I Am Because We Are

Comments

6 responses to “I Am Because We Are”

1. 

   will spotts

   October 28, 2005

   Mike,
   I have greatly enjoyed your comments on emergence — particularly the insights on post-modernism. I find much of “post-modernism” not particularly new — I’m still struck by the similarity to the situation into which the church was born. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that some of the emphasis in (some streams of) the “post-modern” church is seeking to return to an early church model.
   This differs from the Reformation goal of doing this in that the reformers’ desire seems to have grown out of their ideas about biblical authority — rather than the appeal of the actual descriptions of the early church.
   One thing that disturbs me in post modern thought as well as in the emergent phenomenon is the emphasis on “community” at the expense of the individual. I find this less supportable biblically — “community” must be defined very carefully for the organic and building metaphors for the ecclesia to fit.
   I don’t have time to comment fully on this right now, but — and I admit this is my personal sensibility — I find the emphasis too closely linked to the neo-fascist disease that is communitarianism.

   Loading…

   Reply
2. 

   Michael Kruse

   October 28, 2005

   Hi Will,
   Long time no see!
   I would be very interested in reading more of what you are thinking. I read “Honor, Patronage, Kinship, and Purity” by David DeSilva a while back. It really helped to see how that culture worked. It also adds a real richness to some of the New Testament writings. How they saw their realtionships was very different than today (The purity thing is a really tough one to get a grip on for me.) The biblical cultures certainly had a much different sense of community than we do. I am not suggesting we recreate their relationships though.
   Anyway, I’d love to read what you are thinking when you get the time.

   Loading…

   Reply
3. 

   Michael Kruse

   October 28, 2005

   “This differs from the Reformation goal of doing this in that the reformers’ desire seems to have grown out of their ideas about biblical authority — rather than the appeal of the actual descriptions of the early church.”
   Church reformed, always reforming, according to the word of God. That was certainly the Reformation. I don’t think I hear the Emergent types necessarily wanting to replicate the early Church. I think they are making the case the the Scripture is much more culutrally contextual than we have often appreciated. Interpretation and application requires a greater appreciation for this factor. I have more vastly more tools at my disposal today on my computer than most biblical scholars have had throughout the centuries. So in a sense I think the Emergent types are trying to go back to Scripture (just like the creed) and saying with all the scholarship and resources we have lets go back and see if we have misunderstood some things. Have we become infected in ways the Catholic church was 500 years ago? What might need to be reformed? That has been my assessment. Maybe you have heard or read otherwise?

   Loading…

   Reply
4. 

   will spotts

   October 29, 2005

   I very deliberately used the description “some streams of the post-modern church” because I was trying to distinguish from the more narrowly used “emergent”. Neither description has a good definition that makes discussion of nuances easy. Sorry for the lack of ability to clearly delineate — OK, my modernist bias is showing.
   I was speaking anecdotally of people I know and/or have encountered who would describe themselves as “post-modern” or who would fit that description. Many of these are in charismatic movements that seem to have a great appeal to that mindset.
   Part of that appeal is to be found in the particular type of experience, which is related to epistemology. For these people (again in my experience) narrative is an important concept. And there is a sincere desire to revisit the church as described, for example in Acts. A great deal of emphasis is placed on the New Testament writings, but it seems to be born out of a desire to replicate that dynamic situation.
   You seem to be referring to the more “intellectual” branch of “post-modern” church — although that is not a fair description, as many in the charismatic movement are also intellectual.
   I fully agree with the desire to have a better understanding of the narrative. I also fully agree with the notion that propositional/systematized theology does not accurately reflect the narrative — and can’t. (I suspect there is a reason the Bible is not the Institutes . . .)
   My point is in motivation — and it likely consists of some admixture of several motives.
   The New Testament church was born into the situation where it was a minority religion “competing” with a host of other established and institutionalized religious ideas. One of these enshrined concepts was tolerance. People would, for example, not have objected to adding Jesus as a new god — one among many. They did rather strongly object to the exclusive claims of this sect.
   Most of our philosophical ideas — accross the board, but especially those that have percolated down to the culture as a whole — are recast forms of various ancient philosophies. All of these would have been present then.
   That period was peculiar in that travel was relatively widespread (at least throughout the Roman world). There was a lingua franca — much as English is today. There was a dominant political power. The trade of goods and the interdependence of economies was present. The culture of violence and sexual oddity was prevalent.
   Particularly in the US (and particularly among Caucasians) Christians are becoming aware that we no longer have the privileged position we once had. People no longer agree on even basic moral issues — that not that long ago were assumed to be held in common. People no longer agree on assumptions about what is important, whether there is a god, what that god or gods might want, what its nature might be. People advance exact opposite ideas of what is right or wrong. Right now this is just a vague awareness, but it is kind of the “hand-writing on the wall” for the church as we know it.
   Thus the appeal of the First Century church. The New Testament contains a narrative about a dynamic and exciting movement — where courage was required to be Christian, where luke-warmness was not an option. Where the culture at large would be at best neutral to what Christianity teaches. Where it would likely be hostile to that message. This story is something of an adventure. Similar to the “adventure” Jesus invited Peter, Andrew, James, and John on when he said, “Follow me.” He didn’t give them a prospectus or plan. They were operating without a rope. It required trust.
   I believe that — the adventure, the trust — is the thing that appeals to many in a “post-modern” context about the early church. And while this is about accurately reading the New Testament — it is also about an appeal because our situation is similar.

