering heaven they must be interviewed by Jesus concerning the state of their doctrine.

The first to be called forward is the mystic, who is quietly ushered into a room. Five hours later the mystic reappears with a smile, saying, ‘I thought I had got it all wrong.’

Then Peter signals to the evangelical pastor, who stands up and enters the room. After a full day has passed the pastor reappears with a frown and says to himself, ‘How could I have been so foolish!’

Finally Peter asks the fundamentalist to follow him. The fundamentalist picks up his well-worn Bible and walks into the room. A few days pass with no sign of the preacher, then finally the door swings open and Jesus himself appears, exclaiming, ‘How could I have got it all so wrong!’

This story is told in Peter Rollins' excellent book "How [not] to speak of God". It is a very deep, thoughtful book that provides a strong philosophical framework for the "emerging conversation." If all you've heard is sound bites against the emerging church or Emergent Village (two different things), and if you think you have some mental chops, then for the sake of intellectual honesty you owe it to yourself to read this book (or just shut up about the emerging conversation because you don't really know what you're talking about). :)

He makes a case for two kinds of idolatry - one physical, one conceptual. In each case, the object has no inherent "idolness" about it, but one's view of the object is what makes it into an idol. The conceptual idolatry he warns against is doctrines and ideologies about God which have been fashioned by men.

This is what the story above satirizes, as though the fundamentalist's ideas about God gleaned from scripture were so comprehensive and true that he could actually teach Jesus! The evangelical is really in the same boat, but with a bit more humility, while the mystic comes from a very different viewpoint.

The mystic realizes up front that he knows very little of God, even from his interpretations of things God has revealed in nature or scripture; God is simply to big to objectively know. And besides, the mystic realizes that God is really to be known SUBJECTIVELY, not objectively; God desires a RELATIONSHIP with us, not for us to study him like a college course. We are like a baby in the arms of its mother, hardly comprehending her or her thoughts at all, but knowing her love, her smile, her tenderness.

As my children grow to adulthood, they will probably understand a lot more about me; if they read my blog entries, study my song lyrics and poetry, scan my photo albums and scrapbooks my mother made of my years in little league and high school sports, they will know more about me. And yet, there is SO MUCH they don't and likely never will know. It saddens me some, because I really would like them to know me better. But I'm content with having a relationship in the now with them and letting it grow. It may never really be of eternal consequence for them to know which year I won the school spelling bee and which year I lost to Cathy Lloyd by my misspelling "occurrence".

So call me a mystic. Call me emerging. Heck, just call me - I'd rather have a relationship with you than merely know a bunch of factoids about you and delude myself into thinking that because I know about you that I somehow know you.

Citizens of the kingdom of love: UNITE.

Once upon a time there was a super-power that exercised its military might over most of the civilized world. It provided detailed infrastructure, maintained the peace, and provided substantial freedoms for its citizens. Even though it did not abide by a strict, bible-based morality, it had its own sense of fairness and justice, and was willing to use imprisonment and torture to keep the peace and make its point.

One day a man came along inviting people to change their allegiance from this empire based on force to his new empire based on love.

The powers-that-be laughed it off until the movement began to gain steam and affected the position and power of those in influential positions (especially the conservative and liberal religious types who sought either an alliance or to discredit him). Extremist groups tried to link themselves with this new “king”, but he wouldn’t allow it. Isolationists looked to see if he was one of them, but he was far too public for them.

When confronted with the question of paying taxes to the current empire, rather than arguing against taxation, this “king” demonstrated his position by happily paying his share. His later supporters would further clarify this position, stating that the governmental authorities should be obeyed, taxes and “tribute” should be paid, and that this was all in keeping with this new “kingdom of love” somehow.

His later supporters also made it clear that they were first and foremost citizens of this “kingdom of love” and that their role in the empire was to be ambassadors sent with messages from their king for peace and harmony. They were also to encourage citizens of the empire to switch allegiances because of the better way of life found in the new kingdom.

The empire rejected the idea of allegiance to anything other than itself; that was tantamount to treason, and was punishable by harassment, imprisonment, torture, and even death. Public verbal affirmations were required (similar to “Heil Hitler” in recent times).

Supporters of the kingdom, however, encouraged its citizens to only verbally affirm their king’s right to allegiance. They were grateful for certain freedoms and peace within the empire, but they realized where those freedoms ultimately came from (and it wasn’t from the empire).

The citizens of the kingdom realized they were dependent upon their king and interdependent upon each other. Independence was not a thing to be celebrated, nor was rebellion against the empire. Love, mutual submission and respect, mercy, truth, and goodness were their hallmarks, and they stuck with this even when the empire finally grew tired of their growing numbers and began slandering, imprisoning, and killing them. But they were willing to endure these trials because they knew that one day their king’s wishes would be done in every empire and kingdom, and that his better sense of justice would ultimately overcome.

Citizens of the kingdom of love: UNITE.