Tony Jones, "Philosophy and Theology Are Like An Old Married Couple"

Philosophy and Theology Are Like an Old Married Couple, and They’re Not Getting Divorced [Questions That Haunt]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/10/25/philosophy-and-theology-are-like-an-old-married-couple-and-theyre-not-getting-divorced-questions-that-haunt/#more-9516

 

by Tony Jones

October 25, 2013

Comments

 

This week’s Question That Haunts Christianity came from Davidson, a 15-year-old high school student:

 

"I’m not quite sure if this is how your readers present their questions to you, but if it is, I have one for you. I am a scholar at heart. I love to learn just about anything. I plan to study theology, English, and philosophy at Liberty University. The latter is, well, part of my question.

 

"I have always thought that philosophers have been God-gifted men who have led nations with their brilliance, but one question keeps plaguing me: Can philosophy and Christianity mix?

 

"My father always tells me whenever I ask him this question: “There’s nothing new under the sun.” In a nutshell, he’s telling me that theology is chief, and philosophy and psychology have nothing new or different, despite what they say. I call the three above subjects “The Trinity of Humanity”, if you will. Each is essential to life, and though theology is chief, philosophy and psychology are still essential nonetheless. Anyways, do you believe that one can be a Christian and shape their lives around both Christian and philosophical ideals?" - end quote

 

Many of you took up his question in the comments, and there are some great ones!

 

Davidson, I’m glad you asked your question. As opposed to how I usually answer these questions, I’m going to address you directly. You’re only two years older than my oldest child, so I have some sense of what you’re thinking as you consider your future. And the first thing I want to say to you is this: Please consider going to a college other than Liberty University.

 

A few years ago, I was talking with a friend of mine who’s the chair of the philosophy department at a prominent Christian college. He’s a highly respected philosopher in his own right, and he’s taught at this school for many years. He told me that recently he’d been called into the president’s office where the president, provost, and dean had gathered. And they asked him, “Why do so many philosophy majors lose their faith at our college? What are you doing wrong, and how can you fix it?”

 

Then my friend told me that it was the third time in ten years that he’d been called on the carpet for this very same thing.

 

Christianity and philosophy are married, and they’re inseparable. With all due respect to your dad, theology and philosophy cannot be divorced. And, yes, a deep study of philosophy will challenge your faith and cause you to doubt.

 

I suppose that among some of Jesus’ earliest followers, philosophy was not an issue. Galillean fishermen probably didn’t have any philosophical training. But it’s pretty clear that by the time Paul arrived on the scene, in the 40s, philosophy was at play in his proto-theology. Paul famously conversed with Athenian philosophers on the Areopagus, and he also betrays his own background in Hellenized thought in his letters.

 

The early church was rife with philosophy. By the time the new faith arrived in Rome, it had to deal with paganism, which was of course conversant with the Greek philosophies on which it was based. From the earliest documents of the post-apostolic era — for example, the letters of Clement and Ignatius — there is every indication that these were men learned in philosophy who were translating the young religion of Christianity into the idioms of the day.

 

Then you move on down the road through Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and others, and you’ve just got more of the same. It’s true that you’ll run into people these days who will claim to “just follow Jesus.” But that’s just not possible. When you approach the text of the Bible, or the person of the Living Christ, you come with presuppositions. And another term for those presuppositions is your philosophy.

 

What I’m saying, Davidson, is that philosophy precedes theology. This is similar to the way the philosophy precedes science. A scientist makes truth claims about an experiment, let’s say. Well, the entire scientific method of experiments, hypotheses, falsifiables and unfalsifiables, is based on a particular understanding of truth and knowledge. And that’s philosophy.

 

Theology is the same. Take, for instance, my recent dialogue with Marcus Borg about the nature of the resurrection. I’d say that our different conclusions ultimately stem from different presuppositions about the nature of material reality. That is, philosophy. I think one thing about material reality and time; from there I make theological claims about the nature of God vis-á-vis that material reality, which leads me to my conclusions about the resurrection, [even as Borg did the same].

 

So, you may wonder why I’m encouraging you to look at schools other than Liberty for college. Well, it has to do with the story about my friend, and about the ultimate place of theology at Christian colleges. Christian colleges are, by their very nature, confessional. Their professors, many of whom read this blog, will protest that they have the same freedom of academic inquiry as their peers at non-confessional schools. But that’s simply not true, and there have been many reports in the Chronicle of Higher Education to corroborate this — here’s an example of two professors who were fired for publishing an article in the student newspaper that merely suggested that there is something to be gained by reading books other than the Bible. Other Christian schools give there professors more leeway than that, but all are bound by a confessional statement in their bylaws and trustees who are interested in preserving the school the way that they remember it.

 

I teach for confessional schools — graduate schools. And I think that’s different. Once you are exposed to a broad swath of the humanities in a liberal arts [college] program, you will be well-prepared for the more confessional nature of a seminary or divinity school.

 

Some will object that non-sectarian schools are just as ideological as confessional schools are theological. First, even though that’s a talking point on Fox News, it’s simply not true. Second, what ideologies do exist at secular colleges are not baked into the cake, the way that theological commitments are at a Christian college. Harvard’s bylaws don’t commit it to being Marxist, for example.

 

Finally, remember this. No matter where you end up, and no matter what you study, your intellectual commitments can, and will, change. I went to a college whose religion department was notoriously anti-religious and whose philosophy department was stridently analytic. I took courses in both, learned from both, and ultimately rejected both perspectives. It wasn’t until age 35 that a doctoral seminar on phenomenological hermeneutics introduced me to the philosophical perspective that I now hold. But who knows, that’s probably going to change again.

 

So, young Davidson, read deeply, keep an open mind, and always be prepared to change.

 

 

 

The Erasure of Self & De-Privileging of MetaPhysics (or, "Life After the Death of God")

Darth Vader's Erasure of Self to the Dark Side

I began not long ago with the stated interested to explore what Radical Theology might mean to conservative Christianity as a positive, renewing exploration of the life of faith. Wading in I can see that I am about 20 years too late to this discussion - which is a good thing because by now all the warts and wrinkles should have been ironed out. Personally, labels and words like new atheism, the death of god (little g), the death of self, is not upsetting. In fact it makes me want to explore more the reasons, why's, and wherefore's that today's existential philosopher-theologians wish to think in these terms.