   Loading…

   Reply
5. 

   will spotts

   October 29, 2005

   My reaction to the sanctification to the word community stems from a general distrust of human nature. I tend to find that “total depravity” notion, while I might choose different wording, accurately describes my observations of myself and others. (At least partly — people are capable of great good, but there seems to be a pronounced bent toward evil — even in spite of good intentions — and, among Christians, even in spite of the Holy Spirit.)
   “Community” is one of those warm, fuzzy words that, while its actual definition is hotly debated among sociologists, is almost universally accepted as a good thing in the popular mindset. Such a word lends itself to use for manipulation purposes. Defining individualism as a sin strengthens this potentially very bad usage.
   Small group participation and the growth of community was, for example, required by the Communists in Russia. Everyone had to be a member of their local union/community. They had to spend all kinds of time in the community. They had to emotionally relate to that community — doing things together to create the bonds desired by their rulers. Similarly, the Nazi schools and Hitler Youth were about fostering community and transfering the “desirable” community values to young people — while uprooting those that were not wanted. Again, it involved a lot of personal relationships, and on the basis of personal relationships people absorbed philsophies and calls to action that were in no way moral or right. It was anti-Christian. Yet it was a “community”.
   The denigration of the individual has an impact both on how individuals are treated — those who, for example, are a drain on the community, and on how individuals can stand up to the dominant, and evil, challenges of their day. In Animal Farm, Boxer was the quintessential team player/community participant. And, in the end, he served his community by being sold to make glue.
   While it is clear that people were designed to seek relationships with God and others — even early in Genesis we see this when God says that it is not good for man to be alone, community by itself is not, biblically, a de facto good. (Babel was a community).
   Jesus emphasizes this in a number of his “hard sayings”. For example, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace; I come not to bring peace, but a sword . . .”, “Whoever loves father and mother more than me is not worhty of me.”, “Who is my mother and my brother?” These things are all “communities” in the sense we use the word — yet Jesus is violating them.
   Similarly, when Jesus says that those who worship God must do so “in Spirit and in truth”, and when he advises potential followers to “consider the cost”, he is describing personal, individual decisions and actions. They can’t be interpreted as communal — it is not a community that considers the cost. It is not, in spite of our views of our worship experiences, a community that worships in spirit and in truth.
   The Genesis Abraham narrative was revolutionary at the time because it was a narrative of individual action and “destiny”. Abraham acts as an individual — rejecting community. Ur was a fully functioning community — out of which Abram was called. Similarly we as Christians are called out of community.
   Very specifically, believers form a new community — but this cannot be regarded as membership in the visible church. It does not describe even, necessarily, those we see and build relationships with. In that sense, the believers of Corinth were “in community” with the believers in Jerusalem or Rome.
   It is absolutely not a compulsory association. It is not our neighborhood or town or village or city or nation or world. It is not held together by force, and it does not seek any participants who are not believers also called by Jesus.

   Loading…

   Reply
6. 

   Michael Kruse

   October 29, 2005

   “I very deliberately used the description “some streams of the post-modern church” because I was trying to distinguish from the more narrowly used “emergent”. Neither description has a good definition that makes discussion of nuances easy. Sorry for the lack of ability to clearly delineate — OK, my modernist bias is showing.”
   What??? Define terms so we actually know what we are talking about? Shudder the thought. You would wipe out entire cottage industries of websites and book publications.
   Seriously, Thanks. I have a better idea of what you are getting at. To be honest, I don’t circulate a great deal in charismatic circles and I can’t say I have had any significant discussions with people I would call postmodern and charismatic, although I have read a few things by some folks who fit. I was curious to know more of what you thought because I share some the same concern. Somewhere between being atomized individuals bouncing off of each other and becoming “the Borg” is a place of healthy community. Or maybe I should say communities.
   We each come into the world helpless. We are in community as soon as we are born or we die. It is a community (family) that nurtures us to maturity. Kinship networks and social networks (neighbors, churches, etc.) sustain families. Business “communities” form enterprises that empower us to make a living. Governments are more distant and abstract communities that create the infrastructure that allows all the good stuff to happen by providing order and justice.
   The decentralization of our lives across strong networks of relationships is what protects freedom. It seems to me that there are two dangers. One is that government, with its sanctioned ability to coerce communities to do its bidding, will subsume the other communities and end up removing all barriers between the state and the individual. The other danger is that, through insistence on individual rights and freedom at the expense of communities, the communities become weakened. Chaos ensues and the government must increasingly step in to preserve order. You are back at totalitarianism. In essence we are back to polarity management. I agree with your concern about fallen nature but I think it is a Janus faced threat.
   What we have now is a culture war about what our various communities should look like. I think the mission of the church is to be a community that has its allegiance first and foremost to God, takes on “Christ’s image,” lives within the various communities of culture, thus being salt and light in the world. My point is that our congregations are more akin to personal therapy service centers than missional communities.
   Good stuff, Will. Thanks

   Loading…

   Reply