postmodern evangelicals and emergents… theology is about community

I was having coffee with an old school friend yesterday. He was in the local Charismatic church back then, I was in the local Dutch Reformed church back then. He is still in the same congregation, but even back then they were slowly moving away from the charismatic label and rather adopting the label evangelical, and I have been moving closer to… I’m not always sure what, but I like much of the emerging conversation.

He bemoans the fact that Americans have annexed the evangelical terminology, and complains about the way people misunderstands evangelicalism. So I asked him what exactly evangelical means. Without any hesitation he went on to tell me that there is no central creed. Not Lausanne. Not the Westminster confession (although, according to him, that one is the most common in the world where he moves around).

He continues to tell me that being evangelical is mainly about shared relationships. It’s people who journey together.

Sound familiar? Same thing those who associate with emerging thoughts would say.

Maybe there is more of a realization that we don’t have a common theology than we might think. Maybe many continue in the tradition they are not because they agree, but because they find community, friendship, in this tradition. So they’d rather disagree and remain in community.

Evangelicals would probably consider my friend to be in line with evangelical theology, but he wouldn’t make that a prerequisite to be part of the evangelical community, if I understand him correctly.

I’ve been listening to the 2007 Emergent Theological Conversation with Jack Caputo and Richard Kearney over the past few days, and the story of Derrida and Riccoeur, and how their personal relationship impacted they way they talked philosophy really touched me. This provides for true ecumenical conversations, where the relationship gets priority over the idea.

Not so easy, I agree. Peter Rollins points to this in second paragraph of this post, but maybe what we should be looking for is the idea which would give relationships priority over ideology or theology. Caputo’s love of God in chapter 1 of On Religion maybe?

Understanding David Bosch: Bosch and postmodernism

I pointed to some of the things I believe to be key in understanding Transforming Mission by David Bosch in a previous post a few days ago. Flowing from my conversation with Tom Smith last week, I want to point to my new favorite Bosch quotes, and how they help us in understanding Transforming Mission.

Although it is Hans Küng whose theory Bosch use in pointing to paradigm changes in the church, on the phenomenon of paradigm changes, Bosch uses especially the work of Thomas Kuhn. In describing the current paradigm change, which Bosch calls postmodernism. In describing postmodernism Bosch recognizes it as appearing first in the natural sciences:

The first fundamental assault on it (it refers to rationalism from the previous paragraph on this page) did not (as one might have expected) come from the side of the human sciences. It came, quite surprisingly, from the very disciplines where the Cartesian and Newtonian canons appeared totally inviolable: the field of physics. (:350)

Using especially the work of Fritjof Capra and Micheal Polanyi, both who were initially specializing in the natural sciences before writing works of importance to philosophy, he then describes the emerging “model or theoretical structure, or a new “paradigm”" (:184). Although this is a topic for another day, I believe his strong reliance on those in the natural sciences provided for a more robust understanding of postmodernism.

It is the following quotes that I’d like to point to:

Rationality has to be expanded. One way of expanding it is to recognize that language cannot be absolutely accurate, that it is impossible finally to “define” either scientific laws or theological truths. To speak with Gregory Bateson, neither science nor theology “proves”; rather, they “probe”. This recognition has led to a reevaluation of the role of metaphor, myth, analogy, and the like, and to the rediscovery of the sese of mystery and enchantment. (:353)

… the authentic Christian position in this respect is one of humility and self-criticism. After the Enlightenment it would be irresponsible not to subject our “fudiciary framework” to severe criticism, or not to continue pondering the possibility that Truth may indeed differ from what we have thought it to be” (:360)

And yet, even as we are “humbly acknowledging the uncertainty of our own conclusions”, for a “fudiciary philosophy does not eliminate doubt”, the Christian continues to hold on to unproven beliefs. It is precisely such a self-critical posture of faith which may protect us against the “blind and deceptive” nature of a “creed inverted into a science”. A post-Enlightenment self-critical Christian stance may, in the modern world, be the only means of neutralizing the ideologies; it is the only vehicle that can save us from self-deception and free us from dependence on utopian dreams. (:361)

Within Bosch’s argument, it would seem to me that the pages from which the above quotes come is key to understanding his hermeneutical presuppositions. Missing these thoughts might lead us into literilizing a theological concept such as the “Missio Dei”, which within the postmodern approach of Bosch must be understood as metaphor. Missing these thoughts can also cause us to misuse Bosch to create another triumphant Missiology that make claims of providing the final and only possible solution for humankind, whether in this world or outside of it.

From Bosch we must construct a Missiology which self-critically holds to unproven beliefs, and recognize them as such, always holding to the possibility that Truth may indeed differ from what we have thought it to be…

tips for reading Transforming Mission

I’ve been reading Transforming Mission a lot over the past few years, studying it, writing about it, talking to David Bosch’s wife Annemie a lot, both as a personal friend and to understand the person who wrote Transforming Mission better. I’ve also been looking at how people read Transforming Mission somewhat, and I have a feeling that we might be making a few mistakes in how we use David Bosch. So, two tips for reading Transforming Mission:

1. Piet Meiring always says that David Bosch had this amazing encyclopedic ability. He could bring together the voices of a wide range of people and integrate them. When reading Transforming Mission you’ll see this. Bosch tell how certain ideas has developed and changed in the church. In doing this, Transforming Mission is the voice of the church in many places. Rather than saying “Bosch says”, in many places it’s better to day: “According to Bosch the church says”. When reading Bosch try and distinguish between the voice of Bosch and the historic voice of the church. It will bring life and dynamic to the book.
2. If I understand Bosch correctly, then I think we’ve been overemphasizing the big chapters and undervalueing the inbetween chapters. The large mass of info is found in the chapters on Biblical perspectives (2-4), historical perspectives (6-9) and the elements of an emerging ecumenical missionary paradigm (12). However, I believe that the inbetween chapters, 1, 5, 10, 11 and 13, provide the backdrop against which the larger chapters should be read. If you don’t understand Bosch’s understanding of postmodernity, his use of Capra, Kuhn, Polanyi etc, then you’ll totally misread the larger chapters.

So try these two tips. Listen to hear the voice of Bosch, and read the book against the backdrop of the inbetween chapters.

where may we find God?

Different answers could be given to this. And different answers have been given to this. We seem to have been moving God around a lot over the past few hundred years. We had God up in heaven for a long time. But when Galileo checked he didn’t find God there, at least not in a literal throneroom up above the sun and moon. Rather, he found stars and the sun and planetary orbits. For some this was the end of God, but for most, this was a time for reimagining God.

What resulted was a God much bigger than the medievel church could have imagined. And the more we discovered about the vastness of space, the bigger God became… since we moved God to the outside of his creation. It was to be expected I guess, I mean, by this time humans knew something about creating, and the creator had to be apart from the creation. I learned songs about this God. We sang about how he held the whole world in his hand, about how he created even he dinosours. We would talk about how he has all of creation, the universe, in his hand.

I don’t know whether it was the fact that we were able to look out far enough, looked out further and further, but somehow I’m getting the feeling that the God that’s on the outside of creation carrying the earth of universe in his hand is not always working that well. So we moved God again. And this time, seems like we are moving him to the inside. Perhaps it’s our fascination with that which is small, quarks, and stuff happening on a subatomical level. Perhaps it’s the fact that we are forced to talk in metaphors again when exploring the sub-atomic world. Perhaps the mystics is teaching us something. I really don’t know, but we seem to be moving God into a place so close to creation it cannot be imagined.

Which one was right? Is this the last time that we will be moving God? Maybe we shouldn’t be talking about the location of God at all. The poet of Psalm 139 said that God was everywhere:

Is there anyplace I can go to avoid your Spirit?
      to be out of your sight?
   If I climb to the sky, you’re there!
      If I go underground, you’re there!
   If I flew on morning’s wings
      to the far western horizon,
   You’d find me in a minute—
      you’re already there waiting!
   Then I said to myself, “Oh, he even sees me in the dark!
      At night I’m immersed in the light!”
   It’s a fact: darkness isn’t dark to you;
      night and day, darkness and light, they’re all the same to you.

Wherever the reality of his world led him, there he found God. Maybe that could guide us. Wherever reality might lead us, may we find God there…

the god that changed it’s mind

The story is told of an ancient rabbi who was a storyteller. The rabbi told his disciples many stories to illuminate the reality in which they found themselves, and to open them to the ever mysterious being that they believed was part of this reality.

The rabbi once told the story of a time long past,

when people used to sacrifice people in order to please god. Not only people need to sacrifice people, but a friend needed to sacrifice a friend in order to please the god. In times of war, or draught, or plague, someone would get the message from god that he need to sacrifice his friend.

At one stage there was a draught for many years. Many people died in this time, but nobody got a message from god that he should sacrifice a friend. There was a very devout man, Alinksi, with a friend who was like a brother to him. One night Alinski had a dream in which god told him to sacrifice his friend. Knowing what this dream meant, he told the tribe leader the next day that god had told him to sacrifice his best friend in order to stop the draught. The two friends cried together, they spent time in silence. His friend wasn’t mad, he knew that this was the way the gods worked.

