the parish

Dear Baptist Friends... (Revised)

...when I make fun of Southern Baptists and call them misogynists, it's because of articles like this one. This man is teaching future pastors. Be afraid. Via McCarty blog.

Kristen has now responded, and you HAVE TO read it and play along.

Brief, Unexpected Follow-Up to Emergent Stuff

Had a friend send me an email today. I won't use his name. He may post it in the comments if he's of a mind. I asked his permission to blog about this. First, the email:

I actually had dinner with Pagitt, Jones, and Kimball last week in Nashville; we were all at the Youth Specialties conference. There was a guy there who asked them “what makes you guys' theology different than evangelical or catholic theology?” Doug and Tony were very adamant in letting everyone at the table know that Emergent did not have a theology but it was a friendship. They did however discuss their own differences with evangelical theology. Tony’s big one was Christology, while Doug’s big one was cosmology. They included that Chris Seay’s church is categorized as an “emergent” church although they barely allow women to even speak in their church, which both very strongly disagreed with, obviously. It seemed like they were wanting the world to know that this is not a denomination or a theology, but this is a friendship of people, period.

Okay. First question, and I'd love for someone at the table to have asked it: If you're just this scattered, diverse friendship, why do you need a national director? They're talking out both sides of their mouths. I have a few friends. To date, we have not hired a director to coordinate our friendship. Second question: If you're going to offer up Ecclesia as this poster child for inclusivity within Emergent, aren't you admitting that there is something wrong with Ecclesia? In other words, you're using Ecclesia to prove that you have no theology per se, but if you're only keeping this misogynistic SBC congregation around to prove your inclusivity...well...there are more important virtues than inclusivity, especially when it comes at the cost of core values, like egalitarianism.

So, if it's a friendship of people and not a denomination or nascent denomination, fire your national director and any other staff you've taken on. Friendships don't need an administrative arm, and they certainly don't need support staff. C'mon, folks. Just fess up to where you're headed and quit with the semantics. I'll admit that Emergent has no hard and fast theology or ecclesiology as of this moment--too many perspectives to narrow them down just yet--but only the most naive person could believe at this point that they aren't headed that way. They may lose a few "friends" along the way, and they ought to lose at least one, but they are indeed headed that way. It wasn't the friendship that attracted me to Emergent; it was the theology I was reading.

Emergent, Schmemer...Oh, Forget It. It's Just Answers to Questions.

Dino gives a good outline to start with in clarifying my remarks about Emergent. He made three critiques of my last Emergent post. As always, thanks, Dino, for taking the time to make excellent observations.

1. I am not saying that "the institutionalization of the church in all its forms is always evil." I don't believe that at all. I do believe that as movements or conversations institutionalize, especially large and well-known ones, there is a great potential for that institution to function as a fallen power. Institutions tend to forget their initial vibrancy, openness, and reform-mindedness and begin to function for the sake of the institution. More on this later.

2. I am also not saying that "it is possible at some point in time for someone or some group to articulate and embody the Kingdom exactly as Jesus had envisioned, in other words somebody eventually gets it right." Not possible. But the impossibility is not permission to stop trying and to not be constantly reform-minded. I think one of the slogans of the Refomation was "semper reformanda." Emergent emerged (sorry) in the U.S. at least as a response to a Church that had largely stopped being interested in reforming. Theological complacency, a disturbing lack of compassion on the conservative side and a corresponding lack of good Christology on the liberal side, an overt attempt to politicize the Gospel from both sides, and an institutionalized fear of pluralism especially among Evangelicals contributed to a stultefying environment in which to do church. The reason we use Jesus as a model, other than his being the grammar of God, is that his standard always requires that we repent of our ecclesiology and praxis and try harder. The very impossibility of achieving the Jesus standard means that we are constantly in need of reformation and grace.

3. Nor am I saying that "Christianity in an American context can be expressed without unique cultural influence." I am saying that sometimes the unique cultural influence begins to drive the mission of the church. Witness: marketing-driven churches, Prayer of Jabez, Purpose Driven churches, multi-site churches, megachurches, homogeneous church growth models, the miltarization of Christianity, the commodification of the Gospel, etc. Culture plays an inevitable role in church, but it is the task of the church to ensure that the culture not dictate who the church is and how she carries out her mission.

