Ambient metal? I dunno. It's pretty though!
I don't mean to say that it wasn't enjoyable last night. Not at all! On the contrary, it was food for my soul to be back with people that shaped me and challenged me for four years of my life. It was great fun closing out a restaurant, talking late into the evening with people that live and care deeply about how this nation is governed. Yet, something arose from that conversation that has kept me coming back to a portion of Jesus' sermon on the plain all morning:
"Here is a simple rule of thumb for behavior: Ask yourself what you want people to do for you; then grab the initiative and do it for them! If you only love the lovable, do you expect a pat on the back? Run-of-the-mill sinners do that. If you only help those who help you, do you expect a medal? Garden-variety sinners do that. If you only give for what you hope to get out of it, do you think that’s charity? The stingiest of pawnbrokers does that.We've become so comfortable with demonizing each other, creating a straw man of the "other." Christians have not, by and large, contrasted themselves from the broader culture when it comes to this behavior. Instead, we've reflected it. Whether this is conservative Christians calling their liberal brothers and sisters wimpy idealists and snobby intellectuals or liberal Christians calling their conservative brothers and sisters stupid and ignorant bumpkins. Those may not be the exact words we use of each other--it's often much worse, but you get the point.
"I tell you, love your enemies. Help and give without expecting a return. You’ll never—I promise—regret it. Live out this God-created identity the way our Father lives toward us, generously and graciously, even when we’re at our worst. Our Father is kind; you be kind."
I'm amazed at how so many of us have lost the ability to come together, break bread and discuss our differences; offering basic human respect to the other. I watched this happen last night, difference appeared, a guarded-ness began to arise and then common ground was found and it was lovely. And you know what, it happened while brothers and sisters broke bread.
If we cannot do that even within our own faith traditions how will we find ways to do this with others across any other variety of difference. Do we really think we will ever find common ground, find peace, by continually castigating each other? Do we really think that wholesale demonizing of whole groups of people, whether by ethnicity, nationality, orientation or religion, we will ever offer something productive at the end of the day? Do we have to be so easily offended by different opinion, lifestyle or worldview?
This does not mean that we cannot have strong disagreements, this does not mean we shouldn't hold each other accountable or critique each other's arguments. On the contrary, if we could actually dig into issues rather than berate each other we could have thoughtful, generative conversation.
I've been watching this video below repeatedly over the last few days. Doggone those Canadians for making me weepy! Go ahead and call me a sap but I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that good politics start around a dinner table.
- “Pre-evangelism” in a Secular Age
- How San Diego Built a Bridge Over the Wall
- Free Webinar with N.T. Wright and Greg Boyd
- W.E.B. Du Bois’ hand-drawn infographics
- How Ancient Legends Gave Birth to Modern Superheroes
- Is innovation a new religion?
- What if you could listen to your neighborhood like scientists listen to trees?
- How Would Jesus Treat Tech Workers Moving into an Impoverished Neighborhood?
- Ohio, Where Muslim and Christian Refugees Form 'Impossible' Friendships
- This video:
Note: Before reading this, you might want to start here and here.
Sorry for the delay of getting back to this series. Yet, before I get too far, let me offer a point of clarification regarding my last post in this series. Some readers asked what I was getting at with the whole mega-church and consumerism idea. Fair point. I didn't do that good of a job explaining my point.
What I was hoping to say was that consumerism has contributed to the success of models of western church that acquiesce to the consumer sensibility. This is not a direct indictment of mega-churches as much as a cultural observation. These churches are not numerically successful because they are more orthodox. They are numerically successful because they know how to cater to the consumer. This is not, of itself, a bad thing but it does require a sober awareness of the flaws and weaknesses (as Willow Creek bravely proved possible some years ago).
Okay, moving on.
I wrote in my last post on the subject that the argument for a missional church came about through a reading of Scripture with a particular lens. In his brief, yet dense book, Bible and Mission, Richard Bauckham argues that the Bible ought to act as a metanarrative for the Christian. In other words, the Bible offers a particular view of how the world works. As I said before, these theologians have argued that what they have derived from Scripture is that it is primarily the story of who God is and what God is doing. Along the way, God's people are invited into God's activity.
If Scripture is a comprehensive (though not always so cohesive as some would argue) drama or story than Christopher Wright argued that there are certain characters and particular stage.
God and God's people are the characters.
The context of each reading is the stage.
I would go one step further based on my reading of Walter Brueggemann and offer that there is a third character.
The third character in every reading is the other.
Brueggemann argued that in any reading of Scripture there are always three "scenes" (and these are the scenes of any great drama, to be honest).
Scene one is of conflict and victory.
Scene two is announcement of this victory.
Scene three is response to the announcement.
Three characters. One stage. Three scenes.
Let's try to summarize. The entirety of Scripture conveys a story of God's mission of reconciliation. The mission, which ultimately believed to be victorious, experiences small "wins" along the way. Which means that this mission is in conflict with other missions or agendas. Some are witness to this and they are invited to share the good news of these victories with others. But this brings us to a critical yet often missed piece--the kicker, if you will: someone is always invited to respond to the announcement of this good news. In other words, without another in our midst, an other that is invited to also enter into the story ... it lies fallow. The mission, and the message of this mission, is always intended to provide a doorway for the outsider to become an insider. Without it, it is another story. Not this story.
A word about the first scene of conflict. I am convinced that this is a primary element of reading Scripture with a missional lens. I imagine that some that have taken on the term "missional" have done so simply with the intention to use it as a replacement for "evangelism" or cultural relevance. If so, the idea of conflict might be disagreeable. I would then argue to go use another term. It's important to remember that the seminal work on this subject, Missional Church had as advisers to the contributing authors John Howard Yoder, Justo Gonzales and Stanley Hauerwas; theologians that represented Anabaptist and liberation theologies. These are theologies that are rooted in a contrasting narrative, a presumed conflict with other metanarratives. In their reading of the Bible, the architects of missional theology understood it to be a contrast to popular worldviews. As they saw it, the missional church would not seek to impose or acquiesce to culture. It would exist in contrast to the popular (or dominant) culture.
A word about the "other." Read from cover to cover, the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments) are headed in a particular direction. That is to say that all the authors, over various times and places, that wrote the books compiled into what would become the Bible point towards a shared mission. This is not only a holistic biblical interpretation, it is a traditional and historical interpretation. The canon, compiled as it is, conveys an integrated vision even when considering the contextual conflicts. If a missional hermeneutic implies that God is on a mission to be reconciled with all people, all of creation then there is always someone(s) to whom the news of victory over other metanarratives is good news. If our conception of God's people is static than it is unlikely that it is missional. Again, go use another term. A missional hermeneutic implies that there is always a "listener," a "hearer," someone within the context invited to respond.
Got to to stop here. Next time, we'll try this on for size with a couple passages.
Until then, some reading:
Still haven't had much time to write lately. As I mentioned last week, you can find the transcript and audio from my plenary at the '17 diocesan council over at epicenter.org/missional. While I haven't had much time to write on missional community here on the blog, below is an introductory video to what missional communities look like here in Texas. Enjoy!
- What are signs that a church should watch out for that indicate a decline in church growth is coming?
- Americans—not just liberals—have a religious literacy problem
- Measuring Out There
- The 6 Biggest Questions Facing Houston in 2017
- Shifting Philanthropy From Charity to Justice
- The Making of a Peacemaker: An Interview with President Juan Manuel Santos and this
- How Louis C.K. tells a joke
- This video:
Tuesday is Valentine's Day. It wasn't on February 14, but the first time I danced with my beautiful valentine it was to this song. This one's for her: