I recently watched a video of a message delivered by Tom Honey, a vicar in the Church of England. His message is a reflection on the 2004 tsunami, and how God can allow such tragedies. If you would like to watch the video you can see it at this link.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/112
He briefly discusses the paradoxes and difficulties in nailing down God’s place in tragedy. Does he cause it, allow it to happen, use it to test us? Ultimately the idea that God suffers along with us engages Honey and propels the rest of his message. He takes God’s participation in our suffering (and our rejoicing) to suggest the possibility that God is not an agent as we are agents. “What if God doesn’t act,” he asks. He suggests instead that God is IN things, like “the loving soul of the universe, an indwelling compassionate presence underpinning and sustaining all things, the infinitely complex network of relationships and connections that make up life, the natural cycle of life and death, the incredible intricacy and magnificence of the natural world, the collective unconscious, the soul of the human race.”
Honey’s view includes a god without consciousness. He says, “To have faith in this god would be more like trusting an essential benevolence in the universe and less like believing a system of doctrinal statements.” Following this god would involve seeking the god within and cultivating your own “inwardness.” Our inwardness is “the me that remains when I gently put aside my passing emotions and ideas and preoccupations.” That sounds quite Buddhist to me. With the little understanding I have of paganism and Buddhism, I would say his theology mixes the two.
It is difficult to counter Honey’s arguments because he doesn’t actually use any arguments to make his point. He simply suggests the possibility of a god like this. Though the god that he is describing is clearly not the God of Christ. That being said he does raise a question that I think we all need to wrestle with. If God is in control, why does he allow tragedies like the tsunami? We can say that we live in a fallen world where natural disasters occur. I agree with that, and I agree that the world (earth) is in need of redemption just as we are (McKnight’s fourth restored relationship of atonement). We could say that God takes what the evil one means for ill and redeems it for good (the ransom fishhook theory of atonement suggests this). But none of these arguments, even with the truth that they contain, answer the most difficult question. If we truly believe that God has the power to control the wind and the waves, why would he allow a tragedy like the tsunami to occur? If we are going to examine and really engage in our faith, it is a question we must ask, isn’t it? I don’t have a great answer, but then again neither did Job.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Search To Belong By Joseph Myers
The Search To Belong (TSTB) is a book about our need to belong, how it manifests in our lives, and some basic misunderstandings about belonging. It is clear from reading TSTB that we are missing some key pieces of belonging in church today. Myers views are based on the communication theories of Edward T. Hall. Hall says that we communicate in four spaces, public, social, personal, and intimate, and Myers uses that framework to view belonging. Public belonging is based on a mutual connection to a third party. (41) For example I belong with millions as a die-hard (and often) fan of the Chicago Cubs. Social belonging is where we share a piece or small picture of who we are. (46) Examples of this kind of belonging are conversations that involve questions like, “Tell me about yourself.” Personal belonging is when we share private thoughts, experiences, and feelings with someone. These are the people we would call “close friends.” (47-50) Intimate belonging happens when we share the “naked truth” of ourselves with someone. (50) An example of this is marriage, but intimate space is not restricted to marriage.
TSTB suggests that we need a healthy harmony of belonging in each of the four spaces. One is not more important than the other, and if we lack belonging in even one space we will feel like we are missing something. Myers continues to suggest that connections in each of the spaces happen naturally and organically, and that we cannot force these connections to happen. He suggests, and at this point in my reflection I agree, that there are two major mistakes we as the church have made regarding groups. First, we push the intimacy space as if it is the end-all-be-all, that our goal for every group and relationship should be intimacy. Myers suggests that we all need a harmony that includes all four spaces to have a healthy sense of belonging. Second, too often we try to manufacture belonging, especially intimacy. Which makes sense given the first mistake. When we do this we run the risk of actually hurting people by setting unrealistic expectations. Instead we must be content to allow people to connect in and with our churches in all four spaces, and all we can do is create an environment that will give people the opportunity to connect in each of the four spaces.
TSTB is somewhat but not completely counter to a book we read earlier this semester about how consumer culture influences the church (Consuming Religion by Vincent Miller). That book suggested increasing agency, or ownership, as a way to counter a consumer approach to church. Myers may agree with this view, but he would clearly suggest that increased agency cannot be manufactured. All we can do is create an environment for people to choose it.