In no small part are we responsible for the quenching of the Holy Spirit in this world when we do not obey and submit to all the many ways and avenues of God's love, mercy, forgiveness, and redemption - what it can mean to our communities, our relationships, our caretake of this earth, our passions, etc. So, in a sense, I think I might understand why existentialists (of whatever variety) believe God has died within the realms of mankind, our religions, our churches-and-charters when witnessing our acts and activities.

But on the other hand, even so do we erase ourselves when we erase God's presence in our lives. That is, we erase any possibility of God's Spirit moving in our midsts while contenting ourselves in going to heaven rather than realizing that heaven has come here to earth within our midsts through the presence of Christ by His Spirit. As a consequence, our faithless faith brings to our Christian faith this post-secular sense of new atheism that we dare not admit but practice daily.

And that, in my simplistic mind-and-heart, is what I think Radical Existentialists are trying to say to us as they write in their non-biblical ( a misnomer if ever there was one, maybe non-churchy), academic manner using earth tones and phrases. Hence, my interest in capturing their epistemic ideology and bringing it over into my own more conservative (but progressive) thought-forms of Christianity as it sits now within the pews-and-aisles of Emergent expressions and Postmodern cultural acceptance.

 

For me, I wish to describe this form of Radical Christianity as an existential expression of the apocalyptic elements of our here-and-now faith seeking radical transformation and resurrection in the name of Jesus as held within His upside/down present-day Kingdom. To embrace this Savior of mankind not in terms of an Almighty, Conquering, Transcendent God of the Universe - which is the Aristotelian/Hellenistic side of Christianity's Medieval faith-elements that have carried forward into today's 20th century modernistic creeds and confessions. But in the terms of the divine weakness of a God who was willing to lay aside His Otherness, to suffer and died to our sin by creation's own hands. Even as He bowed to our own sinful wills that we might become identified with His death, and raised by His divine weakness, to mysteriously find faith's paradox of divine strength set amidst the renewal of His all-present, all-pervasive Spirit which works to redeem this world from its roots up.

Thus, I wish to think through the articles of Tony Jones and Barry Taylor who do not decry this faith of Jesus, nor the power of the Spirit, so much as to decry the institutionalization of Christianity... wishing that it might become a religionless Christian faith marked and filled with God's divine weakness, Almighty Presence, and Kingdom resolve of renewal and blessing. See what you think....

R.E. Slater

September 10, 2013

Barry Taylor’s Faith (after the death of God)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/09/07/barry-taylors-faith-after-the-death-of-god/

by Tony Jones

September 7, 2013

Comments

Barry Taylor is someone I respect very much. He’s written a wonderful post about where he thinks the Christian faith is going after the death of God and the death of the self (what I would call the death of metaphysics). Here’s a taste:

It would seem that the consciousness of the world has changed. Mark I. Wallace, in his book, Fragments of the Spirit, names both the ‘de-priviledging of metaphysics’ and the ‘erasure of the self’ as two significant challenges to Christianity in the third millennium. What does this mean? Well to me, it heralds a shift in human self-understanding away from the subjective and static view of the self, bequeathed to us by the Greeks and others that has driven our understanding of the self for centuries. I believe this is being eclipsed by a more mobile and fluid understanding of the self, where inwardness is not of prime focus. Two things going on for me–we can reference ourselves without a working hypothesis of God (Vattimo) and we can now consider ourselves without the anthropocentric impulse of the Enlightenment. 

What are the implications of this? Well, they are immense. It throws into question how we engage with life, ourselves, each other. It challenges assumptions about what is prioritized in religion–’spiritual disciplines’ for instance, in that I believe that most disciplines are rooted in ideas of the self that no longer hold true (at least for me) and therefore must be revisited. I also think we are liberated to pray as Jesus invited us to pray, i.e. communally–’our father’–it is a form of prayer not anchored to a technology of inwardness.

* * * * * * * * *

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Wallace, a professor of religion at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania, suggests that a new understanding of the Holy Spirit as a being that dwells within the world to transform the world may be the solution to problems of human violence and ecological catastrophe. In his first section, Wallace examines the characteristics of postmodern culture, including the loss of self and the death of metaphysics, as well as the ways in which traditional Christian readings of the Holy Spirit as a metaphysical, transcendent being fall short in the contemporary world. In his second section, Wallace explores the issues of nature, violence and evil as he builds his own model of the Holy Spirit as the being that restores wholeness to the natural world, heals the brokenness of humanity and fosters unity between humanity and nature. Wallace's provocative ideas are cast in beautiful lyric prose, and his brilliant readings of the Bible in concert with the theologies of Paul Ricoeur, Rene Girard and Sallie McFague render his book utterly convincing.

From Library Journal

In a brilliant tour de force of post-modern theory, traditional Christian theology, and contemporary metaphysics, Wallace (religion, Swarthmore Coll.) ponders the role of the Holy Spirit in a late modern culture characterized by the loss of God and fragmented by violence. Using the philosophies of Kierkegaard, Levinas, and others, Wallace first demonstrates the inadequacies of the conventional models of the Holy Spirit. He then goes on to construct his own model of the Spirit as a life-giving force dwelling within nature, which seeks to mend the brokenness of the human spirit and to foster partnership and healing between humankind and nature. An elegant meditation on ecology and the Spirit, Wallace's book is highly recommended for all libraries.

* * * * * * * * *

Theology After the Death of Self

http://superflat.typepad.com/nevermindthebricolage/2013/09/theology-after-the-death-of-self.html

by Barry Taylor

September 4, 2013

Last night I did a podcast with my friends Bo and Tripp for their Homebrewed Christianity event with Reza Aslan--I was the 'opening act' if you will. We had a pretty wide-ranging discussion about what it means to be human in the 21st century and how that affects the ways in which we think about faith/belief etc. We talked a little about my own theological trajectory in the past few years which I outlined as taking in a couple of different factors. I think about theology chiefly after two significant 'events.' Theology after the 'death of god' and theology after the death of the self.

