My new favorite American beer is from Stone Brewing Co. in Escondido, California. It's an American Strong called Arrogant Bastard Ale. Hoppy. Yum.

Which leads me to my first post in a few months.

So I've been keeping my eye on this whole "let's talk Christianity" thing...from a safe distance. I didn't know why I was asked to keep my distance, but I was. Maybe it was to acquire the courage (non-accountability?) to say this. Maybe not.

...So I'm pretty much convinced that a lot of what's in the Bible is wrong.

{uncomfortable pause}

OK, here's the thing. Yes, I am an arrogant bastard. I tend to speak and think as if my position on the wisdom-mountain-climb is the correct position. That's a problem. I'm working on it, my new favorite beer notwithstanding.

OK, back to the whole Bible-wrong thing.

What are these stories? Simply, they're the words of human beings trying to interpret/make-sense-of this gargantuan, unspeakable God/World dynamic. And these particular humans have taken a pretty admirable stab at it, often the most admirable stabs in human history. We can learn much from their attempts, and especially when we look at the collection as a whole.

But at the individual-interpretation level, can we just come out and say that they're often wrong, i.e., they don't match the vision of the God revealed in Jesus Christ?

Can we just say that?

Look, don't get me wrong. The Bible is packed to the gills with truths, valiantly reduced to human language. The most valid accounts of the Truth-revealer are found within its pages.

But can't we just say that the guy who thought the God-revealed-in-Jesus ordered the killing of the Canaanites was wrong?

Can't we just say that the guy who thought the God-who-is-Love hated Esau was wrong? And that the guy who used that passage to argue that the God-of-the-Cross has created certain people in order to damn them was, to that extent, just plain wrong?

Can't we just say that? Would the whole system collapse if we admitted that ancient peoples doing their best to communicate the divine often messed up? Do we have to build entire, ridiculous theological systems around these good-intentioned-but-un-Jesus-shaped interpretations (yes, Calvinists, I am talking about you)?

Yes, the Spirit of God inspired these writings. The Spirit of God has inspired me to do a lot of things. I still fuck up while sincerely trying to do them every now and again...

...and again...

...and again.

And so do you.

And so does he.

And so does she.

And so did Paul.

And so did the guy(s) who wrote the Pentateuch.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I can just hear my narrative-enamored brethren now:

"...poetry..."

"...metaphor..."

"...apocalyptic imagery..."

And my postmodern brethren:

"...not about true/false..."

"...context..."

That's not what I'm talking about, and you know it.

I'm talking about the "God did/said this" passages, and we who come up with complex explanations because we're too chicken shit to say, "Uh, if your talking about the God revealed in Jesus of Nazereth, no He didn't."

I'm talking about the passages that Scot McKnight has to write parakeet books to explain. I'm talking about the passages that Bart Ehrman can cite to justify his atheism, and to which N.T. Wright can say nothing in response.

Yes, I'm glad Paul won that political-theological battle against the circumcision party, and I still consider him the second greatest theologian who ever lived, factoring in the circumstances under which he was writing.

But, in my humble but accurate opinion, Paul wrote some things that simply don't jive with what Jesus was talking/living/rising about...notwithstanding the book in which they're found.

{Ducks hurled stone}

There. I said it.

Goin' back to the cave to hide now. See you in a few months (or maybe tomorrow...depends on what God predestined for me).

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

I write this to myself. You all are free to listen in.

Is it just me, or are you seeing a lot of systematic-theology-esque fare creeping back into the Missional conversation? Statements of Faith. Theological formulations. OK, maybe not so much in areas like Atonement and Christology, but anyone else sensing a systematic comeback in areas like, say, Missiology and Ecclesiology? I can't pinpoint it, but I can smell it.

I wouldn't want to isolate any specific examples...

Well, maybe just one...

"Somebody will have a stupid, screwy idea. That's okay. The point of having creeds and confessions and traditions is to keep us in touch with the obvious errors." -Eugene Peterson, via Out of Ur.

