Conversation: the Buzz

Brian McLaren says in New Kind of Christian that we ought to stop counting conversions and count conversations instead. Emergent is a conversation and a "generative friendship." Conversation, like community, has become one of those words that has been sapped of usefulness by virtue of its use in Christian circles (cf., salvation, growth, outreach, evangelism, small group, etc.). The problem for fundangelicals is that conversations must have a soteriological telos, be it actual conversion or "one plants the seed, one waters, and God gives the increase." I'm not sure what a conversation is supposed to be, but I think we came really close to a damn good instantiation of it in Nashville.

We sat around several tables with a very diverse group and were able to be completely frank about what we believe without being outwardly judged. (I can't speak to anyone's internal responses.) I was able to say things like, "If the Gospel is that God needed still more blood to be happy, if he wasn't satisfied with the amount of blood already shed on the planet, then I don't give a shit about the Gospel." No one flinched. I honestly wasn't trying to shock or offend, but I'm so used to offending or shocking people with the way I frame things that I was amazed that the room basically shrugged. We listened to the stories of three men who had accepted their homosexuality at a fairly young age and walked away from the church when it became too painful to remain, in part because of the attempted exorcisms, laying on of hands, swearing off the lifestyle, pleading with God for deliverance, and the message that they could not be gay and whole. We listened to single women talk about their attempt to do ministry in the church as ordained ministers. We listened to men who had been staff pastor at a megachurch until the disillusionment was too great to continue. We mainly listened. We asked questions. We debated a bit. We offered counter positions and different perspectives on common experiences.

What was the goal of this? To become friends. Just friends. Not to convert, nor to save, nor to chastise, nor to judge. Friendship is the telos of conversation. Friendship is the means to redemption. Friendship only works when everyone is allowed to believe what they believe without the fear of being "othered." I don't know that we accomplished anything deeply profound in Nashville, but I know we made friends. Peace.

Comments

[Winderweedle]

God, I miss that... Wish I could have been there...

[joe]

I would have to say that's a pretty good understanding of what friendship is.

I am not sure one will find that in today's church but we can still work towards it.

[dr dobson]

G--

great post, especially the conclusion. Seems that friendship really does have a place at the table--shouldn't that be the goal of every Christian? Friendship ultimately results in and from peace. Peace is far under-rated and has no place at the table of self-keeping and those bound to any other agenda.

I think Hauerwas was correct: if whatever we are doing doesn't result in peace, then we should reevaluate what we are doing.

I submit that the world would be a much better place if this clear goal of the Gospel was meted out in our lives more often.

[fiodax]

"Friendship is the telos of conversation. Friendship is the means to redemption."

That sounds like a soteriological telos to me.

[Dallas Tim]

The whole purpose of the Gospel is that humanity would have friendship (and peace) with God. Jesus told His disciples "No longer do I call you servants, but friends..."

Unfortunately, there a lots of definitions of peace. Biblical peace, according to Jesus, comes when we see ourselves as God sees us and allow Christ's work to rectify our condition.

[fiodax]

If "Friendship is the means to redemption." my questions are: Friendship with whom? and Redeemed to/for what?

The Bible brings a message of redemption to God through the work of Christ which provides the opportunity for our friendship with Christ. Friendship and redemption to each other as people flows from that (from a Biblical perspective). "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself."

If we are just talking about friendship with each other creating redemption and peace, that will work fine without the Bible or the Gospel as long as we make sure to silence or otherwise get rid of the "others" (read "fundangelicals" ).

From a Biblical perspective I would say that the statement:

"Friendship only works when everyone is allowed to believe what they believe without the fear of being "othered.""

is wrong. I would call that "polite company",

Friendship to me is a relationship where the willingness to challenge perceived wrong ideas for the purpose of bettering the other individual does not bring into question whether or not the relationship will survive once the challenge is wrought out, no matter it's conclusion.

"Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." Prov 27:17

[Dallas Tim]

Fiodax,

Some good comments.

If I said I thought anyone from Nebraska was "sub-human" I hope I'd be "othered" by everyone on this blog. Sometimes "othering" is a good thing. Especially when truth is considered.

