Wisdom for every day
In various monastic writings we find two verses emphasized as being among the most spiritually effective prayers. Psalm 71:1-2 (NIV)–
In you, LORD, I have taken refuge; let me never be put to shame. In your righteousness, rescue me and save me.
It is emphasized because it is the prayer of desperation, encapsulating a heart’s cry, pointing it efficiently towards God. The spiritually wise suggested repeating this regularly, throughout the day. Not only for those who are encountering crises. For everyone. Because while it is the prayer of the oppressed, pleading for God’s salvation, it is also a prayer of grounding. Those who deal with pride, or arrogance, or easy living are reminded of their status and their goal. This establishes the relationship, a pledge of allegiance of sorts. We are all in need of God’s salvation, and asking for it reminds us of those places that we might like to hide from or ignore–or do not see in the moments of bounty.
Worth looking at other translations.
New Living Translation:
O Lord, I have come to you for protection;
don’t let me be disgraced.
Save me and rescue me,
for you do what is right.
Turn your ear to listen to me,
and set me free.
New King James:
In You, O LORD, I put my trust;
Let me never be put to shame.
Deliver me in Your righteousness, and cause me to escape;
Incline Your ear to me, and save me.
NRSV:
In you, O LORD, I take refuge; let me never be put to shame. In your righteousness deliver me and rescue me; incline your ear to me and save me.
Along with the Jesus prayer–”Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner”–these verses are a way to center and re-center, orienting us right in the midst of our busy lives. Easy and profound expressions of deep theology and deep faith.
As I’m writing today I’m hit with another passage that serves much the same purpose. Rather than being prayer towards God, however, this one is a reminder from God to us.
Exodus 14:13-14
Moses answered the people, “Do not be afraid. Stand firm and you will see the deliverance the LORD will bring you today. The Egyptians you see today you will never see again. The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.”
Here we have an antecedent to Ephesians 6 and Isaiah 31.
The Israelites have been freed from Egypt, but they are not yet free. They stand at the edge of the Red Sea, blocked. Pharaoh realizes he made a mistake. Who is this God of Israel that could take away his slaves? He gathers his army. He pursues the newly emancipated.
Exodus tells us:
They were terrified and cried out to the LORD. They said to Moses, “Was it because there were no graves in Egypt that you brought us to the desert to die? What have you done to us by bringing us out of Egypt? Didn’t we say to you in Egypt, ‘Leave us alone; let us serve the Egyptians’? It would have been better for us to serve the Egyptians than to die in the desert!”
Life became overwhelming. They were terrified, broken, emptied of hope. They saw what was following them and they despaired.
“Do not be afraid, stand firm, and see the deliverance that the LORD will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you see today you shall never see again. The LORD will fight for you, and you have only to keep still.”
The Egyptians throughout Scripture represent ‘the world’–its terrors, its promises, its enslavements, or its companionship. Sometimes it is a place of God given safety. More often it is the feared oppressor or the false security. We run from Egypt because of its power. We embrace Egypt because it promises protection.
We see the Egyptians about us. In our struggles and in our temptations. We fear. We lose hope. We stumble in the strain. We go crazy, act angry, no longer reflections of Christ.
And God reminds us.
“Do not be afraid, stand firm, and see the deliverance that the LORD will accomplish for you today; for the Egyptians whom you see today you shall never see again. The LORD will fight for you, and you have only to keep still.”
out of the habit
I’ve fallen out of the blog habit. That’s not just about being distracted or not having something to say. It’s a change from once noticing something and wanting to note it to noticing something and keeping it to myself. Which is a curious thing because this has coincided with a recent growth in traffic around here. Just when folks show up I go quiet. Go figure.
Being that I am, at my core, self-analytical I step back and notice my recent quiet and wonder what is happening with me. I don’t know off hand, and maybe writing it out might be just the blog Drano (Bloggo? “Able to clear out even your most persistent mental blocks”) that’s needed.
I think I can notice some of the contributory issues. The first came when I was discussing my trip last month to Duke. I had intended to discuss the various sessions I attended and add some thoughts. Moltmann was the primary speaker at the conference but I don’t have too many thoughts about his presentation. My mind was fairly muddled in the crowded evening sessions and honestly, I admit humbly, I didn’t really pick up what was being said. I was more into the culture of the moment than the context and all the words on science/theology slipped right by for the most part. The other sessions were significantly more stimulating and thought provoking.