Et tu, Eugene?

For the love of God, RESIST!!!!!!!

When it comes to ALL AND ANY theological categories...

What do I believe? Look at my life!!

What do I believe? Listen to how I tell my stories!!!

What do I believe? How can I be of service to you!!!

What do I believe? I believe in Jesus! Now go figure out what that means.

And if you wish, I will help you...

With my life.

With my stories.

With my charity.

In other words, just friggin' do it!

Speaking of Jesus, now there was a guy with some stupid, screwy ideas. And his detractors had plenty of creeds and confessions and traditions to hit Him with.

His screwy ideas won the day, though. Not by their logical coherence, but by their being shown true in His life.

Going back no further than my own generation, I didn't hear too many statements of faith from Mother Teresa. I didn't hear too many theological formulations from Dr. King.

They didn't care about telling me what they believe. In fact, I'm sure they didn't much care about showing me what they believe, either. But they did tell me what they believed. They did show me what they believed.

That's what a life lived in faith does. You don't have to try to do it. Light overcomes darkness, like a strong stench in a small room. That's just the way it is.

Come on, let's face it, already. The postmodern critique was dead-on in regards to the overwhelming roles of perspective and power in the quest for truth. Anyone who still thinks that their cognitive belief system is not riddled with sin and death is just fooling themselves. And thank God for that critique, which allowed me to see the worm in the apple of "objective reasoning," not only in myself but in every other human being who still tries to engage in it, to varying degrees.

And for goodness sake, please don't barrage me with Paul and the Early Christian Fathers! Paul had a very specific, unique job to do, and trust me, you don't have that gig!

Tell me the story of God and man and Christ and me and the world. Show me you believe in that story by the life you live and the way in which the stories you tell fit within that Big Story.

But don't insult my intelligence, don't insult the story itself, or it's Author, by trying to summarize it!!!

Just friggin' do it!

Peter Rollins gets it:

Without equivocation or hesitation I fully and completely admit that I deny the resurrection of Christ. This is something that anyone who knows me could tell you, and I am not afraid to say it publicly, no matter what some people may think…

I deny the resurrection of Christ every time I do not serve at the feet of the oppressed, each day that I turn my back on the poor; I deny the resurrection of Christ when I close my ears to the cries of the downtrodden and lend my support to an unjust and corrupt system.

However there are moments when I affirm that resurrection, few and far between as they are. I affirm it when I stand up for those who are forced to live on their knees, when I speak for those who have had their tongues torn out, when I cry for those who have no more tears left to shed.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

Still stuck in '08 reflection mode here.

I know most of you have moved on. Bear with me. I'm a little slow these days.

I can't get over the fact that we in the Emergent/Missional/Post-Evangelical community haven't been able to come up with some down-to-earth, man-on-the-street-level definitions for some key concepts. I mean, you can't ask every person curious about this whole movement to take a few months/years and catch up with the conversation to date. We're gonna have to come up with some one-liners, some attention grabbers, to get people at least into the ballpark...and maybe then they can take it from there, you know, if they feel "led" and all.

So, just off the top of my head, here are some working suggestions for 10 of the biggies.

10. Postmodern: Everyone's in it for themselves...and I mean everyone! Criticize accordingly.

9. Post-Postmodern: The cat's outta the bag; everyone can see the elephant in the room; the emperor's butt-neked...let's work with that!

8. Narrative: Can you adequately describe who you are in a few sentences?

7. Atonement: We're all messed up, but each of us in our own, unique way. The crazy thing about Jesus is not that he dealt with the mess-up, but that dealt with your unique messed-upness, and mine, and that guy's, etc., and thereby dealt with The Mess-Up.

6. Faith: We don't place our love and trust (both action words, BTW) in truths derived from an analysis of Jesus, but in the whole person of Jesus...and that's just as tough and rocky as trusting anyone else, especially when they're always right!