The day of the sacrifice drew closer. And on the day everyone was quite. It wasn’t a day of celebration, but everyone knew how the god worked, and that someone had to sacrifice a friend. The two friends started the ritual of gathering the wood together, building the altar, and the friend climbed onto the altar. As Alinski was getting his knife ready, he heard god speak to him, saying that this offer wasn’t necessary. What is more, he heard god say, people should no longer be sacrificed! I don’t need sacrifices to provide you with rain! I don’t want people to be sacrificed ever, I am a loving being.

Alinski was full of joy. He dropped the knife, and kissed his friends on both cheeks. However, his friend was confused, and told Alinski to continue the offering. “No”, exclaimed Alinski! Didn’t you hear? God has just stopped the sacrificing of people! God told me that sacrifices wasn’t neccesary anymore. Didn’t you hear? “No”, his friend replied. He was sceptical, because he knew that god has always told their tribe to sacrifice people in times of crisis. But he trusted Alinski, and knew he was a devout man. So after some conversation, he was convinced.

Full of joy they went back to the tribe leader, to tell him of the wonderful news. God doesn’t require human sacrifice any longer. “Impossible”, the tribe leader shouted. He wanted to kill these two men, to sacrifice them himself. How dare they try and make a fool out of the holy men of the past who have heard God speak to them over and over again, telling them to sacrifice a friend in times of crisis. But, being afraid of the many people who considered Alinski to be a devout man, he decided to shun them from the tribe, not kill them.

Alinski and his friend traveled for the rest of their lives, bringing people the good news that God do not require human sacrifice.

That, the rabbi told his students, is why we no longer sacrifice humans.

One of his brightest students replied: “But we have never sacrificed humans.”

“No”, the rabbi said, “we have, before the time of Alinski, it is many years ago, many generations ago, but their was a time when everyone knew that god required human sacrifice”.

“How can we ever trust a god that have changed his mind in the past?” the student asked.

“How can we ever live life with a god that will never change his mind in the future?” the rabbi answered.

two rock circles and a conversation

Sometime last year a couple of us started with this experiment of camping without a program. I told some of the story of last years camp here. Maybe the camp was best summarized by one of the people there when she talked about the two circles of rocks that created this camp.

On arriving a number of the guys collected some wood and a few rocks to create a fireplace. The fireplace was nothing more than 8 rocks in a circle, and chairs that got carried to this circle of rocks. At night this was a place of warmth, since we had a fire going. But at day it remained a place of comfort, a place of connection, even though there was no fire. The circle of rocks created a safe space for conversations.

The second was the labyrinth at the camp site. While at a similar camp last year a number of us built this labyrinth. The story of how a dumping site was made a holy place is told here. Although labyrinths has no meaning for some of us, for others this is a place of finding God and self. And the experiences shared made for lasting memories.

So, we camped without a program, but with two circles of rocks and a few other open spaces. It’s amazing what a circle of rocks can create…

nexus and my social networks

I think I just discovered one of the greatest and most interesting apps ever. Nexus friend grapher. It takes your facebook friends and draws a graph of the mutual connections between them. This is my map:

I’ve identified a few groups already. Groupd form when I have a number of connections with people who have mutual connections among each other, but not with the rest of the map.

The two big groups are where I’ve spent most of my life. Piet Retief and The University of Pretoria. The University is wher eI have the most links, this is where I started using facebook. The links with friends, and connections with theological students. The Piet Retief crowd and the University crowd has little to do with each other, although there are quite a few links, since some of my school friends also came to university. Oh, and right between these two you’ll find my parents and siblings, whom have a lot of connections to both sides.

Currently I’m pastoring in Kameeldrift. So there is a lot of connections that has formed there. However, the Kameeldrift crowd consists mainly out of 30+ers and under 18’s. So the number of people on facebook is not very high, and this group is probably not a very good presentation of reality.

Then there is the Dutch Reformed pastors. I know a lot of them from various meetings, and try and remain connected with them as they join facebook. They seem to share a few links with the University. This might be because we share the links of lecturers at theology, the student pastors at the student congregation, and theological students, whom obviously also connect strongly with Dutch Reformed pastors.

The South African emerging crowd (by lack of a better term) seem to constitute a very distinct crowd. These people share few links with the people with whom I spend my day to day live, but it’s a distinct group that also know each other. They consist of many Pangani folks and South African bloggers. What I’ve called the Emerging Bloggers crowd is bloggers all over the world who are connected to each other, but obviously have very little to do with the rest of the people in my life. Some of them to connect with other South African bloggers as well, and some of the more well-known ones connect with some of the Dutch Reformed pastors as well.

Go on try it. What do you think? Is this of any use to anyone?