So much so that I never got around to writing on them. That’s an odd thing to say, I know. But here me out–after a brief, related, tangent.
A little while back my friend Sonja nominated me for a subversive blogger award.
“Subversive bloggers are unsatisfied with the status quo, whether in church, politics, economics or any other power-laden institution, and they are searching for (and blogging about) what is new (or a “return to”) – even though it may be labeled as sacrilege, dangerous, or subversive.”
See, I’m so subversive that I didn’t jump on the bandwagon right away but waited a while. I’ll be subversive on my own schedule, dagnabbit!
But I guess I am subversive. Powerless, so not nearly as potent in my subversion as real subversiveness should demand. But I’m not sure if the ability to actually subvert is necessary for the title of subversive. Authoritarian governments will act on even a hint or word of subversiveness in word, thought, or deed so I guess that’s the standard I’ll submit to in my subversivity.
I’m a little wary, however, about noting this fact–still in my tangent here, I’ll let you know when it’s over–because I’ve realized for a little while I’m the wrong kind of subversive. I’m the kind other subversives don’t like to have around because I find the biggest joy in being subversive of the subversives. I’m a traitor to the cause because I’m not attacking from the position of traditional stances. I’m no Reformed theologian seeking to dismiss challenges to my elegant mansion of cards. I’m the guy who doesn’t want reforming to stop once it gets moving and I tend to notice the distractions of those I think are on their way somewhere more than those who I think have already contributed what they have to contribute.
I get feisty when I see Quakers not being Quaker enough or emerging churches dancing around new terms while illustrating old patterns. Which makes me a little uncomfortable, with myself and with others around me. Because I’m liable to be critical just when everyone thinks they are safe from criticism, among their own kind.
You know how you can tell the real subversives? They all dress alike and like to gather in conferences, lit by the glow of their apple logoed laptops, to celebrate their shared subversivity, nominating leaders by popular acclaim to help them best understand where they might be most effective in subversion this coming year. They also don’t want to be nailed down on specific thoughts, lest those specific thoughts become unfashionable during the next subversion season. A real subversive reads the right books–now helpfully properly labeled as such by our subversive oriented mainstream publishers–and quotes the right thinkers and talks about old traditions and polyorthodoxy and neo-monasticism all while not having not really committed much at all to the actual writings of the past, thus doomed to repeat the establishment that cemented the subversion.
So, I’m wary about being labeled subversive because it takes a lot of money to be properly subversive in all the acceptable ways.
To be sure, it’s easy to be subversive now, what with the multi-million dollar subversive industry helping subversives and subversives-to-be ease into the role, mostly by teaching them how to be entirely traditional in use of power and influence and authority while using catchy lingo and scented candles and name tags slung around the neck.
What does subversive really mean?
According to wikipedia “Sub- is a prefix derived from Latin, meaning ‘under’, ‘below’, or ‘less than’.” So, ‘to subvert’ is to be less than versive or to be below versive. Clearly, we’re getting at something here (and yes, I’ve now made a tangent off the tangent).
Which leads us to think about what we’re below or less than. ‘Vert’, if by chance you have forgotten, is defined according to my Webster’s New World Dictionary as:
1 [Brit.] a) [Archaic] the green growth of a forest, as cover for deer b) [Historical] the right to cut green wood in a forest.
2 Heraldry the color green: indicated in engravings by diagonal lines downward from dexter to sinister
It derives from the Latin viridis which means ‘green’ and more specifically from the verb virere, ‘to be green’. So, literally, to be subversive means being “less than green” and so with that in mind I proudly accept the nomination of being a subversive blogger, because I probably am even more than I allow myself to be (just hinted back at the initial point of this post) and because, as the song says it’s not easy to be green, so I’m just as happy being somewhere below that.
And below that is where I’ve been for a little while, below most everything really, under the radar, temporarily distant from the blog conversation, not chopping at the wood of the forest, green or otherwise.
It’s because of my particular subversiveness I figure (and now I’m getting fully back to the main point I started way above there). I wrote a little on the Orthodox charismatic priest I heard speak at the conference, realizing one of my dear friends and regular readers is now a full member of the Orthodox Church, in love with its wisdom and feeling a spiritual depth that is so wonderful to hear about–she is also being immensely subversive in her context by doing this.