There is lots of talk about death of god theology these days. There have been a few less than friendly social-media exchanges over certain interpretations of that project, principally around radical theology and various interpretations of what that means. It highlights the problem with labels and naming things--the minute you do, someone usually takes issue with your particular interpretation of the contours, or appeals to some kind of assumed legitimate criteria for speaking about this or that, that one supposedly violates, misses or doesn't understand. I find most of it petty and not worth the effort of addressing, it is the kind of stuff that makes people walk away from institutions and groups of all kinds, but that's another conversation.

So I have been working through ideas around the post-metaphysical world and death of god theology, but I am also interested in the shifting world of the self and what that heralds for faith. I have never been that 'god-fixated' that may sound funny from someone who has spent more than thirty years in public dialogue about faith and religion, but god has always been a difficult issue for me, but it is only in the past few years that I have faced that fully and freed myself of other people's obligations for what constitutes faith (my rather general and dismissive dictum about this is that dogma is the noise of other peoples thinking and sometimes I have to tune it out). Where I have come to with some of this is captured in a perspective drawn from Altizer and others, that I cannot dismiss the present world for a transcendent one and that a continual reflection/obsession/focus on 'god,' particularly the metaphysical view of god, keeps lifting us out of this world, and I am interested in fully living in the present, in the here and now.

I have been living for a while with a few ideas drawn from here and there that I have been returning to over and over in an effort to harness and focus my own thinking on what all this means. Of particular importance has been a section of Bonhoeffer's letter about religionless christianity. I've written about this before so forgive repetition, but I am in a cycle of thinking and I tend to view and review until my thinking comes clear.

"How do we speak of god without religion i.e. without the temporally conditioned presuppositions of metaphysics, inwardness and so on...How do we speak in a secular way about god?"

Bonhoeffer's little comment has fueled a long journey of thinking for me. And I have taken that two-pronged comment, along with similar ideas from others and myself, as a starting point. The one side--the 'temporally conditioned presuppositions of metaphysics' has gained a lot of traction and there is plenty of thinking in that arena , its the 'inwardness' comment that has had me wrestling lately. I think he is talking about the inwardness of subjectivity. Elsewhere and earlier Bonhoeffer writes that,

"we must finally rid ourselves of the notion that the issue...is the personal salvation of the individual soul...in such religious methodology human beings themselves remain the central focus."

(you could do yourself a real favour and read Jeffrey Pugh's, Religionless Christianity, for a much clearer and expanded perspective on these ideas).

It would seem that the consciousness of the world has changed. Mark I. Wallace, in his book, Fragments of the Spirit, names both the 'de-priviledging of metaphysics' and the 'erasure of the self' as two significant challenges to Christianity in the third millennium. What does this mean? Well to me, it heralds a shift in human self-understanding away from the subjective and static view of the self, bequeathed to us by the Greeks and others that has driven our understanding of the self for centuries. I believe this is being eclipsed by a more mobile and fluid understanding of the self, where inwardness is not of prime focus. Two things going on for me--we can reference ourselves without a working hypothesis of God (Vattimo) and we can now consider ourselves without the anthropocentric impulse of the Enlightenment.

What are the implications of this? Well, they are immense. It throws into question how we engage with life, ourselves, each other. It challenges assumptions about what is prioritized in religion--'spiritual disciplines' for instance, in that I believe that most disiciplines are rooted in ideas of the self that no longer hold true (at least for me) and therefore must be revisited. I also think we are liberated to pray as Jesus invited us to pray, i.e. communally--'our father'--it is a form of prayer not anchored to a technology of inwardness. I think I'll stop there because I have things to do but I'll return to flesh this out at a later date. But then I'll talk about prayer, and why I don't.

* * * * * * * * * *

Amazon.com

This book is an interpretation of Bonhoeffer in the contemporary context. Jeffrey Pugh puts Bonhoeffer's theology in perspective by revisiting some of the themes of his life that have found abiding significance in Christian theology. Starting with a chapter on why Bonhoeffer is still important for us today, this book moves to chapters that bring Bonhoeffer into conversation with our present situation. In each of these chapters Pugh takes one of the central ideas of Bonhoeffer and gives them a fresh perspective.

Many of Bonhoeffer books today are written from an exegetical perspective, they try and get at exactly what Bonhoeffer meant. Others are written from a hermeneutical perspective, they try and interpret Bonhoeffer's abiding significance. This book seeks to combine both these approaches to offer interpretations of Bonhoeffer that are germane to our situation today.

Tony Jones Responds: "Can Postmodern Theology Live in Our Churches?"

Can Postmodern Theology Live in Our Churches? #STN2

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/04/06/can-postmodern-theology-live-in-our-churches-stn2/

 

by Tony Jones

April 6, 2013

Comments

 

That is the overarching question at Subverting the Norm 2, a conference that I’m attending this weekend in Springfield, Missouri. Honestly, not many people addressed the question yesterday, at least not in the sessions I attended. So far this morning, the presenters have pivoted to talking about it.

Last night, I responded to John Caputo‘s plenary address. Some here accused me of failing to actually respond to Caputo, others have wondered if I made a Derridian move, and still others have thanked me for speaking plainly and forthrightly. Some requested that I post my response, so I will do so here. But before that, some prolegomena:

First, Caputo is the rock star of this conference. Several people here are his former PhD students, and many are his acolytes. I, too, am a big fan of Caputo — I think his Weakness of God is a brilliant text — and I had no desire to present a deep critique of his work in this context.

Second, due to no fault of his own, Caputo did not provide me with his manuscript in advance. In academic conferences, respondents are usually able to see the paper in advance so as to write a prepared response.

Third, Caputo is a philosopher of the first order. I am not. I’m a (practical) theologian, well-versed in postmodern philosophy, to be sure, but not at the level of going nose-to-nose with someone of Jack’s caliber. To do so would have been stupid of me and disrespectful of Caputo.