5. God: YHWH...you're just gonna have to figure that out for yourself.

4. Jesus: The embodiment of #5.

3. The Bible: The #8 about #5's history-long quest to achieve #7 via #4.

2. Authority: Belongs to God, given to Jesus, who crazily entrusted it to us, His people, though none of us is worthy of it and we all get it wrong...unless your name is N.T. Wright.

1. Emerging/Emergent: You know how Jesus kept talking about seeds dying and living things springing forth? OK, that's what Emerging/Emergent likens itself to. But here's the thing...a living thing doesn't have to justify it's aliveness, or the death of the seed from whence it came. If it is alive, and the seed is dead, all of that will be become self-evident. So if anyone ever tells you they're Emergent/Emerging, they probably aren't. But if you see somebody emerging, you won't be able to miss it.

Like I said, that's just off the top of my head. I might have 10 or 20 more lurking somewhere, but for now, I gotta get some sleep.

What're your thoughts on these?

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

In short, no.

Jonathan and Brad have thrown in their two cents in response to Brother Maynard's question. Brother Maynard's (provisional) answer is:

...I think there may be an emerging theology, but it will of necessity be of a generous nature, with room for other positions and not as deeply committed to dogmatic certainty on all points. I don’t know if it will ever be “gathered” up as a systematic treatment (or if it could be), but it seems to me that many more of the classical areas of systematic theology...are being explored, at least a little.

Jonathan's conclusion:

I believe the answer is yes, but I would use the term “coherent” or “sound”. With time it will likely be those asking the questions who will then seek out and find the answers. Some will get it wrong, but others will get it right. And like any revolution, it is only those who stand unwilling to move in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary who will suffer.

And Brad's:

“Emerging systematic theology” is an irony, which I define as the opposite of a paradox. If a paradox is two things which actually co-exist, but look like they shouldn’t, then an irony is two things that shouldn’t co-exist, but they actually do.

So, to resolve the irony, what needs to happen is: “emerged systems theologies.” Maybe some of those reading this will be moved to invest themselves in what I think may be some of the hardest work required to shift us into more preferable futures - figuring out the full paradigm that accompanies a particular logic approach, and then developing a comprehensive, consistent, coherent theological system within their chosen paradigm - conducting a radical repatterning of the biblical evidence, themes, and frameworks while still covering all the bases.

I think Brad's on the right track. But let's have some cojones here and tell it like it is. An emerging systematic theology?

NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The very question shows a misunderstanding of the very question.

It's not about having true beliefs, but with not as much certainty, leaving room for others.

It's not about replacing terms like "true" with less in-your-face terms like "coherent" or "sound."

It's not about finding a new, radical paradigm and then developing a new system which fits within it.

It's about Jesus, people.


Does that sound to shrill? Too certain? Too true?

Too bad.

It's about Jesus. A person. A person as complex and irreducible to true statements as you and I, except a thousand times more.

"I am the Truth."

Get it?

Did Jesus communicate the Truth? Of course He did. Did He do so using propositional statements and systematic theologies? Of course He didn't. He utilized those things, yes. But to communicate the Truth, Himself, He used stories. He used symbols. He used a life. He used a death.

The Kingdom of God is like....

This is my body....This is my blood...

Temples cleansed. Crosses died upon.

The people wanted answers. He gave them riddles.

The people wanted proof. He gave them life.

The people wanted a king. They got one.

Get it?

Are we going to utilize systematic theologies, proposition statements, value judgment, truth claims? Of course we are! Those are all part of God's good creation, His gifts to us.

But should we consider those things sufficient for the task? Of course not! Jesus didn't. He communicated Himself by His life!! The whole of it, within the context of the life of the Jewish people. The whole of it, within the context of the story of God and the world. The whole of it. All the music, all the dance, all the art, all the food, all the pain, all the love, all the work, all the play, all the talk, all the logic, all the words, all the dreams. All of it.

He came not to abolish, but to fulfill.