I find myself wrestling with TSTB and discipleship. It’s probably well known by now that I agree wholeheartedly with Dallas Willard that being a disciple of Jesus is at the core of our lives. Everything else comes after being a disciple. So I wonder how we engage in discipleship in all four spaces? How do I do this in my own life, being a disciple in public, social, personal, and intimate spaces with Jesus, and how do we encourage or facilitate discipleship in each of the four spaces in our communities? I don’t have answers at the moment, but perhaps some of the conversation here will help shake out some thoughts.
TSTB suggests that we need a healthy harmony of belonging in each of the four spaces. One is not more important than the other, and if we lack belonging in even one space we will feel like we are missing something. Myers continues to suggest that connections in each of the spaces happen naturally and organically, and that we cannot force these connections to happen. He suggests, and at this point in my reflection I agree, that there are two major mistakes we as the church have made regarding groups. First, we push the intimacy space as if it is the end-all-be-all, that our goal for every group and relationship should be intimacy. Myers suggests that we all need a harmony that includes all four spaces to have a healthy sense of belonging. Second, too often we try to manufacture belonging, especially intimacy. Which makes sense given the first mistake. When we do this we run the risk of actually hurting people by setting unrealistic expectations. Instead we must be content to allow people to connect in and with our churches in all four spaces, and all we can do is create an environment that will give people the opportunity to connect in each of the four spaces.
TSTB is somewhat but not completely counter to a book we read earlier this semester about how consumer culture influences the church (Consuming Religion by Vincent Miller). That book suggested increasing agency, or ownership, as a way to counter a consumer approach to church. Myers may agree with this view, but he would clearly suggest that increased agency cannot be manufactured. All we can do is create an environment for people to choose it.
I find myself wrestling with TSTB and discipleship. It’s probably well known by now that I agree wholeheartedly with Dallas Willard that being a disciple of Jesus is at the core of our lives. Everything else comes after being a disciple. So I wonder how we engage in discipleship in all four spaces? How do I do this in my own life, being a disciple in public, social, personal, and intimate spaces with Jesus, and how do we encourage or facilitate discipleship in each of the four spaces in our communities? I don’t have answers at the moment, but perhaps some of the conversation here will help shake out some thoughts.
A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight (Part 2)
In ACCA McKnight seeks to bring all of the metaphors, moments, and stories of atonement together not necessarily into a single viewpoint, but rather under a single umbrella, so that each can influence a holistic view of atonement. His assumption is that each view brings truth to the conversation, but none are sufficient in themselves.
The umbrella that McKnight suggests is “identification for incorporation.” Very simply put, Jesus became human in order to identify with us, and because he identified with us we can be incorporated into him. We can have union with Christ. McKnight writes, “He identifies with us all the way down to death in order that we might be incorporated into him. To be incorporated “in Christ” is not only a personal relationship with Jesus Christ but also a personal relationship with his people.” (108)
McKnight concludes his discussion of atonement by looking at its application. He details the application of atonement in fellowship (a community known by love), justice (Biblical justice, not necessarily political justice), mission (the church is responsible to participate in atonement), scripture (scripture speaks into our lives to transform us into doers of good), and finally baptism, Eucharist, and prayer (each of these contributes to engagement in identification for incorporation).
Coming from a perspective where I agree with Willard that discipleship is central to atonement, I have a little difficulty with McKnight’s concluding section. I appreciate his willingness to explore the application of atonement. Without this we become so influenced by the individualistic nature of our culture that atonement becomes commodified and shallow. He suggests numerous times that we participate in the atonement of others. However, I wrestle with his use of the word atonement here. Do we really participate in atonement, or do we assist is pointing the way to Christ? I think my fear is that this language could be misunderstood or lead us to lose the centrality of discipleship (the restored relationship with God) in atonement. Perhaps I am swinging the pendulum too far in response to my concern that we are making other important things too central to the Gospel.
