This thread seems to be circling around some very important issues of first principles in the formation of Christian communities. I’d like to sketch out what I see to be these first principles.
The kind of communities that arose in the 1st century, as described in Acts, were not, in the first place, communities which gathered around a consensus of what their theology should be, and how that should be formulated. They were, in the first place, gatherings around a common experience: the gift of the Spirit which was given in response to a particular proclamation of Christ. I find that N.T.Wright’s description of the process comes nearest to it: Christ is preached, faith is generated within the hearer by the operation of the Spirit, the response of obedience is called for. Baptism seems to be the normal expression of that response.
But which Christ, and which particular features of that proclamation are we talking about? It was not, primarily, a particular interpretation of ‘the atonement’, but a highly selective account of the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus set against a historical backcloth. That backcloth reached beyond the particular mindset and historical ambitions of 1st century Jews, which were the fundamental obstacles to receiving him. Further, it could be said that the four gospels as they came to be written were not, primarily, the source material out of which particular interpretations might be formed - they were the essence of the proclamation, to which needed to be added the culminating events of Acts, as seen against this wider, outer narrative frame.
When we look at the formation of Christian communities within a postmodern culture, the question to be raised is whether a fundamentally different set of events needs, in some way, to be ‘proclaimed’, or whether we are talking about the packaging of the same events but in a different form. It is my opinion that a ‘historical narrative’ interpretation can give a sharper outline to the centrally proclaimed events, in comparison with some ‘modern’ versions, restoring considerable power to the central proclamation. The ‘evangelion’ can recapture its emphasis as a proclamation, as much as an explanation. It becomes sharp and particular, as opposed to generalised and bland. A ‘historical narrative’ approach needs to avoid, however, locking the faith up entirely in a history lesson.
The ‘proclamation’ however, cannot tamper with the central events without fatally setting itself adrift from its moorings. The proof of the question will ultimately be which ‘proclamation’ the eternal Jesus and the life-giving Spirit give their imprimatur to, and within which they take up residence. The overall evidence of the NT leaves me with little doubt of the shape of the proclamation which led to the formation of the reconstituted people of God. It would be a mistake to abandon or modify this proclamation out of existence, in a misguided zeal, perhaps, to provide a proclamation more sympathetic to the susceptibilities of the age.
Following the proclamation, the secondary issue is how those who have responded to it express their common life as the people of God through their particular culture. The heart of the response is an expression, in some way, of being the people of God - identifiable through their faith in the one proclaimed, and the acts of God evident among them. This response is infinitely adaptable to the varieties of different cultures, and no less within a postmodern, western, developed world. In this cultural development, it is important to note that a postmodern culture makes significant critiques of the modern, but not, significantly, a fundamental break with or rejection of it. I find parallels here with the proclamation of the ‘evangelion’ of Jesus.
On this site, and within the discussions that take place here, there is frequent discussion of the validity of different theological standpoints and their methodologies. All well and good. But I am impatient to see some discussion of the practical application of some of the interpretive methodologies for today’s world. I sometimes suspect that little focus here sometimes suggests little possibility of practical application! But it’s hard to move onto practical application when there is little consensus, and sometimes outright divergence, over the theological underpinnings which might lead to practical application. I see this as a fundamental fault-line on the site.
Web ‘communities’ are, in the end, communities in a limited sense. They are not a community of shared lives - although they may well lead to that. A website may provide a forum for testing ideas, as this does, but our real communities are the ones we engage with when we move away from the computer screen. We should not confuse the virtual for the real. Again, I return to the question of first principles - which ‘proclamation’ has the power to lead to the formation of communities, as modelled by their 1st century counterparts, in the sense of having the risen Jesus as their focus, experiencing the life-giving Spirit in their midst, and taking a correct understanding of the OT writings and their historical narrative to correctly perceived conclusions?
so how?
i am far more comfortable in the realm of experience and application verses theology and heady concepts, but for the life of me i cannot quite imagine that an organized church community could ever be a viable, living thing i could relate to. i have nearly given up hope. i think i have come here, to talk about ideals in order to gain a vision for something new.
for about a decade my best church has come in unlikely forms, usually with a guinness or a cigar in hand. i have a consistent love/hate relationship with the church. i want to walk away, and yet ultimately i never can.
“if i were king of the forest” to quote the cowardly lion, i would have a community that looks like my odd assortment of friends. we would eat together and drink together and ask god the hard questions. we would laugh hard and cry well and be unafraid of each other’s journey. we certainly would not try to “fix” the problem or “correct” each other’s faith, but like a mirror, we would stand together, moving forward. we would help each other out when we could, receive when we needed, and trust god to provide when we had nothing to give. we would listen to each other with respect and see god, and in turn speak strongly and show god. we would tell stories and live stories and see the mystery of christ unfold before us.
but i cannot imagine this being accomplished with pop choruses and sermons and “how to” books from amid the christian elite and the chosen of politics. i have wondered if the answer was to go back - back to the liturgy, back even to catholicism, but there i am stuck too - for while i love the mystery and the beauty and the lack of biblical certainty of the “reformed” i struggle with the hierarchy and the theology.
and so i arrive again (after posts like peter’s) to a small shred of hope…maybe there is indeed some new life that we can PRACTICE! i practice it with my family, with my children, with my friends. and yet i - and my children by now - are the “unchurched.” people create “seeker services” to try and get us to come. but they are doing church the same way - the same sermon, the same singing, just with funnier anecdotes, better lighting and louder music.
yes yes yes - how do we build a community?
