Update: Mike Cope's Blog posts a response the the Christian Affirmation that is quite profound.
---------------------------------
The church is in crisis.
Now, you might look at the wonderful megachurches like Saddleback and Willow Creek or perhaps Wooddale or Southeast Christian and be completely perplexed that I would say there is a crisis. Churches offer more varieties of ministries, have better facilities, have more talented ministers, have Broadway level performances, and more than could ever have been imagined 100 years ago. So, you might ask, “Mr. Grumpy Pants, what’s the crisis?”
I’ll start with my denomination in this post and then generalize to the church.
I’ve blogged a lot recently about the Christian Affirmation crafted and signed by 23 leaders in the Church of Christ. I want to use this affirmation and its intents (as best as I understand them) as an example of what is happening many denominations.
In short, I think that the Christians Affirmation to recapture a sense of identity for the denomination known as the Churches of Christ. The signers sense that the identity of Churches of Christ has been smeared, smudged, blurred into “a homogenized and undifferentiated Evangelicalism” ( J.J.M. Roberts). On this point I agree with them somewhat. And I also think that this is not a good direction for the Churches of Christ. So, I have agreement with the signers on what is happening with Churches of Christ in some places and also that this is not a good thing.
Their solution to the problem of diffusing into “a homogenized and undifferentiated Evangelicalism” is to reclaim the history of the Churches of Christ. This is the place where we diverge. Their solution is to turn back from whence we came. They want to do this, of course, without legalism. I applaud the sentiment, but I just don’t buy it.
Divergence #1: We cannot return to what we once were without being legalistic. If we “return” and are not legalistic about it, then we are not returning to where we were. When I say legalistic, I do not necessarily mean a mean-spirited, vicious, and cruel kind (although our history is none too pretty in regards to this kind of legalism). Rather, I mean treating scripture as a legal document. We cannot go back to the presuppositions that supported the Churches of Christ. We cannot treat the Bible like an acultural legal document. However, if we "return" that is exactly what we will be doing.
Divergence #2: Even if these leaders of the Churches of Christ could bring a clear sense of identity for Churches of Christ (which is like putting toothpaste back in the tube), it does not solve anything in the Christians world. In fact, their solution, even if it could be accomplished, only fuels a further identity crisis for the entire Christian world. Solving this Church of Christ identity crisis is like bending down to pick a nickel while ten dollars falls out of your pocket.
Here is what I mean: If the only problem in the Christian world was the Church of Christ identity crisis, then this effort would make sense. However, the identity crisis in all of Christianity has to do with the fact that every single denomination is doing what Churches of Christ are doing, trying to do, find its unique identity. So, if we solve our problem, then we add to the greater problem. Solving our problem this way is the problem!!! If every denomination actually did find its unique identity, then we all would necessarily be divided.
It would appear as if the body of Christ has Multiple Personality Disorder. So, rather than integrate personalities, the answer is to strengthen the distinction between the various personalities, all whom claim to speak for the whole body, but necessarily conflict with each other. However, clarifying each personality actually makes worse the disorder. Sure, a clear identity for each specific personality gives that personality some peace, but it damages the whole. You see, the bad solution is actually the problem itself.
There are bigger fish to fry than spending our efforts reclaiming something that is actually itself quite flawed. “How can the Churches of Christ be a blessing to the world?” is a better question to answer than “How can we know we are different than other denominations?” In fact, if all denominations started asking the question, “How can we bless the world?” we might find that we have more in common than we ever thought. The “we” of Christianity might expand such that denominational distinctions become so secondary, so back burner that they become nice pieces of historical nostalgia, but have little effect on what it means to be church.
Somewhat related is Mike Cope's Blog Post today.
13 comments:
Great post Chris! I love the concept of blessing the world. AMEN!
That's exactly what we need to ask ourselves...what can we offer instead of how can we look different. The whole striving after maintaining differences (although I agree with those differences) just reeks of superiority when we were called to be servants.
Do you remember the "United We Stand" campaign? Why is it we want to stand united but stand apart? When we can truly mean that we want to stand up united for Christ, for all believers in Christ, we can begin to solve the problem!
Mr. Grumpy Pants. Love it.
Chris, I think it is misleading to say that to "return" (or recover, whatever term we might use here) an identity that practices a high view of baptism, weekly communion and a cappella music (and I don't mean to simply practice, but to practice with enriched theological meaning as spiritually formative practices) is to return to a legalism or a legal reading of Scripture.