Ultimately I agree with McKnight. Second Corinthians 5:18-20 is clear that we do have some role to play in the reconciliation (atonement) of the world. Though Christ does the actual work of atonement, we play a role as his ambassadors. Our actions, as McKnight writes, can open the floodgates of relationship “for humans to be restored to God, to self, to others, and to the world.” (126) Though I believe Paul encourages us to keep discipleship at the center with his exhortation to “Be reconciled to God.” (2 Co 5:20)
The umbrella that McKnight suggests is “identification for incorporation.” Very simply put, Jesus became human in order to identify with us, and because he identified with us we can be incorporated into him. We can have union with Christ. McKnight writes, “He identifies with us all the way down to death in order that we might be incorporated into him. To be incorporated “in Christ” is not only a personal relationship with Jesus Christ but also a personal relationship with his people.” (108)
McKnight concludes his discussion of atonement by looking at its application. He details the application of atonement in fellowship (a community known by love), justice (Biblical justice, not necessarily political justice), mission (the church is responsible to participate in atonement), scripture (scripture speaks into our lives to transform us into doers of good), and finally baptism, Eucharist, and prayer (each of these contributes to engagement in identification for incorporation).
Coming from a perspective where I agree with Willard that discipleship is central to atonement, I have a little difficulty with McKnight’s concluding section. I appreciate his willingness to explore the application of atonement. Without this we become so influenced by the individualistic nature of our culture that atonement becomes commodified and shallow. He suggests numerous times that we participate in the atonement of others. However, I wrestle with his use of the word atonement here. Do we really participate in atonement, or do we assist is pointing the way to Christ? I think my fear is that this language could be misunderstood or lead us to lose the centrality of discipleship (the restored relationship with God) in atonement. Perhaps I am swinging the pendulum too far in response to my concern that we are making other important things too central to the Gospel.
Ultimately I agree with McKnight. Second Corinthians 5:18-20 is clear that we do have some role to play in the reconciliation (atonement) of the world. Though Christ does the actual work of atonement, we play a role as his ambassadors. Our actions, as McKnight writes, can open the floodgates of relationship “for humans to be restored to God, to self, to others, and to the world.” (126) Though I believe Paul encourages us to keep discipleship at the center with his exhortation to “Be reconciled to God.” (2 Co 5:20)
A Community Called Atonement by Scot McKnight (Part 1)
A Community Called Atonement (ACCA) is looking for a comprehensive view of atonement. He suggests that we limit ourselves when we insist on one explanation or metaphor of atonement. Each biblical metaphor, McKnight would say, carries weight but each is also insufficient on its own. He likens atonement theology to golf. Each metaphor is a different club. You wouldn’t play an entire round with a putter or wedge, and in the same way we should be willing to engage different views of atonement depending on the circumstance.
I’d like to engage a bit in McKnight’s definition of atonement. McKnight says atonement is “God’s act of resolving sin and bringing humans back home to their relationship with God, with self, with others, and with the world.” (36) There are four relationships that are restored in atonement, a person with God, self, others, and the world. McKnight may not like this, but I think I would demonstrate this view of atonement as a three-tiered cake. The bottom tier is a restored relationship with God, the second is a restored relationship with self, and the third is restored relationships with others and the world. (If I am honest I am still unsure how the relationship with the world fits.) The restored relationship with God is the foundation. None of the other relationships can be restored beyond the extent that our relationship with God has been restored. In other words my relationship with self can only be restored to the extent that my relationship with God has, and my relationship with others can only be restored to the extent that my relationship with self has been restored.
I’d like to engage a bit in McKnight’s definition of atonement. McKnight says atonement is “God’s act of resolving sin and bringing humans back home to their relationship with God, with self, with others, and with the world.” (36) There are four relationships that are restored in atonement, a person with God, self, others, and the world. McKnight may not like this, but I think I would demonstrate this view of atonement as a three-tiered cake. The bottom tier is a restored relationship with God, the second is a restored relationship with self, and the third is restored relationships with others and the world. (If I am honest I am still unsure how the relationship with the world fits.) The restored relationship with God is the foundation. None of the other relationships can be restored beyond the extent that our relationship with God has been restored. In other words my relationship with self can only be restored to the extent that my relationship with God has, and my relationship with others can only be restored to the extent that my relationship with self has been restored.