Reading Stacy's personal
Reading Stacy’s personal experiences here reminded me of some of the potential advantages of cell churches (or something like them). That small cell of Christian friends fosters an honesty and a fellowship that can’t reasonably be expected in a structure that is all “celebration.” Some relatives of mine enjoyed their participation at the Crystal Cathedral in Garden Grove, California; but to hear them talk about it, the church to them was their Sunday-school class. On the other hand, my long-time friends had an unsatisfying experience at Saddleback (Rick Warren); they tried, unsuccessfully, to find a small group where they could really get involved. So practically, it seems the “organized church” element is not so important, and the less-determined small-group is more so.
both/and!
If I may interject…
I would personally put the large communal aspect of ‘church’, and the tight-knit cell group aspect hand in hand. Large congregations cannot provide the intimacy and the accountability of small groups, to be sure. But small groups (/ covenant groups / cells / house churches, etc.) are generally bad at effecting large scale changes. In my (admittedly quite large) church, for example, we are able to pool resources and sponsor a local inner city school, do construction work for them, hook employers and employees up, etc. That kind of large scale networking and fundraising can’t happen in a house church. Also, the large community is a reminder that we are not alone. All this to say, it seems like a good idea to have both big and small.
Now of course, the difficulty can be finding a good ‘big church’ to go to. But mind you, it can also be very difficult to find a good ‘small church’ to go to. Or even if it’s easy to get connected in a small group, it can take time to reach a healthy level of intimacy. Harder still not to become clique-ish once that level has been reached!
In any case, I’m glad that no one here is entertaining the idea of doing the ‘Christian thing’ alone, or with just some kind of internet ‘community’. The Kingdom is fundamentally about restored relationships, and so it makes sense that we would explore the multifaceted implications of this in our day to day lives.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
is the system really broken?
ultimately the problem with church is that you have to deal with people. i say this both in jest and as an honest statement. it really is why our “religion” is so damn hard. it is based on loving one another and carrying one anothers burdens. it isnt based on which direction you kneel or which theology you atest to. formulas and practices are easier to sustain than love.
so i get it. i get the concept of large gatherings to effect change, to reveal to ME the image of people from every tribe and nation bowing before the lamb. i get the need for a circle of intimates, where you have witnesses to your journey and fellows on the path.
but i am still stuck with an enormous dissatisfaction with “the church” as i encounter it today. and i have tried a wide variety. before the last few years of flailing, i had long term relationships with only two churches in my adult life, working at times for each as a worship leader/creative consultant/writer.
one church did “small” exceptionally well. still does. tends the flock, reaches out to the “rejects.” but there we abandoned our own needs for those of others who had less, and eventually my spirit was depleted from lack of tending.
the other church does “large” exceptionally well. beautiful art and music and connections to churches around the globe - even concurrent services with churches in egypt via cameras and the internet. but this church is so sermon driven, so “how to” modern in its approach that i squirm in my seat.
are you guys hopeful that from a search of scripture we might actually discover a new model for church? or is that redculous to hope? is my problem just people? is it just my own “issues?” am i just terribly flawed that i cant just jump in yet again? or is the system really broken?
sorry to be so practical and needy verses high-minded and theological, but these ideas discussed here mean real things for me. like whether i will ever belong to an organized church again.
hopeful
I can’t speak for anyone else, but yes, I’m hopeful. :-)
I don’t know about totally ‘new’ models for church, but the house church movement has been something like that. Even more conservative churches (e.g. Mars Hill) have modified their structure to the extreme, with very positive results. So to answer your question, no I don’t think it ridiculous to hope for.
If your problem is people (and to a certain extent, as you jokingly pointed out, it’s everyone’s problem), then that’s something you’ll have to address, just like we all have to. But I don’t think any kind of ‘flaw’, however terrible, should keep you (or anyone!) away from Christian fellowship. If you’re bitter and disillusioned, it might be hard to go back to a church (especially a big one), but that doesn’t mean you have to abandon all forms of organized Christianity. As far as the system being broken… yes and no. The ‘system’ is actually a heterogenous amalgamation of smaller more-or-less broken systems/churches.
A life-saver for me has been that tight-knit group of friends—whether it’s called a ‘small-group’ or not. It really is a blessing to have close friends who share your vision of reality and your sense of mission in life. And it sounds like this is something you already have. So yes, long story boring, I think there is hope. :-)
Blessings,
-Daniel-
Stumbling towards community.
Stacy, to me your post touched on the need for naked honesty in building community. if people are committed primarily to their doctrinal position, then division will result. however if we are primarily committed to love, joy, peace, patience etc in our persuit & establishment of the Truth in our lives, then we can ask G-d the hard questions together and commit to each others journey - to quote you. i like Sarah McLachlan’s lyric about “stumbling towards ecstacy”.
R.
New wine
Been mulling over what Peter said, and there’s just too much there for me to take in all at once!
What I do see as some central issues relates a bit to what Peter says about history lessons.
There are two parts to faith. Coming to faith and then living in faith. Coming to faith is encountering Jesus and not being able to walk away. Living in faith is obedience, community, and proclamation all of which spring from God’s love.