I certainly do not favor a legal reading of Scripture, and indeed teach a theological hermeneutics class that stands over against that perspective. Reading Scripture through the lenses of historic Christian practice and theolgoical values is alternative reading to a legal one.
Well, how in blazes can I argue with a guy who's willing to sell off his own fat cells to bless hungry little children all over the world?
Okay, I wasn't going to post this comment, but david u is encouraging me to be bold.
So, Dr. Hicks, why read scripture through any lenses at all? Why not just read it for what it says? That'd be my alternative.
What's so high about the view, except that it looks down on others who don't share it?
How can we reach out to the unreached with a message of baptism by immersion, frequent celebration of the paschal meal and unaccompanied singing when the message they need to hear is that the Son of God died and lived again so that they can too?
I don't see that message in the Affirmation (DING! Because it's not there!) and I can only imagine what the unreached see there when someone directs them to it.
WHY DON'T WE POST AN AFFIRMATION THAT SAYS, HEY, LET'S POOL OUR RESOURCES AND OUR BEST MINDS AND OUR PRAYERS AND OUR HEARTS AND TELL PEOPLE ABOUT JESUS!?!?!?
There. I've been bold.
I've grumped in my pants and I feel btter now.
Can we do both, Keith? Tell people about Jesus and value/affirm spiritual practices that shape us in formative ways? It seems like you offer us an either/or, but I think it is a both/and.
A high view of baptism, etc., is simply a contextual referent. It places the emphasis on God's action--a theocentric understanding of baptism rather than anthropocentric. But baptism is also a divine/human encounter...a both/and.
No Affirmation can say everything...and different affirmations have different purposes. When I signed an affirmation against a preemptive strike against Iraq, I was not concerned that it did not talk about baptism. What the Affirmation should have said, could have said, etc. is a fair question but it must also be contextualized by its own frame of reference--directed at Churches of Christ by virtue of appearing in the Christian Chronicle rather than Christianity Today.
I, too, proclaim Jesus--the one who died and was raised. It is my central message. But there are appropriate times for more circumstanial messages as long as they do not deny the central one.
Glad you feel better, though. So do I. :-)
My apologies, Keith, I failed to respond to your initial question.
You asked: "So, Dr. Hicks, why read scripture through any lenses at all? Why not just read it for what it says? That'd be my alternative."
Unfortunately, I don't know if we can read without lens. It seems to me that one of the things postmodernism is right about is that we all wear glasses. To "just read it for what is says" is a thoroughly modern notion. And I buy it to this degree--there is a givenness to the text that can serve to unite and that givenness is the story of the Creator God revealing himself through Israel and Jesus toward the goal of transformation into his image. But even that givenness is taken up into different perspectives through the lenses we wear.
I think there are good lenses and bad lenses, and that there are multiple good lenses and multiple bad lenses. Communities must interpret, dialogue as they interpret, remember their history and press toward the future.
I wish the middle lenses of my trifocals were bigger and ground differently. I can still read without 'em, but it's an effort! I'm old enough to be modern enough to believe it's still possible.
Like proofreading, that's easier to do whether there are at least two folks checking each other. That's what I'm trying to do in dialogue like this, and I am very glad that the signers in general and Dr. Hicks in particular are not closed to this.
I wish I didn't want to argue; I know I'm overmatched. I've been begging for "both/and" for a long time. But the other half of my both/and isn't the same as the Affirmation's (I guess that's plain enough)! That's why I wish it had been a call to unity that I think everyone could affirm. Something that emphasizes the other 167 hours in the week as well as the one we spend worshiping together.
I know what the purpose of the Affirmation was: it was to protest minimal agreements that occur when people read scripture without reading into it what they wish. It was to persuade me to see scripture through the lens of historic practice. It was to discourage me from questioning whether historic practice was, in fact, correct and scriptural in spirit and in application, especially in the points of baptism, eucharist and worship. It was to sweet-talk me into accepting that the interpretations and practices described were in fact the ones historically accepted, and especially by the church of century one. It was to convince me that unity can and will only result if Christians believe and practice everything exactly the same way. It's hoped that I will not only agree with it, but that I will accept it on its own terms for what it intends to do and nothing else; not what or how it could or should have been or said.