For all of these reasons, to attempt an on-the-fly response to Caputo would have been nigh on suicidal — or at least would have held the potential for a massive trainwreck. So, instead, I composed 13 points of challenge and exhortation for those in the crowd — particularly clergy — who are really trying to answer the question, “Can postmodern theology live in our churches?” Some of these points I prepared before Jack’s talk, and some are a direct result of and response to it:

1. There are two types of radical theologians: those who want there to be a God, and those who don’t. I‘m interested in the work of the radical theologians who want there to be a God, even if they’re not willing to affirm that there is a God. There are 7 billion people on this planet, and the vast majority of them want there to be a God.

2. Process theology had its chance. If process theology couldn’t get traction in the American church under the auspices of John Cobb in the 1970s, I doubt that it will gain traction with his acolytes. Outside of Claremont (and Homebrewed Christianity), I hear little about process theology. I am not saying that popular theology = good theology; that would make Joel Osteen a theological genius. What I’m saying is that process theology did not capture the imagination of a critical mass of clergy and laypeople in its heyday, so I doubt that it will today. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Cobb was ahead of his time, and the church is only now ready for process.

3. Put less words in scare quotes. Just answer the question. In his talk, Caputo went through the entire question, ”Can postmodern theology live in our churches?” He put each word in quotes, and deconstructed it. ”Can” “postmodern” “theology” “live” “in” “our” “churches.” That’s a fun exercise at an academic conference, to be sure. But it rarely works in pastoral ministry. Postmodern theologians and the churchmen and women that are inspired by them — including the emerging church movement — have become adept at eternal deferral. People ask real questions, the questions that they want answers for, and we respond by deconstructing the question, telling them, “That’s not the right question,” or saying, “That question doesn’t interest me.” I’ve grown tired of this posture. I’d like us to answer some questions, and to do so forthrightly.

4. Let’s double down on epistemic humility. One of the benefits of deconstruction is that it imbues all of our intellectual activity with the reminder that even our most strongly held beliefs are, ultimately, deconstructible. You might be wrong about there not being a God, and I might be wrong about there being a God.

5. Be loyal to this tribe. We have a better version of the gospel than the regnant [(reigning, popular, widespread)] view of the gospel in the West today. If our version of the gospel is to stand a chance, particularly among the “nones,” then we’ve got to stick together in spite of our doctrinal, theological, and philosophical differences.

6. Indefatigably produce original content. Again, if we’re going to change the conversation about what is Christianity, then we have to fill the world with content about this version of the gospel.

7. We must maintain our sense of humor. Like #4 above, postmodernism demands that we don’t take ourselves too seriously, because we might be wrong. Like #5 above, if we can maintain our senses of humor, it will be a more attractive alternative to the earnest, overly serious, even hateful versions of the faith that many people see today.

8. My next book will disappoint you: but I’m not writing it for you. I have a different vocation than a university philosopher like Caputo, or a subversive free-range philosopher like Peter Rollins. My vocation is to think and write through the issues that vex modern-day Christianity. Your vocation is something else — to preach or write poems or blog or something. Don’t try to be Caputo or Rollins. Be yourself.

9. I have never read a word of Žižek. You can’t do it all. You can’t read every book and blog; you can’t listen to every podcast. Find what you want to read and know, and embrace that, but don’t beat yourself up if you can’t read it all.

10. Beware of the allure of the word “atheist.” I’ve lived through the waxing and waning popularity of terms like “postmodern” and “emergent.” The term “Christian atheist” is currently waxing. It, too, will wane.

11. People aren’t talking about God. They’re talking about Jesus, the bible, angels, heaven. This conference, at least on day one, was consumed with talk of God. That’s fine. But in my experience, people outside these walls are asking less about God than they are about other volumes in the theological encyclopedia.

12. Don’t get so far out ahead of your army that they mistake you for the enemy and shoot you. That’s a danger after a conference like this, that you’ll go home and preach a sermon on the death of God. Chances are, your congregation isn’t ready for that.

13. Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh of Ex 3:14 means “I will be that who I have yet to become.” It doesn’t mean “I am who I am,” or “I will be who I will be.” It is much more eschatological than that. In fact, Jewish Bibles leave this passage untranslated. That commitment to untranslatability should stand in critique of all of our talk about God.


 

What would a new Church for the 21st Century look like?

Kierkegaard Wants a New Church

Part 2 of 2

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/07/06/kierkegaard-wants-a-new-church/

 

by Tony Jones

July 6, 2013

*res = re slater 

 

 

This is the second of two excerpts from a book that I happily endorsed: Emerging Prophet: Kierkegaard and the Postmodern People of God by Kyle Roberts. Kyle is a professor at Bethel Seminary and a fellow Patheos blogger.

 

 

BOOK EXCERPT

 

Kierkegaard was a prophet who critiqued "Christendom," the perversion of authentic, New Testament Christianity into the institutionalized, materialistic, triumphalist, and flabby religion of modernism. Emergent Christianity is attempting to carve out a more authentic way of being Christian and doing church within--and beyond--the ineffectual, institutionalized church of modernity.

 

In many ways, Kierkegaard's critiques, concerns, and goals overlap with emergent Christianity and the emerging church. For the first time, this book brings Kierkegaard into a dialogue with various postmodern forms of Christianity, on topics like revelation and the Bible, the atonement and moralism, and the church as an "apologetic of witness." In conversation with postmodern philosophers, contemporary theologians, and emergent leaders, Kierkegaard is offered as a prophetic voice for those who are carving out an alternative expression of the New Testament today and attempting to follow Christ through works of love.

 

- Kyle Roberts, Bethel Seminary, St. Paul, Minnesota

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

The emergent movement comprises communities of Christ-followers who desire to recover a sense of authenticity, passion, vulnerability, and intimacy in their lives together. They organize their communities in an intentionally organic way, such that these ideals become (at least conceptually) more attainable that they have appeared to be in institutional forms of church.