The dynamic of life “in Christ” proceeds from our experience of Him, from our getting to know Him in person in His word and by the sharing of this new life in the community of other believers. The bottom-line ties that bind, are the ‘words of life’ that Jesus spoke and lived.
The Holy Spirit blasted the core group of just 120 believers into proclaiming Jesus as the Christ. That knowledge was further actively husbanded and disseminated by the apostles as we see in Acts 5:19-20 (also John 6:52-65, 14:26-27, 15:7-15) and in Acts2 “And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers”, then in 5:42 “And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.”
Perhaps, in the beginning, the proclamation of Jesus as the Christ was made a bit easier by the popularity of Jesus as a teacher and the fact that most of the hearers were very familiar with both his works and his words and with the manner of His death.
Then in Acts 6:2-4 “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” A statement of refreshing candor indicating that Peter & Co. were a bit snowed under! It is the second half of this statement that I find most interesting, for the fact of proclamation has already been stressed by Luke. The ‘ministry of the word’ is one of those phrases that when you read you tend to quietly nod at and keep going. What else would the apostles have been up to? I did not realise till recently that it is a startling statement indeed. What “word” is here being referred to and what does this ministry that is not itself proclamation, involve?
The next issue, also touched upon by the last quote is the perceived need for “organisation”. The topic of how the early fellowships were organised has been gone over by many. My question really is more basic. Going back at least to the Tower of Babel and following through with the history of Israel, through the Exodus, then the period of the Judges and finally to people’s demand for a king (1 Sam 10:19 today you have rejected your God, who saves you from all your calamities and your distresses, and you have said to him, ‘Set a king over us.’).
God had led His people. He has seen to it that the leadership that they need is provided but the people are not satisfied with this and demand to be independent.
The prophetic voice, following the institution of a political nation becomes a voice of correction, where the excesses of the politicians coupled with the support of the state’s religious leaders leads to incidence after incidence of denying God (that’s idolatry!) until finally we have the exile. In the context of the exile and God’s saving action to reclaim His people, we see the messianic prophecies being fulfilled in the life of Jesus, His death and resurrection and finally the pouring out of the Spirit “on all flesh” which Peter forcefully quotes in Acts 2:16f and with the fulfillment of the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31f as quoted in the NT a number of times) declared in the NT.
What we can see, from Jesus specific instruction in Mathew 23:8-11 and from many other supporting statements in the epistles, is that authority over the body is God’s alone to exercise. It follows that attempts to ‘get more organised’ and eventually to have structure, are the same worldly tendencies that have dogged God’s people from the days of Babel on. The inescapable conclusion is that Indeed, man seems incapable of getting this, very simple, message - God works with our organisations/structure and God works inspite of our structure but God would be much happier if we just let Him run things rather than second-guessing Him all the time.
Whatever the emerging church decides to do let us avoid “practicalities” and “expediencies”. As we emerge together let us let God be God.
who is king?
yes, i love the reference to god not wanting to give them a king. i think one of the things in the current set-up that frustrates me is the general principle that we sheep come sit in a room and face forward and are led by a guy who has all the answers. even if the church is healthy and compassionate or small, this is still the system. a king of sorts.
a couple of years ago i went to a friend’s synagogue and was blown away by the way the rabbi interacted with the congregation. he asked not rhetorical questions to make his own definitive point, but he actually ASKED the congregates their thoughts on the scripture of that day…TOGETHER they came upon a consensus of thought around the text. it sounded like stories of jesus with the teachers of the law.
i have also noticed in liturgical protestant congregations that even though there is a stronger hierarchy of priests, the focus on them as “king” during the gathering of the people is less - they are one of the elements. there is the reading and the sacrament and the praise and they are just a single element of the day. there are even lay people, by design, to handle many of the other elements. in contemporary protestant churches (as a general system) it is all about the sermon, and the one who gives it. we even choose the music to fit his “theme.”
there are those who are teachers, and we should seek instruction, but is this the purpose of our corporate gatherings?
i would also say that while christ gave us god’s intended law for community, a pure image both in word and action, is it not the holy spirit who was sent to empower us to this? christ’s example is not empowering. enlightening perhaps, inspiring at the first, but knowing “how we ought” does not sustain. where does the holy spirit fit in our concepts of church?
Preaching Re-imagined.
I don’t like preaching to a group of people either and I’m a preacher!!
I don’t like preaching because it’s so often disconnected from the conversation that the church is having (all churches have conversations in one way or another). Even a good sermon, rooted in the present, can be removed from the concrete experience and conversation of the congregation. The guy who head’s up Solomon’s Porch in Minnesota, USA wrote a book about Church Re-imagined (or something like that) and now has a new book out about preaching. Haven’t read it. Don’t plan to, but it reminds of a book I have read and am reading about the “Round table Pulpit.”
The basic idea is to apply the gospel of God’s coming kingdom to the conversation of the church. Either to transform it, redirect it, or refresh it, or etc. Each week the people sit down with the pastor and talk over, with, and into the text. The pastor’s job, then, is not to tell the people where they are wrong or teach them, but to re-present to the whole congregation the conversation as it went on at the roundtable. Where did the group struggle with the text? What questions came up? Were there any answers? What did the group feel called to do? etc.