The Divine Conspiracy by Dallas Willard
Willard’s main point throughout The Divine Conspiracy (TDC) is that the church has missed the core of the gospel of Jesus. It is not about what happens after death or some social cause. The gospel is about the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom is here now in its accessibility through discipleship to Jesus. At its center, the gospel is the call to be a disciple of Jesus, and the point of being a disciple is not to white-knuckle our way into obedience, but rather to be transformed so that we become the kind of people who naturally act as Jesus would if he were living our life.
From the start Willard addresses the commodification of faith. He suggests that we treat the person of Jesus as a “more or less magical creature” and his words as dogma or law. (xiii) When we think of the words of Jesus as dogma and law, Willard says, we view them disconnected from “the way things really are: (from) truth and reality.” (xiii)
The spirit of bricolage is also present in TDC. Bricolage is the practice of removing a custom or belief from a culture and using it for some benefit divorced from its original intent. Doing spiritual or religious practices solely for the status they give me in Christian community is most definitely bricolage. Willard drives home the point that spiritual practices are matters of the heart. When we use them as a means of gaining reputation or esteem they are devoid of their intent and will have no impact on our real lives.
Forgive my broad-brush strokes in this final thought, but while reading TDC I began to wonder if the emerging church has much more in common with the modern church than we may like to admit. The emerging church has given great emphasis to serving the poor, the widows, and the orphans, but I wonder if this has become the gospel of the emerging church. Obviously these things are right and good and necessary, but in our emphasis on these issues have we also dodged the core of the gospel as our predecessors have in their emphasis on life-after-death destinations? Serving poor, as Willard writes, cannot “guide and empower me to be the person I know I ought to be.” (12) It seems the church in modernity and post-modernity share a fetish for outward actions. The modern church says, “Go to church. Believe you are a sinner and that Jesus saves you from the eternal destination of sin. Then you can go to heaven.” The postmodern church rightly identifies missing elements in the modern church and pushes for it to have an impact on the world in very real and tangible ways, but could the emerging church be characterized as saying, “Serve the poor. Be a friend to your neighbor and the man living on the street. Then you are a real Christian.” Has the emerging church, like church it is responding to, missed the core of the gospel, discipleship?
From the start Willard addresses the commodification of faith. He suggests that we treat the person of Jesus as a “more or less magical creature” and his words as dogma or law. (xiii) When we think of the words of Jesus as dogma and law, Willard says, we view them disconnected from “the way things really are: (from) truth and reality.” (xiii)
The spirit of bricolage is also present in TDC. Bricolage is the practice of removing a custom or belief from a culture and using it for some benefit divorced from its original intent. Doing spiritual or religious practices solely for the status they give me in Christian community is most definitely bricolage. Willard drives home the point that spiritual practices are matters of the heart. When we use them as a means of gaining reputation or esteem they are devoid of their intent and will have no impact on our real lives.
Forgive my broad-brush strokes in this final thought, but while reading TDC I began to wonder if the emerging church has much more in common with the modern church than we may like to admit. The emerging church has given great emphasis to serving the poor, the widows, and the orphans, but I wonder if this has become the gospel of the emerging church. Obviously these things are right and good and necessary, but in our emphasis on these issues have we also dodged the core of the gospel as our predecessors have in their emphasis on life-after-death destinations? Serving poor, as Willard writes, cannot “guide and empower me to be the person I know I ought to be.” (12) It seems the church in modernity and post-modernity share a fetish for outward actions. The modern church says, “Go to church. Believe you are a sinner and that Jesus saves you from the eternal destination of sin. Then you can go to heaven.” The postmodern church rightly identifies missing elements in the modern church and pushes for it to have an impact on the world in very real and tangible ways, but could the emerging church be characterized as saying, “Serve the poor. Be a friend to your neighbor and the man living on the street. Then you are a real Christian.” Has the emerging church, like church it is responding to, missed the core of the gospel, discipleship?
Postings from school
Many of you know that I am currently enrolled in Seminary with George Fox Evangelical Seminary in Portland, Oregon. I’ve been learning a lot and my thinking of spirituality and the church is being stretched greatly. Since this blog is supposed to be about me sharing what I am thinking about and learning in life, I suppose it makes sense to share some of what I am learning in seminary here. Most likely it’ll come in spurts. You’ll get a bunch of posts in a short time concerning school and then nothing for a while. But like everything else, I hope it encourages and challenges your thinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