 

The caveat here, from a Kierkegaardian point of view, is that when the alteration of the organization becomes the means whereby these aims can be attained, too much freight is given to change in “circumstance” as the hope for renewal, authenticity, and the recovery of the essentially Christian. Nonetheless, it does seem that at some point action must be taken; this is very Kierkegaardian, too.

 

Emergent Christianity’s attempt to creatively rethink the nature of the church in this changing world will serve the larger (established) church well—to the extent they take notice. Even if the transiency of emergent communities and the lack of institutional structure make propagation a serious challenge, the burst of creativity and critical reflection within emergent Christianity offers—at the very least—an important renewal resource for more empathetic traditional churches.

 

In any case, the question recurs and the refrain continues: How can we attain an existentially authentic faith, both individually and communally? In the context of our ecclesiology discussion, the answer may well lie in a theological de-construction (and subsequent attempted re-construction) of institutional forms of church life which often seem to inhibit authenticity, intimacy, vulnerability, and genuine community. Emergent Christians are working hard to find a better way for this journey. For others, the least they can do is empathize with their quest.

 

Consistent with the trajectory set forth in Practice in Christianity, albeit intensified in his final years, Kierkegaard pointed the way to the dis-establishment of the church in favor of the emergence of Christ’s kingdom. The church exists in service of in-breaking of the kingdom of God into temporality [sic, God's rule becomes present now. - res]. The confrontation with the world occasioned by the action of the historical Christ in his abased life (suffering) and crucifixion opened the way for a new mode of being in the world—one characterized by deep subjectivity and authentic community.

 

This community exists in the eschatological space between the eternal and the temporal, the infinite and the finite, the bound and the free. Kierkegaard’s Christology of paradox suggests that the church, as an institution—or establishment—must be provisional and temporary, and must give way to the priority of the redemptive presence, or Kingdom of God, brought about disruptively in the world through the reign of Christ as the paradoxical one. This means that the church cannot serve itself and ought not understand its mission to be self-preservation.

 

So Jürgen Moltmann says: “It is not the Church that ‘has’ a mission, but the reverse; Christ’s mission creates itself a Church. The mission should not be understood from the perspective of the Church, but the other way round.” The church must regularly check its own accumulated habits, its acculturations, commitments, and partnerships with the “powers” and economies of society. It cannot offer itself as an end or become preoccupied with its own self-preservation. Christianity, as an established, institutional, cultural phenomenon, is non-essential. The church defers, bends, and even disappears; like John the Baptist, it must decrease while Christ must increase.

 

When the church becomes its own self-perpetuating institution, when its mission begins to displace the pure, prophetic, and disruptive presence of Christ, it must be disestablished - deconstructed, even - while Christ and his Kingdom re-appears and re-emerges.

 

OK, who’s ready to start disestablishing churches?

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Proper Doubt

Part 1 of 2

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/07/05/proper-doubt/

 

by Tony Jones

July 5, 2013

 

 

Doubt is the other side of faith…This ethos may be one of the defining features of emergent Christianity—the willingness to countenance doubt. These doubts can arise from questioning the sincerity of religious faith (i.e. Freud’s “great apologetic challenge” to Christianity), the truthfulness of the Bible, the exclusivity of Christianity, or engaging in philosophical challenges to core Christian doctrines (such as those posed by the “problem of evil and suffering”). The acceptance of a positive role for doubt in the Christian life is consistent with the emergent ethos.

 

Because emergent Christianity is not terribly anxious about epistemological certainty, such questions are encouraged—or at the very least accepted and engaged. Furthermore, there is no rush to answer the questions in a final, authoritarian way. This openness to the reality of doubt in the Christian journey need not imply a glorification of doubt nor a complete disregard for objectivity (properly placed) in Christian theology….

 

An epistemologically humble approach to theology and faith allows for deeper authenticity and for the de-construction of the idols of certainty, dogmatism and closure. Experimental psychologist, Richard Beck, asks, “What would religious faith look like, experientially and theologically, if it were not engaged in existential repression or consolation?” Presumably, that kind of faith might be open about the reality of doubt and would courageously struggle with existential questions regarding the attainment of “truth.”

 

That kind of faith would not try to rely on or use religion instrumentally to assuage existential anxiety, but would attempt to be existentially authentic in the face of the lack of epistemological “objective” certainty; it would be open and honest about the pain and distress involved in the human experience and would not try to suppress the anxieties that arise from the fragmentation, brokenness, and brevity of human life.

 

Collectively, in terms of the experience of Christian community:

 

- it might have the character and courage to deal with pain, sorrow, and longing head-on, even in (or especially in) the context of church liturgy,

 

- it would engage the Bible with seriousness and honesty; neither avoiding its prophetic strangeness nor minimizing its difficulties, from the perspective of the modern world,

 

- it would utilize both celebration and lament as representations of the full nature of the human experience,

 

- ultimately, it would find both discomfort and solace in the central figure of Christian faith: the paradoxical God-man, who makes comfortable faith impossible but who alone can make authentic faith possible.

 

 

 

Are You Missional or Are You Emergent? Is There a Difference?

 

"... Certainly the love of God has made fools of us all."

- R.E. Slater                                            

Voices of Dissent - Unfolding God's Love Within the Heart and Conscience of Humanity                            

 

 

During the past 2 years I have found myself working at defining just what Emergent, Postmodern Christianity might be - as versus what many people think that it is, including Emergency's own circle of "inner disciples." My interest was to define Reformed Christianity and its Classic Theology into more sustainable forms of biblical witness - one that would bring the best of biblical thinking and missional practice into focus. Initially (as can be read in my first six months of blogging) I was interesting in determining what Emergent (or, Emerging) Christianity was not, when played against louder evangelical  voices offering their own cross-flicted opinions as to what transformational Christianity for the 21st Century should be. But immediately after this time I become convicted to speak of a Christianity on a more positive, broader plane of endeavor that could embrace all kinds of people and Christian faiths.... To find a Jesus that reached out to everyone, and not just a select few who happened to hold the "right" views of the Bible.

