WOW, it’s been a crazy week. Been working a lot… and on top of it, I’ve got the nastiest head cold this side of the Rockies. Gross.
While I know there aren’t hoards of people waiting with baited breath for me to write another blog entry, I still like to stay in touch. Maybe it’s my communication addiction, but unless I’m somehow interacting with “the world” (that’s you!) I just don’t seem to feel alive. So here we are; back in the game!
I got this quote in a newsletter Brian McLaren sends out and wanted to share it! Enjoy.
An Eastern Orthodox friend recently sent me this beautiful quote from Facing the World, by Archbishop of Albania Anastasios Yannoulatos.
In its Orthodox ideal… Christianity is still defined by its holistic vision: an approach toward and account of life that embraces everything, life in its entirety, in all its dimensions and meanings.
This all-encompassing vision was elaborated… by the three ‘ecumenical teachers:’ Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom. With all their being they lived the Bible’s message that everything is reiterated in Christ…and they struggled for an all-encompassing change in human affairs: a ‘change for the better’ (kale alloiosis), [a] transformation of everyone and everything, which Christ initiated in both the external and the interior realms.
Now that’s what I’m talking about.
//
wow. intense. homeboy from albania throwing down with some intense and heavy truth. i dig it. and i’m going to rip it off as frequently as possible. thanks,
-m
i read that article by mclaren you linked to. i have to say that first of all i’m not entirely convinced (in fact, i’m pretty doubtful) about his definitions of post-modernism. what he refers to as “adolescent p-m” is a) more widespread than mclaren seems to think it is and b) is not a very accurate description of postmodernity (in fact the consumerism he lists as part of p-m really falls in more with modernity than postmodernity… which later he does seem to then later acknowledge).
anyway, my point is not to deconstruct his article (hmm, that seems ironic :), but simply to point out that his “third p-m” which he titles “emerging” is something which he seems to lift up as a positive thing. i agree that a) the western/modern mindset has huge problems of its own and that b) the western world is going more and more pomo and that the church does need to take this into consideration in reaching the world. HOWEVER i don’t think that means melding with it and adopting its philosophy. i think you accurately described it as a “postmodern haze”…. it is foggy, without clarity (intentionally, i might add). i don’t think that Jesus really fits that mold, since He descirbed Himself as Light coming to illuminate darkness, not to meld with it.
as i mentioned, what i appreciate in even the most “deconstructionist” of the emergent movement is the attempt not to shun culture where it is at. but at the same time one can go too far and forget that the point is to reach a lost culture with a lost mindset, not to become one with it (you know, that ol’ “in the world but not of the world” thing). it may seem by my holding up the danger flag for the pomo mindset getting into the church that i am promoting christian modernity. i am not. i am promoting biblical christianity. it is not enough for me that someone give credit to the meta-narrative, but rather that he be willing to die for it. what concerns me with the emergent movement is not so much the issues of culture, but the approach to truth in general and the Bible specifically. it seems to me all a bit relative and universalist and doesn’t take seriously the Bible’s statements about the reality of hell, the definitiveness of sin, or the uniqueness and therefore necessary exclusivity of Christ as the only Savior. as for a definition of postmodernism and postmodernity, i’d simply recommend the articles on wikipedia (the articles are pretty thorough and quote a number of sources, primarily non-christian… its always telling to see what the world says about itself instead of seeing through what christians evaluate it to be.)
Hey Ben — thanks for taking the time to check out the article.
There’s just so many tricks with this stuff, eh? So much terminology, so many ways to define everything, so many perceptions, so many perspectives. It’s almost hard to even dialogue about it without writing a separate book just to explain what the hell we mean by the words we’re using.
In any case, I’m sure we can probably both agree that neither of us are ever going to completely see eye-to-eye with the other over these issues. From my book, you know I don’t think there’s any way to “promote biblical christianity” outside of a personal and social context/construct, which, of course, puts me pretty much right in the middle of the emerging mindset. I know you don’t see things this way, and I think that’s OK.
I hear the whole “in the world, not of the world” statement a lot, although I’m starting to think it means something different than I once thought. (And also, I’m not sure where that idea comes from… do you know?) So many “issues” surrounding the emerging church movement have to do with how much christianity will, as you say, “meld with and adopt the philosophy” of “the world.”
But I think that’s missing the point of the discussion people like me are trying to have.
We would say that by using terminology like “the world” in the first place, we’re distancing ourselves from what God has made — and that’s not an accurate description of reality. As humans created by God, we are integral components in the fabric of the universe. We can’t step outside of our experiences any more than we can step outside of our own bodies. Therefore, it’s not fair (or truthful) to somehow claim an objective stance on what’s real. We’re always informed by our context, and to ignore that is to ignore the situations and geographies that, I believe, God specifically placed us in! We cannot pretend to stand “outside” and proclaim judgement on something we’re actually very much on the “inside” of.