WP, as to your question about "McLaren kind of gave it away in 'Generous Orthodoxy'": The book was a serious attempt to establish some sort of ecumenical conversation with Emergent and the critics of Emergent. The problem is, and every writer who has ever tried (including Pannenberg and Kung) has discovered this, that ecumenicism, especially as conceived as unity, always stumbles on the question of authority. McLaren offers an olive branch to different groups, a kind of theological Rodney King-ism, but he's too nice a guy. People who believe in substitutionary atonement necessarily believe something different about God's character than people who do not. McLaren wants to say that all atonement theologies are incomplete and that each offers a picture into a larger reality. That sounds good, but it sort of falls apart when atonement lenses are applied to hermeneutics. I don't accept substitutionary atonement. I've read Scripture through that lens and it always leads to violence, capriciousness, passivity, and an inability to articulate an ethical imperative. So, whence comes the authority to interpret Scripture in an ecumenical fashion? How can we agree on issues that cause theological dissonance? The Catholics have the best answer; I simply disagree with them. (And Kung did too, and that's why he ended up not being allowed to teach theology.) McLaren really tried to offer Emergent as an ecumenical movement, but no reform movement is ecumenical (The historical lesson provided by Luther is the best example of that little truism.), and the healthy version of Emergent, the movement I believed in, was a reform movement.

That'll do for now. There are a couple other things to be said, especially about the idea of an emergent service, but that will keep 'til the post after next. The next one will be on the wonderfully disturbing book I just finished, Never Let Me Go.

Grateful

Went downtown today to visit a friend's store. I was getting ready to put change in the meter when an older gentleman whom I'd noticed sitting on a retaining wall said: "You can park in the church lot for free." The church lot is St. Joseph's Catholic Church which is directly across the street from the Oklahoma City National Memorial. I knew you could park in the lot for free if you were visiting Diane's store, but for some reason I felt like parking closer and paying for it.

"Save yourself some money," he said. He was between 50 and 60, wearing a faux shearing jacket that looked almost plastic, Wrangler's, and oddly enough, black wingtips. His front teeth were noticeably stained yellow, and he had crutches on either side of him. He was tall and lean, with black hair graying on the edges.

"Thanks," I said. "I'll remember that next time."

"You from around here?" He asked.

"Sure am."

"Yeah, I've lived here since I got back from Vietnam. They're taking my right leg off next week because the VA didn't operate when they should have."

"You going to the VA hospital for that?" I asked him.

"The one in Muskogee," he said. "They do all the bone work."

"What's wrong with your leg?"

"I've got gangrene in it now. I got shot in Vietnam, and things haven't been good since."

"My dad was over there," I tell him.

"Do you know where?"

"No. I just know he went over in '65 and he was a medic."

"Sit down here," he said, patting the wall next to him. "Let me tell you something about that war," he said after I sat next to him, "That war lasted for 35 years, and I was only there 18 months. That's how long it took me to get messed up. And now Bush has got us messing around in, in, in..."

"Iraq?" I offered.

"Yeah, Iraq, and it's gone on for four or five months now, maybe years, and...I've been to every church and every shelter in downtown and I can't get any help. People don't treat veterans right. We fought in Vietnam and now the government is letting those people live here and I can't get any help. It ain't right. I've got to get to Muskogee tomorrow and I haven't got any gas for my '57 Chevy."

"Do you need some money?"

"Whatever you can spare."

I had a five in my pocket, so I gave it to him. "I have to meet a friend," I said.

"Thanks, and God bless."

"You're welcome. God bless you too."

I walked across the street and into Diane's store.

"What are you smiling about?" She asked.

"I just bought a man a beer."

"What did you give him?"

"A five."

"You bought him a six-pack," she said.

"True. I was thinking about the kind of beer I drink."

Today I am grateful for sanity, for a home, for a father who came back from Vietnam more or less normal, for friends, for the wherewithal to give and to buy good beer, and for opportunities to talk to people who make me appreciate all the good things I have. Happy Thanksgiving this week, parishioners. May God graciously bless you all. Grace and peace.