I also became quite concerned as to how to discern the Scriptures in a very high sense while allowing other human academic disciplines to come alongside to help in understanding God's Word in approaches that might lean towards an "anthropological hermeneutic." As such, I was not put off by trying to "contain" the free speech and insight of "unsanctified others" (per the many alarmed denunciations of my evangelical movement) - even if those voices, in some cases, arose from within anti-God, or atheistic contexts. I realized very early that part of this reconstructive effort would necessarily involve de/constructing "official" Christian-understanding and dogmatic platforms across a wide variety of church doctrines and dogmas. The other effort would be fraught in re/constructing (the preferred theo/sophical term is "reinterpreting" per Paul Ricoeur, the noted French Theologian and Philosopher) the Bible's revelatory structure of multi-vocality as seen within its many ancient narrative stories recounted by both pagan and believer; its lost linguistical backgrounds contained within very ancient socio-personal contexts that we think we understand but probably don't based upon the many varied opinions by scholar and exegete; and, the Bible's overwhelming variety of interpretive hermeneutics as evidenced by personal, societal, and religious restatements recited across its well-leafed pages. Especially as it was relevant within our own contemporary, post-modern, post-secular epoch underscored by a rapidly spreading, social media technology, being flung across a wide variety of formerly culturally-contained, pluralistic, multi-ethnic global societies seeking communication with with one another (whether fairly, or equitably, is another question left for another time). Throughout most of this transitionary period I had this strong sense of the Spirit of God pushing me forward into new, unfamiliar, expansive theological landscapes, while at the same time helping me to resist spinning backwards into the safer, traditional, paradigms of propositional Christianity bounded off by offsetting Christian sentiment and-or willful prejudicial platforms.

Nor did I wish to recreate a Christian faith or theology that was exclusivistic, legalistic, or active in some new form of separatistic conservatism. No. It had to be incarnational (Jesus for today), missional (God's Kingdom for today), expressive (relevant in word and deed), and universal in message and medium. Meaning that no one should be excluded from God's good news in Christ. That no one should be excluded from God's redeeming love. That no one should be left standing out on the byways of the Church of God. That the love of God demanded valuing one another in such a way that it created charitable communities of generous fellowship and goodwill. These latter expressions of worth and value are especially of high interest when working towards expressing an expansive, contemporary Gospel... Especially when viewing Playstation and X-box games filled with blood, killing, and uplifting self against the world. Or in the daily portrayal of our world at war with itself, as it consistently refuses peace and goodwill while always in pursuit of nationalistic agendas, unjust sociological promotions, or the ecological rape and pillage of the Earth. Contrary to man's agendas and interests is God's agendas and interests that promotes charity, worth, value, and community. This, to me, was the good news of the Gospel worth proclaiming against man's own agendas of monopolistic greed ushered under the thin veneers of adjudicating democracies or totalitarian regimes.

So then, words like post-positional, post-attractional, post-universal, post-Christiandom would not be words that would put me so easily off - or at a disadvantage - but would cause me to "double-down" in locating discussions and fellowships that could intelligently discern what was meant by these terms. Especially when flung cryptically through the ether from the more traditional pulpits I was familiar with that fled to the refuges of past, out-moded Christian doctrines under new words like neo-Calvinism, neo-Reformed, Radical Orthodoxy (which is distinctly different from Radical Theology, which is a postmodern, emergent term, describing the general future direction of Christian theology), or even various shades of "progressivism." If Christianity was to flourish, and become a message embraced by all people everywhere, than Jesus must be its center; our faith be returned to a child-like state freed of adult fears and socio-political boundaries; and, God's divine love and atoning redemption needed to be better understood.

Hence, to claim a "prodigal Christianity" as David Fitch has, as a re-incarnated form of a more "progressive" contemporary Christianity (ala Anabaptism), wasn't the direction I really was looking for when learning of the term "missional" being bantered about by many well-read evangelics across the worlds of evangelicalism by banner, headline, or punchline. Nor did I suspect that it had become God's newest form of ministry to the world at large. Though it may be more antiseptically palatable to traditional congregations unwilling to de/construct their personal beliefs, and religious platforms, it doesn't really challenge the traditional church to change its old ways and views... only to cling to them all the tighter while pretending itself to be epistemological "progressive" and contemporarily "relevant" in its global witness. Overall, I like the emphasis Anabaptism places upon ministry, witness, worship, and prayer, but I also fear that it would not allow its congregants great enough latitude to grow beyond the boundaries of traditional Christianity while mis-believing themselves to be "progressive" in tone and temperament. Certainly it seems like a "big" move forward, or as a way out of the "evangelical-box" that has been created in the name of Jesus, but it still brings a lot of traditional, classical baggage with it requiring "reformation" in presentation and discussion, attitude and approach, work and deed. A reformation that Emergent Christianity already had started in the early 1990s, and is even now resetting once again in light of conflicted social platforms and transparent postmodern movements (meaning that Emergent Christianity is changing as a movement, just as we do ourselves as people, from decade to decade, life stage to life stage, as it matures in message and content).

Hence, my understanding of a relevant Christianity must be one that includes re-visioning and re-imaging the church.... A church which might have to be burned down before it can arise up again from its denominational ashes like that of Jesus life and ministry (which more-or-less is classic Emergent doctrine). But unlike the past, today's new Emergent Christians must be willing to push forward beyond Evangelic Christian doctrines in a positivistic sense of health and healing. For not all can remain ashes for long. One must begin anew rebuilding a theologic house in which to live... but importantly, one that is Emergent in temperament, and expansively relevant to today's societies. And importantly, one must remember the ashes we've come from as a movement - if not having already learned to live uncomfortably within - by holding onto faith's holy elements of doubt and mystery (as versus more popular religious folklores expressing hardlined biblical certainties) when thinking of all things God.... For anybody who has experienced their epistemologic views of the world being burned down, you will understand what I mean. Unfortunately, we too-quickly-embrace the next new-and-more-promising doctrine, dogma, or movement, which unfortunately can end up not unlike our first epistemological marriage that burned down earlier in life (kinda like a quick "second' or "third" marriage, poor examples though they may be). My sense is to caution one from rebuilding their life too quickly. To trust God with the anarchy that exists in our lives before attempting to move on too soon lest we build more structures on sand that are not theologically (nor existentially) sustainable. Why? Because there can be had valuable insight learned from these times of doubt and skepticism, fury and anger, that cannot be obtained at any other time in our lives. And mostly, it is because we ourselves must first be broken down by the Spirit of God in order to see the living God again in the lights of His all-healing love and redemption. And so, as hard as it is, do not run from these times of foundational upheaval - be they personal or institutional. But learn to embrace them, to accept them, to allow God's fullness to dwell within them as He guides us towards a complete(r) restoration as only our Lord can provide in His love and wisdom (I think this was profoundly expressed by David Guetta's, "Titanium ft. Sia").