Why would I want to write about my various issues that have kept me off that trail? I wrote, but held back a bit, because I’m fine with being silent, when someone else is clearly finding God in a certain direction. I stopped, however, before I got to write on the session on pacifism, which included Stanley Hauerwas and Glen Stassen. Because I had it in my mind to write a terrible subversive post that brought out some of my particular thinking on the topic of pacifism that would have made not a single soul happy. It would have gone at some of the expressed thoughts of other dear friends, and the long held stance of my publisher. I sat on it for a while, never got around to writing it, restraining myself from subverting those who have been supportive. I subverted my own subversion in order to not offend the subversives who have been welcoming and inviting and friendly to me. I undermined my blogging to not undermine my belonging.
Which is at the root of it. I’m tired of isolating myself. I’m tired of being subversive even if I can’t help to be so in so many of my expressions. I don’t want to be subversive, you see. I want to be a good little Christian who is able to have a nice existential-angst-free job and a decent house on a bit of land, supportive of my hobbies and my burgeoning family. I’m tired of being provoked to theological education in order to find out the poverty-inducing answers myself for the questions that everyone else in my life dodged or didn’t know. I’m tired of making contacts and acquaintances only to be included just long enough for me to say what I really think and then being not included because I am, in essence, not conforming to acceptable subversivity. I don’t want to subvert. I want to belong.
I’m tired of subversiveness, but of course because it’s not my goal but my essence I’m not going to likely change. I can’t help it because it’s not something I’m trying to do, it’s my very self I’m trying to express. I learned at Wheaton that I see things differently than those around me, sometimes in helpful and sometimes in irritating ways. I’m not content with the establishment being established and I don’t feel any ability to let the subversives be free in their subversion. I poke and prod because that’s just how I think. It’s the one quality, I think, that has pushed me farther into theology. I’m not the brightest or the most diligent and certainly not the best at meeting all the right people. I see things in a different, creative, way and in my attempts to earnestly express my notions somehow find myself, again, being below the green and coming up with a unique connections that catch the ear of a a few established subversive theologians.
I very, very much want to belong. There’s rest and peace in that. But I guess I want more to be who I am. I’d rather subvert than conform, even if it means conforming to the subversivity. I’ll subvert the conformation, undermining in my wan way the great and mighty established subversives, in order to hold onto the perspective and pursuit of wholeness and stillness that seems to be the true Spirit sign of rightly located conforming. I will continue to subvert so that I might best conform, even as I temporarily stepped back from expressing my subversiveness because I’m weary of not conforming to the more immediate locations of established subversion.
I wish I could stay quiet more, but I want to speak and talk and interact. I want to conform but the subversion leaks out, just when I’m included I tend to be excluded. I don’t find rest in the establishment or the non-conformists, neither slave nor free, but somehow have this drive to keep saying what is deep within to say even as I often realize it’ll not be ingratiating. Sometimes I blame God for not letting me find peace and participation in any direction.
I resonate with Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 20:7ff:
O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived ;
you overpowered me and prevailed.
I am ridiculed all day long;
everyone mocks me.Whenever I speak, I cry out
proclaiming violence and destruction.
So the word of the LORD has brought me
insult and reproach all day long.But if I say, “I will not mention him
or speak any more in his name,”
his word is in my heart like a fire,
a fire shut up in my bones.
I am weary of holding it in;
indeed, I cannot.
Indeed, I cannot hold it in. Though, on a blog I can sometimes try for a little while. And that’s what I’ve done. To rest, to distract myself with happy realities, and to maybe somehow maybe play at being a part even if playing that role successfully means no lines for me.
I’m not sure why this has meant no pictures of birds or scenery or other random thoughts. I’ve gotten out the habit of blogging so the random things don’t immediately drive me to note them. I’ve been stuck, I suppose, between the depths and the shallows, caught on a crag. hanging out with the green.
I’m not sure if this post means a change in that. It all comes down to whether or not I muster up the fortitude to be free in my subversity once more, come what may. I suspect pictures of the birds, for whatever reason, go along with that. I also suspect the ravens that are hanging out near me right now could answer that for sure if I just knew the right way to ask. Otherwise, they’ll just laugh at me because I can’t, quite truthfully, fly.
the standard of our faith
I got into a little conversation over at Shoutlife with a very sharp man named Aaron. I think we’re talking past each other in some cases, but the core issue is the place of the Law in Christianity. He has been very influenced by a Jewish Rabbi, who enlightened him to see the reality of Jewish foundations of Christianity. Yet, I sense he’s pushing too far.