The High Cost of Conversation

Got my Emergent email this morning. Brian McLaren wrote this one. I love Brian's books and heart and input on behalf of Emergent. Normally. This email was to solicit funds so that Tony Jones, another man I have great respect for, can fulfill his duties as Emergent's National Director in a full-time capacity. Hmm. Remember when Emergent was a conversation?

Someone please tell me what Emergent is or is becoming? When they, whoever they is, appointed Tony as the National Director, I asked blogworld if Emergent was on its way to becoming a denomination. Now they are soliciting funds for someone to work full-time as the head of the "conversation." I'm thinking it's officially moved beyond conversation. McLaren talked about the wonderful publishing partnerships and invitations to conferences and other marks that the movement had grown and gained respectability. Has it occurred to anyone that publishers don't care about your movement so long as young Christians are shelling out money for books? How long 'til we see a Passion equivalent for the Emergent movement? "Emergent Music: For a new generation of Jesus-Followers" or some crap like that. Emergent has become a marketing force faster and with more market acuity than centrist evangelicals ever did. Congratulations, Emergent. Your transition from conversation to movement guarantees that Emergent will soon mean almost as little as Evangelical.

Last week I was having dinner with a music pastor at a local "seeker-sensitive" church. Their whole project is based on being like our hydra-headed megachurch. Their college group consists of showing the hydra-headed pastor's sermon DVD's and discussing them. The preaching is emotive, erratic, based on "felt needs," advertised as "relevant," and completely independent of whatever text is read for the week. The music is 90's middle of the road charismatic. I could go on. Anyway, he asks me, "So is kaleo an Emergent service?" I told him about our pastor arriving at Emergent theology through the back door (i.e., by studying, preaching, and living post-liberal theology for many years). I told him that we were trying to extend that theological vision into kaleo (Barth, Yoder, Frei, the Yale school, postmodern theology, friendship as the grammar of God, etc.). So, yes, the short answer is we're an Emergent congregation. He looks at me and with a completely straight face says: "What we're doing is an Emergent theological construct too." Really? By what definition?

The watering down of Emergent is almost complete. They allowed it to be undefined and tenuous for so long that anyone can now call themselves Emergent even without understanding the theology. Got candles? That's emergent! Got a mandolin? Definitely emergent! How 'bout an evening service? Dude, you're in! So, what do we do now? We hire someone full-time to direct Emergent. We don't know what the hell it is. Churches that call themselves Emergent are just as likely to think it's about church growth as it is postmodern theology. The market is flooded with books. People with completely irreconcilable theological differences make up Emergent's leadership teams, some of which are at odds with Emergent's ethos, as if theology doesn't ultimately matter. So, why not hire someone to direct this thing? Someone has to herd the cats.

Brian McLaren said Pagitt predicted this would be the year of criticism for Emergent. And he was right. What he didn't expect, I think, is that much of the criticism is richly deserved. Not the D.A. Carson stuff. That's just fundamentalist ranting and posturing. But for those of us who thought Emergent held promise there is much disappointment. If I cared about Emergent imprints and conferences, I'd have stayed an evangelical. Here's an idea. Nail down what this thing is, leave it open enough for different faith traditions (except those that exclude women), clearly state the trajectory of this thing (denomination, reform movement, conversation that amounts to nothing, publishing opportunities), and move toward it without panhandling via email. As soon as Emergent is interested in sending me money to do something full-time, I'll be interested in sending them money to hire a full-time director. If you want to hire a bishop, hire a bishop. Churches hire senior pastors to pastor that's why they feel comfortable asking their congregations for money. I'm not in the habit of sending money to parachurch organizations to support their director though. There is a market for that: it's called TBN.

Back to Business

Light blogging this week because I've been working on three stories. Did a cover for the Gazette last week about Jerry Falwell's appearance at the Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma's Pastor's Conference. Fortunately or unfortunately, he cancelled his appearance so the drama was greatly minimized. I'll have more to say after the follow-up story runs next week.