I don’t know if the Solomon’s Porch guy (Dan Kimball?) suggests the same, but it’s a place to start. If not, here are the books I’m reading about it:
The Roundtable Pulpit, John S. McClure (practical)
Sharing the Word, Lucy Atkinson Rose (heady)
I’m just beginning in my second church, a mainline, reformed congregation in Michigan, USA. Implementing this style of preaching will be one of my first moves. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Sacraments Re-Imagined.
As long as we’re being practical I wonder if we might address the other “marks” of the church: baptism and communion.
The early church was good at two things, as far as I can tell, that the present day church is not alway good at: welcoming and celebrating.
As I mentioned above, I’ve just begun in a new church and my family was recently welcomed into a new community. Our arrival was celebrated. There was more than on engagment to meet us. More than one cake backed. More than one offering of meals to be provided. More than one celebration of our arrival. Needless to say, we felt welcomed and we felt celebrated. It feels good to be here. I mentioned to the congregation that I’d been keeping track of what they had done for my family and hoped that they would do the same for every family that may (or may not) start attending our church. I got a rather uncomfortable laugh.
The historic rituals of baptism and communion offer a way into that. Of course there is the historic tradition of the catechumenate. That year to three year process by which new members were welcomed into the people of God. These days it might seem like a bunch of hoops to jump through or an attempt at brainwashing, but if done correctly (with partners to walk along side) it may be a process of real welcoming, using worship to mark their steps along the way and celebrate their presence.
At the same time, communion could be expanded to include an actual meal. A lot of churches do this already and just the simple act of taking the time to eat together, to sing happy birthday, to mark anniversaries, etc. seems to be a meaningful process for people.
I think a lot of my own dissatisfaction with the church stems from my desire for some extraordinary transformation. I have a difficult time articulating what would satisfy my desire. Perhaps the reality is that an extraordinary transformation would be if people actually did the little things to make others feel welcomed and celebrated.
let me know!
i would be delighted to know what you discover.
is it impractical to have this “round table” at the “service?” impractical now, certainly, because it is unfamiliar. but perhaps the “pastor” is merely the willing appointed one to oversee “The basic idea [of applying] the gospel of God’s coming kingdom to the conversation of the church. Either to transform it, redirect it, or refresh it, or etc.”
what if the pastor were not the preacher? what if in following the “conversation” of the community, different people spoke each week about the words and actions of that week. perhaps the pastor speaks also, but more as a host?
i dont envy you your role or your job, may god bless you as you try to lead and encourage. i love your idea for sacrament and celebration - sounds like the title of your next book!
i am deathly afraid that all this talk will lead me to starting a “church.” horrifying thought!
Solomon's Porch
The Solomon’s Porch guy is Doug Pagitt, by the way.
I’m with Stacy—let us know how the roundtable thing turns out (though as I understand it, the roundtable occurs in the week before the ‘sermon’, and the sermon sums it up… is that right?).
-Daniel-
Yes, Doug Pagitt! Thank
Yes, Doug Pagitt! Thank you.
And you are correct that the sermon will “sum up” the conversation. But Staci’s suggestion is a good one. If it turns out that someone (other than the preacher) has something important to say, or something insightful, or a testimony to give, there is nothing to prevent them from sharing time with the preacher or “becoming” the preacher for the day. At the same time, the model still assumes that “preacher knows best” in a humble, servant-oriented sort of way.
We won’t be starting until December with the advent of Advent and all. So, tune in later.
The heart of community
My interest in starting this thread was to encourage discussion about what actually happens in the historical/narrative interpretations, such as those that Andrew is promoting, after the ‘end of the age’ (to quote from today’s comment on a parallel thread), which sums up the 1st century eschatological end-point to which all biblical material is supposedly radically contingent. In other words, what is left for us to do after the parousia in this version of events? Are the NT writings irrelevant?
I’m more of an English teacher than a pastor or theologian, though I work as a pastor but try to think as a theologian, and more of a missionary evangelist than either. My church community is a relic of the kind which Andrew describes as defective in another thread, although we seem to attract all ages, but there do seem to be some differences from the American church model which I think is reflected in other comments.
For instance, one of my roles, which I do without being given a title or particular formal authority, is to draw together people who have a teaching/speaking gift in the church. There are about 11 who operate in this capacity (in a community of about 150 adults) - which means that ‘the pastor’ (not myself) rarely gets a look-in at our gatherings when it comes to preaching (though he is an able teacher himself). Some time back, I mentioned on the site a group of us who were going to tackle Romans in the autumn in our gatherings. The project starts this coming Sunday. It has been a somewhat fragmented collaboration - but some attempt was made to follow contemporary scholarship in putting Romans back in a more rigorously historical/narrative framework, before applying its message for today. Of course this is essentially still following an old-fashioned ‘preaching’ model.
The ethos of the church generally is to encourage folk to find their gifts in serving each other and the world outside. The ‘vision’ is not to present the pastor’s vision, but to help people uncover God’s vision for their lives.
But to get back to my original point at the outset of the thread, I still think that some presentation of the original NT ‘proclamation’ needs to be done before we start thinking about the detailed practices and structures of ‘church’, much as I like the various contributions that have already been made on the thread. I think we may be too quick to build our own preconceived versions of ‘community’ around the proclamation, rather than allowing ‘community’ to express itself in the most natural way possible in the forms of our existing social communities. Admittedly, in the West, the church may have to be the vehicle for making community since there is so little that actually passes for ‘community’ in society.