And please understand that Emergent Christians are ones  who have been born out of the ashes of their old worlds of faith-belief. Who fear to return to their former ways and life unwisely. Wishing to hang onto God's mystery and paradox, as much as to investigate just what good doctrine might portend, when unleashed from the codified docks of indefatigable declarations, deceptive assurances, and Christian platitudes. The Christian message is simple. God is God. God has done all things because of His love for creation. Jesus is God's supreme expression of love (and misunderstanding, and hate, and death). We each bear value to God as to one another. We each were built for community and fellowship, both with God, and with one another. Anything which tears away at these truths does so to its own peril. Anything which lessens the impact of these truths cannot survive. Anything which wishes to demarcate itself from these truths does so to its error. For those who wish to be "missional" God bless you. But in your "missional outreach" be receptive to being broken and remade in the image of Christ so that all your worlds become like sweet incense to the Lord of Heaven and Earth.

And as for my fellow Emergents... do not be afraid to rebuild again. Its something we must do. If not, than another will, and perhaps less vigorously, if not unwisely. Though we live as broken people we must also live towards restoration of faith and hope. And if the attitudinal perspective of Emergent Christianity is to survive than this task must be our pledge and banner. For I look to an expansive, embracing, borderless, Christianity - more than the one I was born into and trained within. One that is broken. That is as much institutionally, as it is personally, transformational. That is less sure about things. But whose center is truly Jesus in all things, conformities, ministries, and goodwill. Which is at all times at work discriminating itself. One that is more open to our faithful Redeemer-Creator's revelations of Himself for this day and age. A Christian faith which can openly re-envision classic church doctrines and missional practices for postmodern ministry. A faith that challenges religious beliefs to the radicalness of the new gospel of Christ as first set forth by our Lord in the Scriptures.

From ashes to ashes, from dust to dust, yea verily the church must proceed. But within these redemptive ashes of burned up lives may there beat hearts of living gold and silver. Not works of tinkling brass and conforming dogmas decrying whose "in" and whose "out" of  God's holy love. Where the wheat of God's living Word is bravely proclaimed and wisely discerned beyond the dark creeds and confessions of disempowering denominations and overweening scholars. Where its life-giving bread is eaten and consumed giving strength to the life of faith and belief. Where the leavening yeast of dithering words and spoiling feast be culled from the dying vineyards of gaping mouths fed by pulpit or press,  to be then burned upon an altar's rising infernos of the dying dead. Where may be found receptive schools of unified fellowships not only proclaiming the word missional, but seeking within their bodies politic to be truly transformational. No longer seized upon Christianity's pre-packaged structures and stanchioned beliefs presented to the pandering public listening between the gaps of our ostracizing words and spurning deeds. And if unwilling to be transformational, than claim not the banner of missional, for it deceives a church's congregants providing title where there is no life of the Spirit. For the church has entered once again into a spiritual period of Reformation not unlike its rebirth out of classic Medievalism 500 years earlier, causing it to e-merge from Modernism's timorous fears and pilavorous claims as it became transformed by e-mergent spirit and enlightened inquiry. Listening to the words of her Lord afresh through the many eyes and ears of those surrounding it - be they friend or foe - who had discerned the gospel's proclaim to its sin and transgression. Yea, even so, as God's holy love is missional may our charitable forbearance be as well. A forbearance that seeks all men to dwell in the shadow of the divine before the Father's grace of mercy and forgiveness, hope and charity, as we now enter upon new worlds to come filled with Son and Spirit promising challenge and conflict to the tension of faith's apprehension.

R.E. Slater
June 21, 2013

 

 

Is “Prodigal Christianity” Sustainable?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2013/03/is-prodigal-christianity-sustainable/

 

by Rob Davis

March 4, 2013

Comments

 

A couple of weeks ago, Tony Jones posted an introductory video [(see below)] to a new book by Geoff Holsclaw and David Fitch called Prodigal Christianity. I posted my initial thoughts, and then began a conversation with Geoff about the book via email. I told Geoff that I would read the rest of the book, and then try to write a review. But, once I got the book and starting reading it, it felt like I was being taken back in time three years. I hope that doesn’t sound condescending, so let me explain:

 

When my family and I left “the church,” I had spent the previous several years heading in a certain direction theologically. The understanding of gospel and mission that I was attracted to – and what I felt best represented what the Bible was all about – was influenced by Lesslie Newbigin, N.T. Wright, Chris Wright, Tim Keller, Michael Goheen, Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch, Brian Walsh, and many other similar thinkers. But, for me, theology was not a solely intellectual thing. I had made a commitment to not only learn things but to embody them. So, while I was on staff at a large neo-Reformed church, I was also teaching classes and leading a community group in our home, trying to live out the kinds of things I was learning with a group of people.

 

Reading through this book has been a sort of deja vu. I’m not sure how different the authors’ understanding is from where I was three years ago. If I would’ve come across this book back then, I’m sure I would’ve endorsed it wholeheartedly, and it would have become part of the “curriculum” for my own teaching and practice.

 

I have sat down several times and tried to write a review of the book. If I could put it all together, I have several posts worth of content. But, to be honest, it’s been so weird for me to have this experience that I’m not sure how capable I am of doing that. Or how helpful to anyone it would be. So, rather than doing that, for now, I’m just going to take a couple of posts and respond to a couple of things in the book.