The Bible is our standard (yes, even the parts that don't make sense) and I actually yet to find someone who takes everything in the Bible "literally." Even those who would disagree about prophetic statments and the "literal-ness" thereof, still see clear direction from Jesus about Heaven, Hell, sin, the Devil and the judgement.

[dr dobson]

Fiodax and DT--

Congratulations. You have just stepped all over your theological d*cks (though not intentionally, I hope) by using scriptural references pulled completely out of context to justify ignoring the hurt, lost, hungry and downtrodden. Mishpat has no place in your telos.

DT, we all know your bent when you advocate that scripture (specifically the Gospels) is designed for one thing: friendship with God. Again, I harken back to an argument I've been making here for months now: this is the sting that has infected the church--specifically American evangelicalism. This is your biblical justification for worrying about one thing and one thing only: yourself. To use language that will be familiar to you (again, hopefully), "God's plan" is for us to find and be friends with one another and somehow is such event, there is grace meted out between us.

God doesn't give a rip about what happens to you when you die--stop worrying about yourself and start being concerned with the widow, orphan and sojourner that the church and those in it never even bother to see (but they're always disgusted by the smells from "those people").

When you say that we need to allow Christ's work to rectify "our condition", you simply mean that a) we are fallen and b) we must repent to God in order to be saved. How does "Christ's work" rectify us? If you mean to assert your atonement theory as the answer, then we disagree. If, however, you mean that Christ's work, i.e. the redemption and reconciliation of all of creation, somehow rectifies us back to God, then you might be on to something. What I don't hear from what you say here is how "Christ's work" is brought about.

If it is brought about by our only concern being that of self-soul-preservation, then take a look around you--the American church is a miserable failure at such practice.

Vulnerability, failure, disease and weakness should be our hallmark because that is the hallmark of those that are hurting, those that are weak, those that are downtrodden--we have to learn to take the burden of those less fortunate.

The telos you espouse here simply answers this dilemma by telling them to "turn or burn".

I'm glad Jesus didn't see it that way.

[Dallas Tim]

Dr. Dob.

Why do you force everything to be mutually exclusive?

If you believe the whole Gospel then you hate the poor. If you love the poor, then you can't pay attention to everything Jesus said, only the parts about feeding the hungry???

Are you blind to the fact that many of the major charities in this country and world (Feed the Children, Samaritan's purse, the Salvation Army, etc...) are all based on a evangelical understanding of the Gospel.

I spent last night with my wife and three children at the Union Gospel Mission in Dallas, a place where men with virtually nothing come and receive food, clothing and shelter. We had a wonderful time and my kids asked if we could go every month.

How arrogant of you to appear to have my motives figured out when you haven't the slightest clue about who I am or what I and my family are involved in.

You are, apparently, simply another in a long line of those who can't bear the words of Jesus himself (and the rest of the NT) regarding the validity of sin, hell, punishment and eternity, so you try to make anyone who DOES listen to Jesus' complete message out to be a non-caring, selfish, arrogant, moron.

The one thing that has infected the modern church more than anything is/are attitudes where crude attacks are directed at any who disagree and any view that takes Jesus message seriously are relegated to a by-gone era of recognized truth and personal responsibility.

Jesus was very clear about how we are to treat those who are less fortunate that we (and those of us who claim to be His followers ought to be continually involved in such endevours).

Jesus was also just as clear about the reality of sin, death, hell, and forgiveness.

For every verse about the poor, I'll show you three about sin and hell. For every verse about the hungry, I'll show you four about the need for forgiveness from the guilt of sin and about the reality of our need to be forgiven in order to receive eternal life.

It would be the height of carlesness (even hatred) to feed someone, while neglecting to tell them about God's plan to redeem them for eternity.

That doesn't mean we don't have to care about the fact that they are hungry or poor. And I for one find it difficult to believe that someone who accuses another of stepping on their theological sexual organ, has the right to determine what "caring about others" looks like.

[fiodax]

dr dobson,

I think you've taken me out of context because I'm definitely not one who would justify ignoring the hurt, lost, hungry and downtrodden. Don't group me with the traditional fire insurance salvation crowd. Your quickness to 'other' me is unwarranted.