He asked if there is no adherence to the Law, then what is the standard by which we know we are serving God?
I answered. And it took enough writing time for me to want to post it here as well:
What is the standard? How are we to know the fruit? What is the measurement of the Law? The Mosaic law spelled this out in detail. And gives a very good marker of wrong and right, a very orderly way of determining where we stand. Hence Paul could say, “If anyone else has reason to be confident in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.”
Yet, he doesn’t stop there. He’s not just suggesting a renewed emphasis on the Law. He goes a step further, which involves him letting go what he once saw as his identity.
“Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ. More than that, I regard everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”
All he had before he considers loss, rubbish even, letting go the identity of righteousness that comes from the law, and instead embracing Christ. How do we know the markers of this embrace? He tells us that it is the same way we know that Abraham was a follower of God. He had faith. He followed God. Same way as Noah. He had faith. He followed God. The fruit is that of the Spirit which is “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.” Paul continues in Galatians 5 “There is no law against such things. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. If we live by the Spirit, let us also be guided by the Spirit.”
If we live by the Spirit, the very mark of a true follower of Jesus, then we must be guided by the Spirit. It is the Spirit who is to be our counselor now, our guide, our standard, our marker, our leader, our discernment. And through the Spirit we can know the mind of God.
This is not contra to the Hebrew Scriptures at all. The Spirit shows up all throughout, coming upon men and women, prophets and kings and the occasional artist. I think of Oholiab and Bezalel in Exodus 31. The Law told the specifications of the Tabernacle. These two guys were filled with the Holy Spirit to bring it all together, to know in their very being what was commanded and go beyond it. They, themselves, were the bearers of God’s creative plan, so they taught and they made.
And that is what the Spirit does still. The Spirit comes upon all those who call upon Yeshua. The Spirit opens hearts and minds and souls, filling each man and woman with wondrous gifts to enter into a living relationship with God, a relationship that the Law hints at but doesn’t fully fulfill.
Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.
You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation?but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs?heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.
Our obligation is to the Spirit. That is the standard.
Now, don’t interpret me like you are probably rightly interpreting many folks who are unfamiliar with the Jewish backgrounds. I think those who know the Law know God in an extraordinary way. The Law speaks of God in an elegant fashion. Inasmuch as the Church pushed out the Jewish understanding of Messiah and God it lost its way, something we see in obvious and hidden ways throughout history, and still in our churches. However, that being said the specific instructions now lie in terms of following the Spirit, which allows for a flexibility and relationship beyond what was possible before. It’s not a matter of parsing the details of what was given to Moses. It’s a matter of living like Abraham in our contexts, or Noah, or Joseph. The New Adam has given us a new relationship with God in freedom.
And the Holy Spirit came upon the early Church, telling Peter, for instance, in a dream to kill and eat for all that God made was clean. To accept Cornelius as a Gentile, for God himself had made him clean not through the law, but by pouring upon him the Holy Spirit.
I know this is an elusive answer. But I guess I see defining a relationship as an elusive reality that is both stricter and more flexible than, say, a master and servant relationship.
So there is a standard. But it’s not codified, as the Spirit is not codified. Certainly there is overlap, and for those who want to have a very established standard there is nothing wrong with following the whole Torah. However, those who fully follow the Spirit can reach beyond that, deeper and farther.
And again, this is not a rejection of the Jewish history or work. By no means! As Paul would say. It is the progression, just as Moses was a progression from the revelation given to Abraham, and the prophets were continuation of the revelation given to Moses. The Temple, the very marker of God’s favor and the central feature of Torah, was allowed to be destroyed, never to be rebuilt. With an incomplete Law we are not left incomplete, but are made complete instead through the Spirit.
The Church has wrongly said it is wrong to follow Torah. The early Judaizers, as Paul called them, were wrong to say all who followed Yeshua had to follow the whole Torah. We are called as we are called, and we worship God as we are called, led by the Spirit whether by the ancient practices handed down or by new forms of creative inspiration that conform to the full work of the Spirit in our contexts so that whether Jew or Greek, male or female, young or old the name of Yeshua is raised above all.
Aaron said, “Lets just start with the 10 Commandments. They are “laws” are they not? Are they still in play?”
This is a great place to start. And I’m going to be elusive again. Yes and no.