He came to give not answers, but life. LIFE!

Get it?

True life.

Comprehensible life.

Communicable life.

New life.

Spread the word.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

Panentheism: (from Greek πᾶν (pân) "all"; ἐν (en) "in"; and θεός (Theós) "God"; "all-in-God") is a belief system which posits that God interpenetrates every part of nature, and timelessly extends beyond as well. Panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe.

Anyone who's read and heard N.T. Wright at any length might well wonder whether the good bishop is a closet panentheist. Wright's view of biblical cosmology/eschatology has that ring to it. We should all know well, by now, his cosmological insistence that heaven and earth are the "overlapping and interlocking dimensions of God's creation."

But it is his eschatological vision that really seems, at first glance, an affirmation of panentheism. After all, two of his favorite eschatological portraits are the Isaianic image of "the earth being filled with the glory of God as the waters cover the sea," and the Pauline vision of "God being all in all." A few other choice examples:

"The material world is a recepticle designed to be filled by God's love."

"There is no square inch of space, no split second of created time, that is not desired by God, claimed by God, and will one day be filled by God."

These and dozens of other of the bishop's oft-repeated sentiments beg the question: Isn't N.T. Wright simply espousing a panenthesit worldview in a unique way?

The short answer? No.

The explanation is a bit subtle. But what Wright is in fact espousing, what he is insisting that the entirety of Scripture espouses, rather, (and I'm not sure if I'm using the Greek correctly here, but here it goes anyway) is a worldview that can be called theo-en-panism. It is not that creation is wholly contained within God, but that the Creator God, Yahweh, has desired from the get-go to become wholly contained within His creation.

Like I said, the distinction is subtle, but it is also massively significant. And that significance gets magnified when we consider the notion of love, or agape, as revealed by the entire biblical narrative, climaxing with the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The panentheist worldview rings of a "love" which seeks to possess, to cling onto the beloved. Anyone ever see the movie Perfume: The Story of a Murderer? OK movie, but the story as a parable of the subtle-but-profound difference between love and lust was simply awesome.

N.T. Wright is desperately trying to re-tell us about a God who loved the world into existence as something wholly other than Himself, and has never stopped loving that creation. The seemingly paradoxical thing about true love, about agape, about self-giving love, is that the giving of such love creates a context, a "hermaneutical space," as Wright likes to call it, for true love to be given back in return, to be received, in a kind of cycle which allows for freedom and unity not to cancel one another out but to co-exist within and to celebrate one another.

In other words, Wright's vision of a theo-en-panistic cosmology/eschatology presupposes a God who is love. Not a God who creates heaven and earth as part of Himself (that would be too easy...too non-Jesus-shaped, as my brother Michael Spencer would say), but one who loves a creation wholly other than Himself into being, thereby to spend the rest of eternity loving it, with all the pain and risk that such an act entails.

And it is that God who we are called to reflect.

Up for the challenge?

I'm not...but I'm trying.

Grace and Peace,

Raffi

Here's a round-by-round account of the bloodbath so far.

Round 1: Dobson sucker-punches Obama's theology.

Round 2: Jim Wallis delivers a left hook to Dobson's theology.

Round 3: Will Hall of the Southern Baptist Press steps in to protect Dobson.

Round 4: Obama strikes back at Dobson.

Round 5: Rev. Kirbyjohn Caldwell, an Obama supporter, creates a website called James Dobson Doesn't Speak for Me.

Round 6: Rabbi Brad Hirschfield steps in to separate the combatants, and teach them a lesson in civility, directing his scoldings more toward Dobson, but also to Obama.

As Scot McKnight mentioned in his post on the subject, the essence of the debate is that "Obama spoke about how to be religious and live out one’s faith in a pluralistic society and do so in a way that respects the views of others. Dobson essentially accused Obama of distorting the Bible and the Christian faith and how Christians ought to live in our society."