If this is the case, the issue doesn’t become a fight against “the world” as much as it becomes about recognizing and building on the good and God-ly parts of our humanity; discovering the talents and strengths that we’ve been given — in order to affect and help transform the context we’ve been placed in, for the good of the Real Kingdom!
In essence, I guess I’m saying it’s not that you’re giving incorrect answers or anything like that; I think you have valid points and that there are probably dangers inherent in any philosophy. But the issue, for me, is that the perspective you purport is asking the wrong questions. Does that make any sense?
loved the thoughts on triage and a big, fat amen to them. i finally got around to responding to your last commnent on the “behind the time entry on my blog“…. be warned, its LONG, but here it is:
hey josh, a few points of reply to your last comment (this is great, btw, and i think this is why we are friends, because we both are passionate about what we believe and like to articulate it, so just wanted to say thanks for turning the comment section of this blog into a very interesting discussion!
- i agree that all the terms can definitely be confusing. however, if you noticed in my blog post i consistently used the word “emergent” as opposed to “emerging”. this was intentional. again, though certainly not everyone would agree to it, i feel it is important to discern between “emergent” and “emerging”. the former being what i wrote about: people who, in the name of Christianity, are questioning and changing not simply the methods of sharing the gospel but the content of the gospel itself. the later merely those who are seeking to faithfully contextualize the gospel as historically understood in the redemptive death and life-regenerating resurrection of Jesus in the pomo context of 21st century western culture. i think you know i also believe its not just about cheap forgiveness and an unchanged life. i’m totally with you that orthodoxy should generate orthopraxy (right beliefs should generate right works, for those of you not up on the ancient languages). however, i would also add that there can be no true orthopraxy without sound orthdoxy, because God is concerned with the motives of the heart more than the works of the hands (hence Jesus’ rebukes of the pharisees.)
- i do agree that the gospel its correctly and best communicated in the context of friendship and society. (of course, i do believe that the gospel can be communicated without these things, ie. i came to Christ in jail reading a Bible, no one except God Himself brought me to faith.) but i do believe that in the huge majority of cases this relationship aspect is vital and also more effective in communicating the message of Jesus.
- on the whole “in the world, not of the world” idea: Jesus said in Jn. 17:15-16, “I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.” so the idea comes from Jesus Himself. the statement “in the world, not of the world” is a paraphrase of this passage. i did read your post on this idea, and i have to say that i disagree. you mentioned that using the term “the world” is tantamount to distancing ourselves from what God has made and not an accurate description of reality. Jesus used the term, as did Paul and John and James (the authors of most of the NT epistles). and i think it takes a lot of cajones (or pride) to say that these guys had the wrong idea. you might counter with “they didn’t mean what we think they meant”. well, John clearly defines the contents of “the world” as “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life”. (1 Jn. 2:16) the whole epistle really clearly defines “the world” as all those who have not received Christ. the definition of “the world” is also tied in with the defintion of “the kingdom”.
- on “the kingdom”: Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight… but now My kingdom is not from here.” Jesus clearly juxtaposes the world and His kingdom. what is “the kingdom”? lets not forget its almost always referred to by Christ as “the kingdom of God” or “the kingdom of heaven”. a kingdom is not a legislature. a legislature merely implies a list of principles, rules and laws; a correct way of conduct. a kingdom implies, first and foremost, a king. one sovereign ruler whose words and will are the basis for all conduct that occurs within that kingdom. i find it ironic that some of the “emergent” thinkers are so hot on using the term “kingdom” without realizing (or simply ignoring) the primary characteristic of Jesus’ kingship. the “kingdom of God” is most simply the place where God is king. that is why the Bible can simultaneously talk about the kingdom of God as both future and present. the kingdom of God is specifically linked by Jesus to the Church (and the cornerstone of the Church: faith in Jesus Christ) in Mt. 16. hence God’s kingdom is within those of us who have received Him into our lives in faith, and is ever expanding (hopefully) within our own lives. and as we manifest the life of Christ in the world, the kingdom is “near you” as Jesus often said. the ultimate fulfillment is future at Christ’s return to earth to establish His Kingship over every person and every inch of this planet.