I guess I don't understand what role you think scripture does play? You accuse me of using it out of context, my question to you is "What context are you referring to?"

I agree that scripture tells us to care for the widow and orphan and to love our enemy, but it says alot more than that too, it talks about Christ's purpose on the cross, about God's Glory and faithfulness, about repentance, about God's election...are we to simply throw those out because we can't fully grasp their meaning? I think that would be out of context as well, if the context we're working in is the context of scripture.

Of course if the context you speak of is simply the context of our own experience, then my question would be "Why do we need the Bible at all?" I mean what makes the Bible special, why pay so much attention to a book with so much supposed contradiction and worthless or outdated information? Why not just throw it out and start over? It seems to cause more problems than it solves in this context anyway. There are plenty of other sources of morality that will tell us to take care of people without the burden of having to skip over parts about sin, redemption to God, and the work of the Cross.

I don't know why my desire to help someone is less valuable if it's done out of a desire to please and honor God according to scripture. Do I have do acts of compassion solely out of some sort of selfless duty? I can't do that, I enjoy helping people, it makes me happy, I can't help it. I wouldn't want someone to help me that didn't get some joy out of the helping, it would only increase my suffering as it would extend my suffering to the person helping me, not to mention it would make me question their motives in helping me at all. The knowledge of what scripture says about it magnifies the joy I receive from doing the good work.

The fact is that my belief in the bible has caused you to group me with the people out there who like to use the bible as a club. Who use the church as a tool of preserving self importance and arrogantly lord their supposed position in Christ over all those "sinners" who haven't got it yet. That's not me man...give me a chance here. They make me as mad as they make you.

[dr dobson]

Fiodax

apologies, perhaps I jumped a little too quickly in lumping you with that crowd.

My main response that touched DT off (sorry DT--no need to think I'm unfairly criticizing you--I never said that you don't help those less fortunate) is based upon the motives behind why we do what we do.

The simple, yet most important point is this: Jesus can't "be Jesus" and God can't "be God" without our participation in the story, full stop. Therefore, when some of creation suffers, when some go without, when some are downtrodden, it is we who must reconcile such back to the fold.

You speak very well about "Christ's purpose on the cross, about God's Glory and faithfulness, about repentance, [and] about God's election". My belief is that all of those intentions portended by the text lead to one thing: God's deep desire to have community (read: friendship) with creation. Therefore, we should have one simple response to this: to mete that out in our existence at every opportunity.

When DT reminds us not to forget about the other aspects of scripture (though I fail to see any presence or relevance of any message beyond that of redemption, reconciliation and peace), I have to respectfully disagree (as does about 1850 years of scholarship before me) that the real goal of such and our acts of justice is to "save the lost" from a fiery hell.

DT--

Bone up on your proof texting--go ahead and show me your purported "1:3" or "1:4" ratio (I can't quite decipher which hyperbole argument you are trying to make here) of justice/mercy passages versus damnation, hell/sin consequence passages. What is more important that measuring your software program designed to equip you with such answers would be to examine the contexts in which any Bible character and/or Jesus discuss such: to whom was the "damnation and hell" passage directed versus the objects of those deserving justice/mercy/kindness?

I have said before that I take no issue with your acts of kindness and mercy in which you and your family engage in your hometown--I think that is fantastic. I trust that the reasons behind doing so are, as fiodax correctly stated, because you love to do that and that you have it on your heart to do so and for no other reason. For to engage in such acts out of "concern for [their] soul" is to completely condescend the victim to a place that is more than obvious to him or her.

I think I know you well enough from this site to know that you have great intentions and a great heart--it is not that that I am critical of (nor am I trying to be critical of you personally, by the way). I'm simply trying to point out, perhaps crudely at times, that we as "insiders" had better be sure of our theological bases for so acting. Is God big enough to work within such a system (which is often misguided)? Of course; and it is with this knowledge and hope that I declare I need his grace everyday to meet the mark.

[cheek]

I don't really like the phrase 'out of context.' All it really seems to signify in debates like these is, "in a different context than one that would vindicate my own understanding," regardless of who is using it. Every interpretation of language occurs within a context ("There is no view from nowhere."), and in fact, most if not all interpretation occurs within many layers of context, many of which are not self-evident to anyone involved. The important thing to remember for people you want to take the postmodern critique seriously is that there is no interpretation outside personal experience. This seems to be true prima facie, since there can be no interpretation without an interpreter and no interpreter without a personal experience. (One could argue with my last premise, but I think it would take some significant bullet-biting.)

So, fiodax, your question about why we need the Bible at all if we won't interpret it in its own context may be hypothetically a good one, it is not a problem we can answer in any meaningful way since we have no choice in the matter. We either choose to value the wisdom we find in the Bible as it jives with our experience (whether because of a conscious faith decision or a nostalgia for tradition or some other reason) or we don't for whatever reason.

[fiodax]

dr dobson (if that really is your name ;) ,

Thanks for the clarification, I'll have to take exception to your statement:

"The simple, yet most important point is this: Jesus can't "be Jesus" and God can't "be God" without our participation in the story, full stop."

Because I believe that God is fully God and Jesus is fully Jesus within Their own presence in the Trinity and we were created solely out of the excess of the fulfillment He experiences in being.

I will agree with you however that our acts of mercy should not done with an intent to save people (because that is not within our power), but with an intent to experience joy and to get rid of suffering because we love people. God's glory is seen in these acts when we do them with these motives, and your are right in saying that only our condescension is seen if these motives are absent.

I'm going to go ahead to assumes these good motives for DT, because that's how I roll :)

[fiodax]

cheek, good points,

It made me think that if I would really stop and consider my own theology I would realize that the premise of what i believe is my ability to believe what I believe through the independant enabling work of the Holy Spirit. There in lies my "context". Now within my own belief through scripture it states that those who have not received this ability from the Holy Spirit are unable to believe the things that come from the spirit (1 cor inthians ch 2), yet I still find myself trying to force them to do so, and even getting angry at them when they don't, instead of simply loving them, serving them, building relationships, and letting God to the work that he promised to do.

I have a saying that is "Jesus may very well want to "live in your heart", but he doesn't get there through your throat." This is in response to the practice of forcing doctrine that seems to be the source of a lot of negativity in regards to "the church".

[Dallas Tim]

Jesus desire for our redemption went far beyond our own physical death.

The silliness of His own death is only magnified if He came merely to help up feed hungry people and give money/resources to the poor.

He performed miracles to show proof that He had the power to forgive sin. When he healed the cripple man who was lowered from the roof, He made clear that His power over sickness was to show that He had power over the effects of sin as well.

The Pharisees knew well that His claims put Him on the same level as the God of the OT. He didn't correct or clarify His mission. He only went on to claim that His primary goal was to redeem mankind. Yes, that included the current state of things (i.e. hunger, proverty, etc...) but He made claims about eternity as well.

I don't have a computer program that finds passages on sin, hell, etc... but if you show me a passage where Jesus touts the importants of feeding the poor, I'll show you several others where He speaks of eternal things. If this same Jesus speaks of both things, then we'd all better take both of them in earnest (and you can't rationalize His statements about sin and hell away any more than you can His commands regarding how we are to treat the poor.)

[dr dobson]

FD--

"[] I believe that God is fully God and Jesus is fully Jesus within Their own presence in the Trinity and we were created solely out of the excess of the fulfillment He experiences in being."

What?? I think you missed my point: God can't be God and Jesus can't be Jesus without hands and feet here to do it. Stated another way, God is not God without God's creation in community and covenant with God--this is the very essence of why God created in the first place. God didn't create us out of any "excess" or leftover, God created us because God desperately wanted community with creation. One could go so far as to say that we are the very reason God exists--we, all of us, all of creation. Therefore, when we value one in our midst more than one who is not in our midst, we are completely running afoul of God's design for creation.

Not to sneak off into an argumentative tangent (for we never do that here), but you have simply spouted dogma and religious statement without offering anything to support it.