In this respect, I’ve just read Vincent O’Donovan’s book ‘Christianity Rediscovered’ - about his time as a Catholic missionary in East Africa. Donovan is one of those people who go back to first principles, and his experiences amongst the Masai people make fascinating reading. But really it is all a parable for our times: I end up asking: What are the implications of all this for our own culture - here in the UK? Am I still too wedded to anachronistic forms of church, not realising that I’m trying to do church in a way that is out of synch with the times? I’m actually quite sure that is the case. But what are the radical alternatives?
An eschatology of Love & restorative judgement.
Peter asks a wonderfully succinct & central question: “which ‘proclamation’ has the power to lead to the formation of communities…having the risen Jesus as their focus, experiencing the life-giving Spirit in their midst, and taking a correct understanding of the OT writings and their historical narrative to correctly perceived conclusions?”
from my reading, it seems as if the teaching of universal restoration was at the very least, tolerated within the primitive church. the apolcayptic looms large in the media and i believe that this aspect of eschatology within the evangelical proclamation - which states in short, “God loves you but unless you believe X & Y, He will either destroy you or torture you for eternity ” - is what the majority of non-christians associate with our Faith and what undermines it in the minds of most post-moderns.
maybe the presence of the emergent conversation and the fact that to many non-believers, evangelical christianity seems to worship a sadistic God, suggests that certain fundamentals are indeed not Truth - or are at least in need of serious re-examination & proofing. i refer here specifically to the teaching of eternal torment or destruction - maybe post-moderns are right to reject this. if so, no amount of re-coding or emergenization will cover this up.
many christians put this rejection of an temporally infinite hell by non-believers down to non-acceptance of their own sinful nature. while this may sometimes be the case, we should also give people more credit. having been made in G-d’s image, non-christians have the ability to sniff out heresy & mischief as well.
as someone who is still affiliated to a local evangelical church, i find very few believers either who have, or are willing, to give the teaching of universal restoration a fair hearing.
(for those of us who know little about the doctrine of universal restoration, it teaches that hell - while both real and biblical - is of a definite length and restorative & corrective in nature + part of G-d’s plan of redemption through the incarnation)
as i see it, evangelical theology makes Adam the Victor, and not Christ. within this framework, the first Adam baptised ALL of humanity into death and yet G-d incarnate only manages to redeem a relatively meagre number of those corrupted by the Fall. how does this align with the words, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.”?
has Christ made ALL alive, only to destroy or punish the majority of humanity for infinity?
the message that while person Y is currently on their way to eternal destruction or torment, they CAN be saved from God’s eternal wrath, cannot be termed “good news”.
from my understanding of the character of G-d, His punishment, according to His very nature, is restorative & healing.
“There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment”. - 1 John 4:18
does love cover a multitude of sins, but not all?
thanks all for a fantastic forum & community.
can i hear an honest wrestle?
“as i see it, evangelical theology makes Adam the Victor, and not Christ. within this framework, the first Adam baptised ALL of humanity into death and yet G-d incarnate only manages to redeem a relatively meagre number of those corrupted by the Fall. how does this align with the words, ‘For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.’”
i agree, and yet i am troubled by the lack of support this view receives, enough to take note. we are not isolated thinkers, we have chosen (by our acceptance of the nature of christ) to walk with the brethren.
so to the brethren here, why do you see this as against scripture? be brave here and for a moment “try on” this line of thinking. suppose it is an accurate perception. now, what scriptures and/or stories of god plague you and why? i am not interested in either of us proving anything. i want to hear a real honest wrestle with this concept. i am as willing to be wrong and discover something new as to be right and find peace. this is a conversation among the brethren!
unity in diversity
I too would love to see “an honest wrestle” on a number of issues. But what I would love to see even more is a worldwide community of believers who do not place their doctrinal differences before their fellowship and unity or mission in Christ.
I personally come from a “reformed” and “evangelical” background. In another thread, Andrew has summarised the opinions of a number of evangelical scholars who are to various degrees rather horrified by the rise of a postmodern emerging church movement. I can really hear where these folks are coming from having been one of that ‘group’ until fairly recently. It took me a long time to face my own dissatisfaction with my own thinking honestly enough to realise that I had long been latently pomo in my heart!
But there are still plenty of evangelicals who are showing no signs of moving out of that closet. Whither the body of Christ if we are going to keep doing this to ourselves? Let’s get beyond doctrine for once even if we are 2,000 years late in doing so and let us explore our fellowship with one another in love. Wherever there are believers who strive to be disciples of Jesus, who wish to bear more of the fruit of the Spirit, there let there be fellowship and unity.
I am a great fan of John Stott’s and ‘uncle John’ is very fond of quoting “unity in essentials”. Of course, my line for what I would consider “essential” has moved, and moved rather far! But does that mean that I can no longer be comfortable in the presence of those more conservative or more liberal or more or less whatever than myself? Can we no longer together preach Christ and Him crucified?
It also strikes me as odd that amongst the scholars, where great and grave differences of opinion do thrive (by definition?) when in conclave or at conferences there is generally good fellowship to be seen. I fear that it is we the sheep that read these scholars and then emotionally form opinions that render us unable to extend a true hand of fellowship, acceptance and love to one another.