Is is still wrong to murder? Yes. But Yeshua added to this saying:
“You shall not murder ‘; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.
So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. 25 Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court with him, or your accuser may hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you will be thrown into prison. Truly I tell you, you will never get out until you have paid the last penny.
Don’t murder, yes. But don’t even be angry. In fact make it your priority over everything else to resolve anger and be in good relationship. Don’t attack a person physically or with words. Don’t kill, don’t even denigrate.
That’s the law and more so, going beyond what seems humanly possible. The Spirit pushes us deeper, farther, more holistic, more flexibly, more situationally. We have to always be on our toes. We can never just sit back. We strive more and more and more. The Ten Commandments are the bedrock. But the law of the Spirit compels us to go beyond, to embrace what is right through a new freedom of relationship. Much as a person who lives in a free country is more compliant than a person who lives under a dictatorship. Not only more compliant but more participatory, going above and beyond in the service of freedom. We take the delight that the psalmist expresses in Psalm 119 and push even farther, expresses a delight in relating to the lawgiver and pleasing him because we love him and are being constantly led by the very Spirit of the Living God who knows even more than the Law ever hinted at.
discipline and contemplation
I’ve a wee article up over at Barclay Press, part of their ongoing series on personal devotions.
new monasticism
The LA Times has a look at contemporary communal Christianity.
Very interesting article all around.
It highlights one of my points about this movement. So many get involved in the ideals and patterns but have utterly no familiarity with the writings of monastics, especially non-Western versions, such as Eastern Orthodox. However, so many of the issues and problems found in contemporary versions have been wonderfully addressed in past centuries. To be sure earlier centuries had their own issues and problems but they also had their own wisdom, insights, and understanding that is really absolutely helpful. Certainly such reading has been absolutely transformational for me. The Spirit worked in the Bible, the Spirit worked in the early Church, the Spirit worked and works since then.
emerging church and moltmann
I’ve decided, for a couple days at least, to post the revised article I finished a couple of weeks ago. I’m curious to hear some responses, especially from the emerging church side of things. Because there isn’t a settled emerging/missional theology I’m picking and choosing as I go from a selection of writers who I see best getting to the heart of what’s going on in a positive, rather than deconstructive, way.
It’s also the case that as I turn more academic in my writing I don’t want to be an academic writer… ever. I want to develop a style that can be dynamic, adjusting one way or another depending on the particular audience, but never leaving one side out altogether. So I’m curious about a broad reading.
I’m going to leave the link up only for a week or so mostly because I don’t want the link I’m posting to be broadly accessible for very long.
Please let me know your thoughts, if you get download it, either as a comment here or an email to dualravens at yahoo dot com.
I’m writing a new paper that bounces off some of the ideas in this one so I’m curious to see how those idea work.
Have a merry Christmas week!
Moltmann
Here he is, in an interview from late last year.
And yes, I have caught a bit of Moltmannia. I’ve a big presentation due on the 15th on Jurgen Moltmann and emerging church pneumatology. Moltmann is the main speaker at the conference and might be in the audience at my presentation.
No word on if any emerging church folks will be there.
I’m actually excited. I think I’ve found a fun new rhythm with the presentation and am hoping to take full advantage of my non-establishment status.
How emerging of me!
But yeah, check out the interview. I don’t agree with everything Moltmann says or writes, but I’m loving how he pushes me to think in great new directions.
Christmas Greetings
Jonathan Blanchard wouldn’t approve… but I really like it.
I don’t remember getting a Christmas greeting from my ol’ alma mater before. I think it’s quite a lovely thing to do. And very well done.
Merry (almost) Christmas .
forms of religion
I’m looking through my moleskin notebook and found this little tidbit I wrote in it. Sometimes I write quotes I like. Sometimes I have thoughts connected to the particular book I’m reading. Sometimes a book shoots me off in another direction. Sometimes I’m staring at a tree or bird and have thought.
The following is one of the above.
There are two forms of religion:
1. Being Right and Securing power
2. Serving God and Reflecting him
This stands out to me because I’ve been wondering how people can share the same basic fundamental beliefs but hardly in any way share the same real faith. There are, I’ve noticed, a lot of Christians whose religion I don’t share. Only we affirm the same basic doctrine and we call ourselves Christians. But they’re almost entirely Christians for a different reason I am.
Certainly there’s a dynamic too. Not everyone is fully one or the other. But the extremes clash even worse than other religions clashing, because each claims orthodoxy and each asserts heresy to the other.