As to the reasons why we serve: we shouldn't serve others "with an intent to experience joy and to get rid of suffering because we love people." While love is certainly the key component in the equation, we should, and hopefully do, serve others because they need to experience joy and they need to be freed from their suffering. At the very least, they need their dignity restored. From where shall this come? It doesn't just fall out of the sky. Our own joy, happiness or fulfillment is not the goal in so doing--it hopefully is a nice by-product, but the redemption of their dignity and reminding them of their inherent value as God's creation is why we should serve--the best example of all is the love shown by Jesus.

[greg]

Tim,

Funny that he was demonstrating all this forgiveness before the crucifixion. Hmm...

[Dallas Tim]

Greg,

Yes, but the crucifixion and resurrection validated His authority and cliams because He ulitmately had to prove that He was even more powerful than death itself.

I can forgive anyone I want, but if that person (even if the person is me) doesn't have the forgivness of God through the sacrifice of Jesus, then my forgiveness in inconsequential.

[greg]

Tim,

Does your Bible say the resurrection validated his authority to forgive sins?

[fiodax]

greg here's Hebrews 9:

"22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

23 Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."

and Mathew 26:28

"for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

and 1 corinthians 15:

"12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in Christ we have hope [2] in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied."

But asking for scriptural references to back up doctrinal claims is futile when one part of the conversation does not accept the context of scripture as a valid place by which to interpret meaning.

[greg]

fiodax,

You are correct. I dismiss Hebrews out of hand, as should fundangelicals, since it creates numerous contradictions with other parts of Scripture.

None of the Scriptures quoted though answer the primary question of how God was able to forgive prior to the crucifixion if the crucifixion is the payment for sins. Fundangelicals like to talk about faith directed forward, but that ignores the Hebrew Bible's version of the story.

[fiodax]

Here's Romans 3 note vs 25:

"21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."

However I can't bring myself to reject Hebrews, it's one of my fav's :)

[fiodax]

Not to split hairs, but there's forgiveness which is granted by God and then there is justification which is provided by the Cross. The forgiveness was not jusified until the penalty for the sin was paid by the cross.

[dr dobson]

Guys

this "save your own neck theology" pukes me and here's why: in order to agree with it, one must first view God as the one who fires lightning bolts at those who "step out of line" so to speak.

We're ultimately talking about the same thing here: sin and the consequences of same result in separation from God and a break in community with creation--I call it that, you call it "hell". The difference is that you are concerned with preventing your own demise, which is admirable, but such a view lends itself more often to that of self-preservation instead of being concerned with others. If God's character, as evidenced by the whole of the text, is one that is primarily concerned with God's well-being, then yes, God must see Jesus' blood in order to feel better about us. If, on the other hand, God is ultimately concerned with the other and desparately wants to be in relationship with the other, then it seems logical and theologically correct to me that we should also be.

While we are talking about the same thing (I think), DT and FD arrive at their conclusion from a far different vantage point than I do, thus we don't end up with the same result.

[Dallas Tim]

Not sure about where Hebrews causes problems. Many part of the Bible can be seen as "problematic" but can typically be understood in context.

Jesus, for instance, saying that even HE didn't know (only the Father did) when His return would occur. I thought Jesus was God and knew everything???

As for God's forgiveness being applied before the cross, it was given temporarily through the OT system. God saw their willingness to do as much as they could (at His direction) and allowed His judgement to "simmer" until the true sacrifice could be applied. It wasn't like God was wating around hoping that Jesus' death happen. He knew it would and so could use symbols and types to point ahead to that time.

The bottom line is that God is just and He stated from the beginning that sin must be punished.

I know the old argument that "If God is so big, then why can't He just choose NOT to judge?"

Well, if God is so big, then why are there hungry children in China? Why did a tsunami kill nearly a quarter million people? Why is good beer so expensive? Why doesn't God just completely eliminate all pain and suffering immediately if He's BIG enough?

He's chosen His way and that included punishment for sin. He also provided means for forgiveness of sin through His Son Jesus.

Hebrews only makes that more clearer (as do many other parts of the Bible).

As I've asked before to people like Dr. Dobson, if you serve a big God who still allows the pain and suffering we still see today, then you have just as many problem with your God as you say I have with my view(s). Either your God isn't big enough or He is big enough but just doesn't care enough to take care of the problems.