So, let’s have universalists and let’s have eternal damnationists but most important let us have love for one another, as He first loved us - and may all of our battles begin and end joyfully in love.
Live to serve : Serve to live
so why do differences divide?
yes. and so why DO differences divide? i think of myself and they divide for me when i am afraid - or when the other guy is afraid. or when the stakes are high, when mystery is in play, or when we leave the realm of the known and attempt to define what is unknown.
why do we define? there was a day when i would have said “to save man’s soul.” i was raised to question the faith of my catholic grandmother because she was not “reformed” so she was surely not going to “be in heaven” because she believed she “earned her way in.”
even here, in the emergent, postmodern endeavor to move away from modern formulaic thinking, do we “murder to dissect?” how are our questions, our methods and our conclusions any different?
how do we embrace unity? i think it is easier to embrace comrades of different faiths than it is to embrace brethren of the same faith with varying applications.
often i go here to a song of david:
my heart is not proud, o lord my eyes are not haughty; i do not concern myself with great matters or things too wonderful for me. but i have stilled and quieted my soul; like a weaned child with its mother, like a weaned child is my soul within me. o israel, put your hope in the lord, both now and forevermore.
Jacob wrestled & was blessed.
Stacy, i appreciate your call for honest wrestling and hope that others heed your call and share confidently what scriptures and/or stories of god plague them, and why.
i hear what you’re saying Samicarr about the need for unity in diversity. far from wanting to see this group or any two christians tearing into each other over doctrine, i suspect an honest wrestling with this and other emotive issues can foster deeper community - for what thinking-feeling person can swallow the teaching of an infinite hell comfortably, even if it IS true? not many and noone i’d care to share a beer with.
i earnestly believe that the teaching about an infinite, non-restorative and purely punitive hell sits very uncomfortably with a lot of people within the Body, but most are reticent to voice such doubts publically, for a variety of reasons. however, if one believes Christ to be the Way, the Truth & the Life, we need not be threatened and can approach such discussions openly, prayerfully and with passion - in service to the Body and the Head.
the majority of the more popular sites - such as tentmaker.org and others - along with many devout bible believers through the ages, believe that hell and punishment exist - absolutely. they just happen to push the boat of Grace out further and say that ultimately, punishment is not infinite in length/time but rather serves G-d’s plan of ultimate redemption - and not mere retribution.
if Jesus said on the cross, “IT IS FINISHED!”, and yet the majority of humanity face infinite punishment or non-existence - depending on one’s viewpoint - then our Faith is open to the charge that Christ failed:
1. to draw ALL men unto Him - John 12:32
2. to atone for the sins of the whole world - 1 John 2:2 - if the sins of the whole world have been atoned for, how can G-d still punish people for them? this would suggest a partial or conditional atonement, surely? not even our fallible legal system would allow someone to be punished twice for the same crime.
plus…
Acts 3:21 states clearly that “Jesus must remain in heaven until the time for the final restoration of all things, as God promised long ago through the prophets.”
these are just three of the multitude of scriptures that shadow or counter-balance those scriptures that speak of Hell - and suggest that we have enough biblical grounds to confidently look at the validity of an infinite and non-redemptive/purifying hell, and further research it’s validity.
this issue strikes at the heart of the gospel message and whatever history makes of the emergent conversation of which we are all an important part, we must square up to this, speak honestly, openly, gently - vigorously.
i believe we are mature enough not to resort to either slanging matches or withdrawal and have proved that on this board.
the floor’s open…
Russ.
sufficient grace
Russ and Stacy,
I really don’t have a position on this one as there are powerful hitters on both sides. If you look at John’s prologue 1:9 f you have:The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own,and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. And in John 3:18 f Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God. and then in v36f Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
We do have a choice and perhaps God honours the choice that we make. Now, whether that means that we will end up in ‘hell’ to suffer for all eternity is a moot point. My feeling about Jesus’s statements on Gehenna are that in many cases these threats are directly addressed to the scholars and religious leaders who were hanging around murmuring and waiting for Jesus to get himself in trouble while actively leading the people away from God. He forgave even them from the cross!
We have begun to know the surpassing love of God towards mankind in Christ. I think we can count on Him to do the right thing. As kingjames1 says: elsewhere, “…give Him the glory due His awesome name, trusting that the judge of all the earth will do what is good, true, and right.”
And as stephenpgrant comments while discussing God’s holiness : “And so we turn back to Matt 5:43-48 43 “You have heard that the law of Moses says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. 44 But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! 45 In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and on the unjust, too. 46 If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. 47 If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that. 48 But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect. NLT
We are called to love the way that God loved, by loving those whom we hate. It is no big deal to love our friends and our family. But God says, “Love the pedaphile who raped your daughter or son. Love the people that broke into your car and stole your stereo and sportcoat. Love the guy on the motorway that is driving like an idiot and nearly caused you to wreck. Love your ex who is now happily involved with a guy she cheated with. Love the husband that beat you and your kids…love, love, love.” In this way you are perfect – complete, a finished product – just like me.