I approach scripture with belief suspended and skepticism engaged as often as I can so I can see it as an unreached, not-believing person might. That helps me see it afresh, which is a profound blessing. I almost can't help it anymore.
So I approach the Affirmation the same way. If you've read my blog, you'll see that I go back and look at what I've written the same way, and some times I have to repent - or at least apologize - and commit to do better.
My commitment with regards to the Affirmation - having questioned everything about it that I can think to question - is to adopt the wisdom of Gamaliel with regard to it:
If it is of men, it will come to nothing.
If it is of God, it is pointless to oppose it.
Keith, I can certainly live with that. The Affirmation may be a total failure...and if it does not generate a healthy dialogue, then it fails. If it generates some dialogue that clarifies, then good. We will have to wait and see, but be about the Master's work of healing, seeking and cultivating as we wait and/or dialogue.
The part of your post I find disturbing is the characterization of the signers' purposes. I think you are way off base in that paragraph and perhaps read more of you own history into the document's intent than was intended by the singers. Certainly, nothing in that paragraph would be true of my intent.
Nevertheless, I appreciate the give-and-take. This is the healthy dimension. And getting to know the blogger world has been helpful to me, though time-consuming. :-)
Shalom, my brother
John Mark
I leave for a weekend to camp and the blog runs amuck - which is really cool, by the way.
Anyway, I want to jump in on this conversation before it runs cold, if it hasn't already.
John Mark, you said,
"I certainly do not favor a legal reading of Scripture, and indeed teach a theological hermeneutics class that stands over against that perspective. Reading Scripture through the lenses of historic Christian practice and theolgoical values is alternative reading to a legal one."
I appreciate your spirit in this conversation. It reflects more about you than does the affirmation, which floored my that you signed.
Anyway, I never pegged you as a legalist - and Is till don't. But I do believe to say that we are trying to clarify identity of Churches of Chrsit by the return to the Chruch of Christ roots, then we cannot escape legalism - and again, I don't mean the very worst kind of legalism, just the tendancy to treat the Bible like a legal document.
Wasn't there a strong sense in the Churches of Christ early on that the Bible was a sort of spiritual constitution? Set me straight if I am off base. Weren't we a people strongly influenced by the excitement of starting a new country with its new constitution? A constitution is a legal and political document meant to be read a certain way for a certain people. Were we not overly influenced by this?
Let em change gears here.
If the Christian Affirmation was meant to be a means toward unity, it will fail. Although two of the three items mentioned are nearly impossible to separate from Christianity from a Biblical and historical perspective, it was these practices and not Jesus Himself that was highlighted in the affirmation. We really ought to start at the source.
I think it would be like Orthodox Christians speaking of their icons. They are the things that point to Jesus, but are not actually Jesus himself.
Now about that third piece: The rest of the Christian world will see a plea for acappella worship as curious at best and divisive or cultist at worst. Meanwhile the rest of the world will either see it as weird, neat, novel, frightening, cultist, intimidating, coercive, groovy, or any number of ways, some positive and some negative. There are going to be some granola-head pomo's (Postmoderns) out there thinking it's really cool to go unplugged. At the same time, if this person gets wind that it's required, then good-bye. That person will hit the road.
So, if the affirmation was meant to bring unity, worship style was positively the wrong way to go with it.
However, if it was meant to bring about discussion, then perhaps it has a shot at it. What seems to be a little shaky about this point is that there are too many controls on the conversation. You are the exception that I am aware of. Again, I thank you for engaging on the web on sevaral blogs and explanation on you website.
I am sure that there are many more places this conversation is happening that I am not aware of.
But I have to say that the moderated, clergy only, thing that was called a way to have conversation really smelled like a sham to me. I really hope they open this thing up a whole lot more.
I guess that's enough for now.
well crap, I read this post but not the comments and missed all of this. Keith's blog sent me to the comments. One thing I will add to you Chris (since you will be the only one to see this) Ha! Is John Mark says Keith's statement has more to do with his history than the intentions of the signers... well that is nieve (I can't spell) of John Mark, any of us that grew up in "The church" know that some of our history has been divisive and hurtful to others. To not realize that in any document is like a German youth group being skin heads. Skin heads with good intentions. They have to realize the history that preceeds them. Logically John Mark is correct, but any good writer must realize how their audience will read their writing. Sent to church of christers and you call for traditional teaching we may all assume the worst.
Post a Comment