Well, that might be the essence of the debate, when framed in the most general (and generous) terms. But the actual, nitty-gritty, bottom line essence, the one which is being missed by both parties in equal and opposite measure, I believe, is...

Hmmm? How do I put this?

I guess it's Parable Time!!!! And many thanks to my good friend Jonathan Brink for this one:

Guy walks into a bar and sees three guys engaging a passionate conversation about something. Curious that he is, he walks up to them and asks, “What’s the ruckus?”
“We’re trying to figure out what kind of beer this is,” the first guy says, a little taken aback by the interruption, but immediately turning back to his two friends. “It’s amber color reveals the rich texture of an bass pale ale.”
“I would say it’s a porter,” the second man says. “I’ve had porters before and they look just like that. I’ve even made porter’s. I used to make them in my house.”
I know it’s a dark lager,” the third man says. “The rich color is closer to a darker amber color. The rich pigmentation from the darker malts does that to it.”
“No it’s not,” the first man said, his voice rising in temperament. “Dark lager is darker than that.”
“A bass pale ale doesn’t sit in the glass like that,” the third man said, exhausting his disgust as he pointed to the pint.
“What’s that supposed to mean,” the first man said, throwing out a guffaw in furious passion.
“What do you think?” the second man said, looking at the guy who was still watching the conversation. All attention was turned on him.
The guy looked at the beer, picked it up and drank it. Set it down on the bar and said, “It’s good.”

If you have ears, then hear.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi

A good friend sent me an e-mail regarding my correspondence with N.T. Wright. In it, he remarked about how he is fascinated by the Bishop's humility in interacting "with us wanna-be theologians." I fully agree with my friend's comments, in a number of respects, e.g., Bishop Wright's humility, the "wanna-be" aspect of (my, at least) theological endeavors.

But then, I got to thinking. I tend to do that from time to time, and this friend's comments tend to get me going in that direction.

"Wanna-be theologian..."

"Wanna-be theologian..."

"...theologian..."

This is gonna be nebulous, but I'll give it a shot.

Over the last few days, I've encountered a few writings that, stronger and stronger, impress upon me how much I don't want to be a theologian, or to expend much energy in such "-ogy" endeavors. And I say this in the "study of God as science" sense in which the term is used. Mind you, I would venture to guess that no one else would read these individual items and come away feeling like I'm feeling. These are unique to me, I'm aware, but inasmuch as they've served as a catalyst for my growing distaste for "theology per se" ...

There was a reply to a comment I left to a post about "one of the few areas of N.T. Wright's theology with which [the blogger] agrees," which commenced with the following lines:

I am of the opinion that Christianity is a system of doctrine. While I don’t agree with any notion of a central dogma, I do believe that Christianity is a full orbed system, comprehensive in scope. It’s one big package, and it all hangs together.

Then, there's this book I'm reading called Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be. Maybe you've heard of it. I'm just getting started on it, maybe 60-70 pages in. And I've glanced at a number of reviews, etc., in the blogosphere, and the overarching consensus is that these guys have "a generous but valid critique" of the emerging conversation. And I see the generosity. Actually, its kind of funny how the book reads much like an emergent critique of the modern church, just the other way around.

The book starts off expressing frustration about how trying to critique the movement is like "trying to nail Jell-O to a wall." In other words, the authors are frustrated that they cannot pin the movement down to one set of articulable beliefs. It sounds like the same frustration that the scribes and the Pharisees must have felt.

But I digress.

Like I said, I see the "generous" part, but I don't get much of where the critique is, outside the hidden argument that "these emergent guys are saying things that don't jive with our Reformed tradition, and the foundations on which that tradition is based." In other words, the line of thought (so far, to be fair) is that "these emerging types are saying A, B, and C, but since we know that Luther and Calvin said C, D, and E, be weary of them and their newfangled efforts to get you to forget D and E."

There I go again, reducing a conversation to A's, B's and C's.

I really hate this.

I must stop.

Grace and Peace,
Raffi