 

This first post is a response to an idea in the book that suggests that what loosely goes under the names “emergent” or “emergence” or “emerging” is not “capable of providing direction” as a “way of thinking about church in mission.” Basically, the authors are trying to recognize and praise the influence emergent has had on their thinking, while wanting to encourage their readers in a different direction. Thus the term “Prodigal Christianity” in contrast to Emergent or Emergence Christianity.

 

I’m sure that the authors would admit that their exposure to Emergent has been limited [by their background and traditions - res]. None of us has a God’s-eye-view on anything. We can only speak from our experience. And, they may have some legitimate critiques of many aspects of the movement. But, from my perspective, I don’t think they’re seeing the bigger picture. What I am seeing (and hoping) to be the case is that emergent has a truly sustainable structure and ethos that no other movement within (Western) Christianity has. I think the future of Christianity, at least in this part of the world, is actually to be found among those who go under the broad umbrellas of emergent or progressive Christianity. This movement has even made space for atheists/agnostics/skeptics (the “nones”) like myself who can no longer believe in much of what orthodox Christianity requires, but who nonetheless find much common ground with emergent. Honestly, I don’t see how any of us could “exist” within the traditional structures of orthodox Christianity.

 

So, how have I come to these kinds of predictions?

 

Western culture has shifted – and will continue to shift – to such a degree that much of what passes for traditional/orthodox Christianity is not going to remain within the next few decades. That which does not evolve will become extinct. It used to be the case that slavery was considered “normal”; now, it is pretty difficult to find reasonable people who think it should not have been outlawed. I think many other beliefs and ideas within orthodox Christianity will increasingly be seen as archaic, oppressive, ridiculous, etc. “The church” can either embrace this shift as “the new normal” and “reform” itself, or it will likewise become entirely irrelevant to the majority of people. Those who are trying to “go back” to some different time or place are simply building the walls of their own museum.

 

Much of what goes on under the umbrellas of “evangelicalism,” “neo-Reformed” and many other related movements (including “missional”/”incarnational” visions) will morph into what the culture at large will continue to perceive as “the new fundamentalism.” It seems that the main distinction is between those who see the Bible as the primary source of knowledge/truth, and those who don’t [this mainly cuts across how we think of the Bible - as a revelation from God about Himself, His message, His plans, or as an "All-in-One" Book that can ignore scientific discovery which also can tell us about our Creator Redeemer - res]. Even those who reject the modern concept of inerrancy fall into this same fideistic trap. Now, of course, the Bible is an amazing and interesting set of documents; I think we ignore it at our own cultural and literary peril. But, the future of Christianity will be open to diverse sources of knowledge from many different streams.

 

Finally, no matter how much “relationship” is established between people coming from very different perspectives, the majority of people will not “convert” to those archaic forms of Christianity – at least not permanently. Of course, there are always waves of change, but in the long term, I think we will see a lot more people rejecting Christianity altogether rather than embracing a “bibliocentric” way of life. People have become a lot more aware of these subtle but sophisticated conversion techniques (missional as evangelism), and will be on guard against all attempts for someone to turn them into a project – a means to an end – via bait-and-switch hidden agendas.

 

I, for one, am very hopeful for the future of Christianity. But, the kind of Christianity that I think will remain, the kind that will benefit the most people, will look very different from many of the loudest voices who claim to speak for Christianity in our culture today. I hope to continue to lay out out my own vision for what that kind of Christianity might look like through my personal blog.

 

 

Prodigal Christianity - Why This Book? by Fitch and Holsclaw

 

 

 

 

Some Honest Talk about Labels (Emergent, Missional, Etc.)

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2013/02/20/some-honest-talk-about-labels-emergent-missional-etc/

 

by Tony Jones

February 20, 2013

Comments

 

I was interested to see the above video, promoting the new book by my friends David Fitch and Geoff Holsclaw. It was particularly interesting based on how they used some terminology in the promo video. They repeatedly used the terms “neo-Reformed” and “Emergent” as opposite poles, and they used their own preferred term, “missional,” as the middle way between those two erroneous options.

That was most intriguing to me is that I first met both of these guys at an Emergent Village Cohort. Indeed, Geoff ran the Chicago cohort for many years — it was, under his leadership, one of the strongest cohorts in the country. Meanwhile, Fitch was injecting his own missional-Anabaptist theology into the emergent movement in a powerful way. Fitch has gained an audience for his theology in large part because of his generous engagement with the emergent movement.

 

In other words, these guys are among the most responsible people for the growth and development of the emergent movement, from which they are now trying to verbally distinguish themselves.

 

I’ve written before about the term “missional.” It bends a lot of ways. It’s a term that basically anyone can use for what ever purpose they want — from a stalwart Southern Baptist neocon like Ed Stetzer to an Anabaptist pacifist like David Fitch. And then you’ve got the neo-Barthian camp like Darrell Guder and John Franke. They’re all “missional,” and so are a dozen church planting networks like TransForm, Forge, and the Parish Collective.

 

So here’s a test. Imagine a Christian leader saying this: “I’m not missional.”

 

No one’s going to say that. Not a PC(USA) pastor, and not a PCA pastor. Not a just-war Augustinian, and not an Anabaptist pacifist. Scot McKnight will say he’s missional, and so will Brian McLaren. So will the pope. So will I.

 

You might say you’re not Presbyterian or you’re not emergent. But you’re not going to say that you’re not missional.

 

Meanwhile, we all know that the term “emergent” has been redefined by conservatives. As hard as we tried to use it as an open-handed term for an ongoing theological conversation, the theological police jumped up and down screaming that “emergent = liberal” that people started to believe it. Publishers, for instance, once loved the term; they now want nothing to do with it.

 

So my prediction is that people will keep using the term “missional” and defining it in their own ways. And I think that’s fine. But let’s all remember that with such a broad term that “missional” — like “evangelical,” or even “Christian” — what it really means lies in the definition of the speaker, and the interpretation of the hearer.

 

Would you say that you’re a “missional” Christian? Or would you say that you’re not?

Continue to -

 

Index to past articles on "An Emerging Theology"