Shameless self-promotion following: I'll be preaching at kaleo this Sunday night. If you're in the area, we start at 6:00 p.m. I know a certain Baptist and his wife who will be visiting. If you make it, let me know you're there. There are no door prizes or anything. Sorry.

Fundamentalist Atheists?

Andrew Klavan does a good job of comparing and contrasting Alister McGrath's Twilight of Atheism and Sam Harris's The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Religion in the most recent issue of The Claremont Review of Books (Fall 2005). I've seen Harris's book on the table at Border's and Barnes & Noble. The New York Review of Books called it "important." They didn't talk about Harris's disturbing language. They didn't call him a fundamentalist. They didn't even call him scary. They should have. Harris's "expertise" in matters metaphysical is based upon his current pursuit of a Ph.D. in neuroscience. Ahem...

While doing the interviews for the atheism piece, which I will happily link to when it runs sometime this month (I think.), I asked at least one of the interviewees why atheists weren't held to the same standard for the behavior of the 20th centuries two largest atheist regimes, USSR and PRC, as Christians are held to for Hitler, Crusades, Inquisitions, etc. Harris mentions all these atrocities in a laundry list of why faith should be disposed of in favor of a utopia based on reason. (Klavan notes, somewhat humorously tongue in cheek, that Harris's position is a more sophisticated version of John Lennon's sappy, sappy song "Imagine." I'd rather imagine a world where Yoko didn't screw up the band, but hey, John is dead, so I can't talk bad about him and his marital choices.) The response I received is almost identical to Harris's apologetic for the USSR and PRC: they were using a politicized version of atheism that was really Marxist/Leninist politics, not atheism per se. Uhm, okay. But does he really believe that Hitler wasn't using a Hegelian version of perverted Christianity? Or, even more likely, did Hitler not subjugate the Church to the power of the state for the purpose of co-opting the moral authority and ultimately overthrowing that moral authority by making himself some sort of prophet? Does he believe the Crusades weren't Macchiavellian politics dressed up as Christianity, or at least a grab for money, land, and resources as much as a quest to free the city of God?

I think both sides of this debate can agree that horrible things have been done in the name of religion and irreligion. The problem is that Harris says something that makes the claims of people of faith about the ultimate immorality of atheism seem frighteningly accurate. Listen to this: "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them." (Hello, NY Times. How 'bout you grow a pair, or a uterus?) How is that position different from the position of Torquemada? Fundamentalism ultimately resorts to violence; it is the only way to create the world it envisions. As McGrath points out in his Twilight of Atheism what do you do with people who refuse to stop believing in God, especially if they're getting in the way of your rationalist utopia? Okay, atheist friends, time to step up and condemn this kind of speech. (It's the ongoing demand Muslims face because of their fundamentalist kin.) In the utopia Harris envisions, people aren't killed for believing the wrong things. Free speech? Uh-uh. No room for it in his atheist paradise. You're free to put your faith in human reason. You're free to disbelieve in God. But you aren't free to think certain things. Admittedly, he probably doesn't want to kill all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc., just the ones that are violent fundamentalists, kinda like him. Oh, satire, where is thy victory? Oh, irony, where is thy sting?

This Just In...Pat Robertson at It Again

After the Dover school board members were voted out, Pat Robertson said:

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God. You just rejected him from your city."

Ah, yes, the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.

And on a lighter note, I'll be attending a certain pastor's conference on Monday to hear the Reverend Falwell speak. Two crazies in four days. If I could just get down to Lakewood Church, I'd have the trifecta.

Harold Bloom on God

Oh for trenchant analysis like this from the fundangelicals about their own Bible:

"How can you possibly like him (YHWH)? He's very bad news," Bloom says. "He's irascible, he's difficult, he's unpredictable, and he himself doesn't seem to know what he's doing."

"There isn't any one Jesus," Bloom says. "There are Jesuses and Jesuses and Jesuses and Jesuses. Indeed, here in the United States, it seems to me that every professed Christian has her or his own Jesus."

From "The Week" Nov. 11, 2005

I Believe I'm Going to Cry

Thanks, Zalm (via the McCarty blog). Now I have something for me this Xmas season.

www.devoted1.com