- okay, last one, i promise!
you said, “We can’t step outside of our experiences any more than we can step outside of our own bodies. Therefore, it’s not fair (or truthful) to somehow claim an objective stance on what’s real.” i agree that we humans are always a part of the culture we live in, for better or worse. therefore, we cannot pretend to be unconnected observers (i certainly don’t). however, your conclusion is incomplete: you say a) we cannot step outside our experiences (aka, cannot observe totally objectively), and so therefore b) we cannot make conclusions about objective truth since we ourselves are not objective. i would add to part b), we cannot make conclusions based on objective truth that would be based solely on our logic and observation. the only one who is qualified to make statements about objective truth is one who is not bound by any culture/time context and transcends them all: that is, God. and here’s what it boils down to: i feel totally confident making statements about objective truth not because i somehow believe myself to be free and unattached to my culture(s) and time in the history of humanity (some people do think that and its actually quite arrogant from their side). i feel confident in making statements about objective truth only if they have been relayed to me by the One who is qualified to make such statements, aka, God. God has done this in the Bible, His Word. (i’m not gonna get into the proofs of that fact now). but here’s where all this leads: if we say we cannot make statements about objective reality, it is humbler than assuming we know all, BUT if GOD has made a clear statement about objective reality and we STILL refuse to acknowledge that objective truth, then we are just as arrogant and guilty as the first guy.
it all boils down to if we believe the Bible is the Word of God or not. if yes, there are quite a number of objective truths we can be very confident about, and MUST be confident about if we are to be truly humble. true humility is simply when the creation agrees with his Creator. if the Bible is NOT God’s Word, then everything is up for grabs, there is no objective truth and the gospel is open to every tom dick and harry’s reinterpretation of it. kingdom and world can mean whatever we want, and in reality that just means they mean nothing at all. cue full-blown postmodernism. it troubles me that mclaren freely quotes people like marcus borg and dominic crossan (of the infamous “jesus seminar”) who essentially deny completely the divine inspiration of the Bible and deny much of it as actually from Jesus. here’s the thing: it’d be nice if people were just honest and would say “yes, i believe the Bible is God’s Word” or “no, i think its the stories of men” and then things would be clear. but it’d at least be nice if the later didn’t lie to themselves and the rest of the world and would just stop calling themselves Christians. well, that’s that. tag, you’re it!
Hey my friend! Sorry it took me so long to respond… but of course, I must say that length of response time is directly proportional to the length of your comment. It’s like a mathematical law or something.
I’ll try to go point for point, so we can at least stay quasi-organized.
– I think your distinction between “emergent” and “emerging” is probably helpful, especially for any readers who might be new to this whole discussion. But the camps have already fragmented so much I’m not sure it’s as clean as it used to be. Also, I have to say that I don’t think there’s an “order” to the orthodoxy/praxy discussion. I think they’re too closely connected — and human situations are so varied — that it’s almost counterproductive to try to separate the two. I think the separation of these ideas is what has gotten the western church in most of the trouble it now finds itself in, actually.
– Word.
– Thanks for the reference; I’ve been puzzled by the origins of that for a long time, and I think you’re probably right on the paraphrase. My perspective is that the paraphrase, then, has taken on a meaning that I would say Jesus did not intend. (Of course that’s pure speculation, but what else do we got?!) I’m not saying that the authors had some kind of wrong idea, I’m saying WE have the wrong idea as to what they’re talking about. Again, the problem with this kind of stuff is that we’re getting into issues of language and translation and authorship/context, and I don’t feel entirely qualified to really comment on all of that. I just really think that the position “we Christians” tend to take on “the world” is more destructive than it is helpful. (Don’t mean to turn this into a commercial, but again, this idea is too big to elucidate here. There’s a whole chapter about it in my book.)
– I included an inline link in my last comment to a blog entry where I talk more about this, but I’ll include it again in case any readers missed it: Two Kingdoms. It’s a bigger idea than I can cover here, but essentially I think the “Kingdom” means something different than what I’ve always thought… simply put, I don’t think we actually “see” the Kingdom until its given some kind of social, person-like skin. Our theology has become far too esoteric, in my opinion.
– I know this is just a point where we’ll have to agree to disagree.
And that’s totally cool. For me, the logic just doesn’t work… I simply don’t see the difference between the two things you describe. From where I stand they’re the same position.
On your last thought — first, I know this is a really common response to the interaction of christianity with postmodernism. But I totally disagree with it (haha, I’m sure you’re shocked). I don’t think the credibility or power found in the truth of God is contingent on it being objective at all. In fact, I think God is quite capable of using many things within our myriad social and cultural contexts to speak differently, and yet cohesively, God’s truth across all generations, times, etc.
(Here’s hoping our discussions might help somebody else sort through what they think about all this stuff someday!)
Tag!