This is an inhuman task. If to be holy means to be cut off from as we have all agreed. This is to be holy, for no one does this. There is as much left unsaid as has been said at this point but if you’ll pardon me, I need to spend some time on my knees wondering at this God who loved enough not to hate me. Who loved enough to forgive me. Who simply loved enough…”
Where the matter of the doctrine of hell gets out of hand is when people try to use it as a nice, convenient, shortcut for getting folks to believe in Jesus - now that really floors me!
Live to serve : Serve to live
Love never fails.
samicarr, i struggle to see how fundamental questions in relation to infinite punishment can be moot - we’re talking about eternal destiny here. not only is the standard evangelical teaching of infinite destruction or punishment a stumbling block to many non-believers who might otherwise embrace christianity - many believers find the standard teaching to be fundamentally unjust - but the issue of the nature of hell also impacts directly on the nature of the gospel and how it is perceived.
we can’t preach about hell - explicitly or implicitly - and then say it’s moot - we have to take responsibilty for our teaching as the church. far better and more consistent to say it is mystical or unknowable and not discuss or teach on it.
i agree with your statement that, “we have begun to know the surpassing love of God towards mankind in Christ. I think we can count on Him to do the right thing”. if that was where evangelical theology left it then that would be fine. unfortunately it reaches much further, explicitly teaching a hell that equals either infinite punishment or infinite destruction/non-existence and being quite pointed in many cases about what kinds of people will end up there.
Daniel, you say that “consistent Calvinists argue for Limited Atonement. Christ successfully saved all he set out to save”. i can see the temptation of this view as it navigates around - very unsatisfactorily to my mind - the sticky issue of the majority of humanity being lost for infinity. to my mind it fails to line up with 1 Corinthians 15:22 which states that “as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive”. i don’t mean to be offensive but Limited Atonement paints Jesus as the loser in the Adam-Christ equation - or exclusive - and not the Lord of the Cosmos that He is.
if we inherited our sin nature out of no choice of our own, how can G-d only select a few to be redeemed? this is a difficult issue but i believe there are much more coherent teachings than limited atonement. G-d’s grace is abundant!
as an aside, many don’t realise that universal restoration embraces predestination, the incarnation, the atonement & Lordship of Christ, all of which is clearly taught in scripture.
Adam caused all to taste death but G-d only wanted to save a few? how is this good news? or is the good news limited to a vacinity, a select few? and if so, He cannot mourn for the lost as after all, He never chose them or desired them as His own.
you say that your rejection of universal redemption has less to do with God’s ability or inability to succeed, but rather, with humanity’s innate stubborness. before we came to faith, were you and i not stubborn and are we not still stubborn at times? is not the bible full of stories of stubborn people whom G-d was patient with? the Jews are described throughout the old testament as stubborn and yet He promises through the prophets that His will WILL be done in & thru that nation.
stubborness is part of the human condition and can be found as much inside the church as outside of it. what divides the church if not stubborness, in most cases?
sorry Daniel but non-christians don’t have a monopoly on stubborness. if this is the primary reason for your rejecting universal restoration then maybe you can confidently look more deeply into it as a viable alternative.
G-d’s love covers & overcomes all sin and that includes stubbornness. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners.
Stacy, your comments resonate with me and you articulate them better than i can. enough said.
Love NEVER fails!
go well all and keep the comments rolling.
russ.
barbs and flaming arrows
Thankfully, we are not now entirely in the ‘evangelical’ camp. As I understand it, Andrew and all at OST are precisely about finding an emerging church theology or maybe even more broadly than that a postmodern perspective. I think that we can fruitfully allow the evangelicals to sort out their own theologies while we engage in doing the same for ourselves.
I do not believe that hell is a moot point at all. What I am saying is that in my present state and given what I have studied so far, the debate very often dissolves into my prooftexts vs yours. That is both unhealthy and unbiblical.
Yes, there are many passages that suggest that the scope of God’s redemptive action is universal. At the same time there are many too that suggest that we do have an ultimate choice in our eventual destinations. There are relatively few that really use concepts like ‘predestination’. I do believe tho that the focus in the bible is most certainly on how we live rather than on what happens to us after death. I’m not deliberately dodging your question, i am genuinely seeking a better answer than any that i have seen so far. But, I do have hope…
It will be good to see the fruits of the studies of scholars who are increasingly taking a ‘narative-historical’ approach to hermeneutics. I do believe that only after some amount of thorough reworking has been done will we be in a position to even frame the issues in a more sensible and more biblically sound manner. My personal view is that concepts such as ‘election’ and ‘predestination’ are already turning out to be a bit different than what has traditionally been believed and taught. Perhaps, as we saw in the fallout of the ‘new perspective’, many of the still burning issues may prove to be hangovers from a poor hermeneutic - perhaps!
Still, right here’s where it’s at, so rather than decrying the past, let’s get on with the job of sorting these and many other issues out together, in love, accepting our differences and remaining committed to together rediscovering the truth of our Lord.
Live to serve : Serve to live
no barbs intended
samicarr. i’m not sure where the barbs and flaming arrows come into it but i agree with your post, that ultimately we’re all in process - along with our theologies - and that the scriptures are essentially a tool for our transformation into Christ’s image, rather than something to hit each other over the head with.
personally i’ve only recently been exposed to the universal restoration angle on judgement etc and have a distaste for what often gets pushed as the gospel and to which i have been in bondage and hamstrung by in my relationship with G-d. no correct theology can be contained in human minds and love in action surely wins over all.
cheers, russ.
none taken
Sorry, i wouldn’t complain about a good ‘wrestle’. That was a bit of an oblique ref to Ephesians 6:16.
I look forward to seeing you and Stacy fleshing out your theology in the true hope that you are right on!
Live to serve : Serve to live
stories anyway
i dont know how well i will ever “flesh out my theology” but i appreciate the sentiment! i did just write a draft of a short story (yesterday) that emerged because of this current wrestle. it is quite disturbing and i wonder what will become of it. perhaps there will be a time where it can be shared in a community such as this, as a spring board for conversation.
i second that.
samicarr - i love that scripture about “as iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another”. likewise i look forward to our wrestling together. go well meantime. russ.
hell
Russ, you’re essentially right. Jesus failed if he died for all. I think this is why consistent Calvinists argue for Limited Atonement. Christ successfully saved all he set out to save. The entire discussion assumes a certain take on soteriology which Andrew might remind us has less to do with the actual Scritural narrative than we might think…
I personally (and this is probably the case for most of us here) reject this (vis. the Reformed) view. My own reasons for (tentatively) rejecting universalism have less to do with God’s ability or inability to succeed, but rather, with humanity’s innate stubborness. Because we are other than God, we have wills other than God’s, and thos wills can be so bent and so broken by our circumstances, and (more importantly) our choices… I think it really is next to impossible for change to happen. The Spirit can soften hearts, but those hearts have to be at least open to softening…
So in other words, I’m at least sympathetic to views of those like Greg Boyd or CS Lewis, with their takes on ‘hell’. Their’s is no merely punitive hell, but rather a self-inflicted hell (‘locked from the inside’ as it were).
human stubborness the crux?
daniel, i find it a bleak view of god, not humanity, to believe so greatly in man’s inability to be changed. especially if that belief in the stuborness of man causes one to doubt the power of the divine. i want to believe that god is a gentleman, that he never violates to gain entrance, and yet i also want to believe in a being so fantastic, so genuinely the source and definition of love, that by the time everything is said and done, all men fall before him in willing awe.
as a storyteller i think of all the great stories, the classics of literature and favorites in film that are in essence tales of radical change: saul, scrooge, bill murray in ground hog day even. why is there such a craving and pull for us to hear and tell such tales? is it not because it is what we crave, evidence of our desperate hope that something supernatural will occur to alter our course, redeem our ugly hearts?
why is deciding that only some have the chance (as in predestination) the solution to not knowing how god will “call all men unto him?” to merely decide he must have meant “only those chosen” seems to reduce his power to something more human.
my hypocrisies
As Peter pointed out quite a while back, when there is little unity on the theological underpinnings it does seem to make practical application in communities more difficult.
When thinking back on my days as a ‘standard christian’ I find that if I am honest with myself, there were always areas of peculiarity in my thinking, in how I read the bible and in the sorts of questions that I was asking about my theological beliefs. Because these idiosyncracies were not given prominence in my sharing with others, possibly issues were avoided rather than dealt with.
Thinking about this and analysing my friendships, how we interacted, and on what we interacted, there was always the fear (more so as an early believer on my part) of saying the wrong thing/being perceived to be having ‘the wrong emphasis’ and so on.
I wonder now if this is a more universal experience? I wonder in the light of the many that I now hear from in the emerging church - were all similarly uncomfortable, similarly constrained?
The practical point that I am trying to get at is this: If it has always been so, then the seeming ‘unity of the faith’ in this or that denomination or amongst say Fundamentalists or amongst Evangelicals is itself a bit of a sham.
I take that thought a bit further - if that is what is meant by being in one body, one fellowship, then we have been fooling ourselves at a much more fundamental level. Why should we then yearn to recreate something similar in the emerging church?
Let’s be really practical and find ways to accommodate the real differences within real fellowship without needing to apply a coat of glossy ‘all united, all similar’ polish. I’m not at all sure of how, but there it is. Instead of aiming for a consistent finish, why not think in terms of parquee or even more daringly, mosaics?
Live to serve : Serve to live
yes!
OH MOSAICS, YES YES YES. i had the caps lock accidently on and have decided to leave it. have you seen the picture mosaics where tiny individual pictures then make up a larger picture? this is my craving, my total longing for the body of christ. THIS i could get excited in!
Re: The heart of community
A community rooted in religion in the net? How can this be established? In these modern times, a lot of people are preaching their respective denomination.And a lot of people are listening. All searching which path to take. Sometimes to build a new community will entail patience. Because the true path can’t be forced on anyone, rather would be accepted by those who believe. This is where a community starts.
it's happening
The impact of the net is very like the impact of the printing press only much more in every way.
Seekers now have an easy and inexpensive avenue with which to explore for answers and with which to find other seekers. Quite naturally, those with similar questions will find one another.
Communication is the first step but is it all that is needed for community? I fear not, for though it helps at an intellectual and even at an emotional level, real caring and involvement do need some level of physical proximity.
Still, as long as we can be open and encouraging, building up while being honed by one another, a net community can achieve a lot.
In addition, the aspect of outreach through the net is an exciting new world to discover together and there are a lot of actions that can be initiated by a motivated and focussed net ‘community’. Unity in diversity may, at long last, be an achieveable reality!
Live to serve : Serve to live