In James 1:27 we read “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”
Which rings more of the second than the first. But I’m thinking that most of Christendom was the first and Evangelicalism itself (which I’m still determining if I’m part of anymore) is a mix of both, depending on the church, leader, or topic.
Jesus I think wants us all to be of the second. He wants our obedience, service, and reflection. The rest? That’s for us when it comes down to it. Even when we forcefully crush an opponent beneath the weight of perfectly chosen Scripture. It often has very little to do with God.
But it looks, sounds, feels like real Christian religion, doesn’t it? Only it tastes like dust and poisons growth, bringing only anger, division and separation.
The second form might seem more passive, be less exact, and be more fluid. But it brings people closer to God, revealing him to this world as he desires, not as we want him to be revealed.
Emerging Moltmann
One of my big projects this year, beginning in January and continuing now onwards to at least this next March, has been to read Moltmann as a guide for emerging/missional thinking. This won’t be too surprising to those who have read my book and have gotten to the end and into the “About These Sources” section in which I talk about the foundations of my thinking. Moltmann makes a strong appearance. When I ventured back into the emerging/missional world and read Emerging Churches by Gibbs and Bolger I was struck by how similar the themes in that book were with Moltmann’s Spirit of Life. Not directly correlated, mind you, but similar enough that I was provoked to think more about the relationship between the Holy Spirit and emerging church practices.
At the beginning of this year I sought a little more study, not on the emerging side but on the theological. So I sat in on a PhD class focusing on Moltmann. We read through and discussed all his major works. Though I was not required to do so I wrote a research paper on Moltmann titled Hope for the Kingdom: Jurgen Moltmann and the Emerging Church in Conversation. In that paper I took a section from his last ‘Contribution to Systematic Theology’ and used his points to interact with various emerging church texts. I also took a few leaps. I had read his major works but that’s only a part of his collected writings. I’ve since ventured into more. And the more I read the more I’m narrowing in on a couple of realities. My leaps are in fact a lot more grounded than I supposed. And, second, Jurgen Moltmann was emerging before the emerging Church began to take off, not just in hints and suggestions as I had supposed. Pretty directly. Though, as Bauckham suggests, most people took up Moltmann’s discussion on other theology topics while almost entirely ignoring his pleading and hopes for a new expression of ecclesiology.
Take a look at this quote from his 1999 book, God for a Secular Society: The Public Relevance of Theology, a book I’m just now reading for the first time:
Mission in the original theological sense of the word is missio Dei–God’s sending. But what does God send? According to biblical understanding (both Jewish and Christian) he sends nothing less than his Spirit into this world, through the Christ, the Messiah. This is the Spirit who is the life-giver and who is therefore called the Spirit of life, or the source of life. According to the Gospel of John, what God brings into the world through Christ can be summed up in a single word, life. ‘I live and you shall live also’ (John 14:19). What is meant is the fulfilled life — the wholly and entirely living life — the shared life — the eternal life — the fullness of life.
It is experienced in the new livingness of love. Nor is it just human life that is meant, for according to the prophetic message this living power of God will be poured out ‘on all flesh’, which in the language of the Old Testament means everything living. God’s sending is biocentrically oriented, not anthropocentrically. It is not concerned with the political or religious rule of human beings over the world, and not merely with the salvation of human souls, but with the liberation, salvation and final redemption of the life shared.
Its goal is therefore ‘the new creation of all things’. The eternal life which is the gift of the Spirit who is the life-giver is not a life other than this life here and now; it is the power through which this life here will be different. This mortal, temporal life gains a share in the divine life, and through that becomes life that is eternal: ‘This perishable nature must put on the imperishable, and this mortal nature must put on immortality’ stresses Paul (1 Corinthians 15:53). So Nietzsche was right: ‘Eternal life is eternal livingness.’ If Gods’ sending embraced the whole of life, the shared life of all the living, it must not be reduced to religion and inwardness and ‘the salvation of our souls’, important though our ’souls’ are.
Jesus didn’t bring a new religion into the world. He brought new life. He didn’t found ‘Christianity’, nor did he set up an ecclesial rule over the nations. He brought life into this violent and dying world, the life ‘that was from the beginning, which we have looked upon and touched… and the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the life that is eternal…’ (1 John 1:1-2). Christ is the divine Yes to life. That Yes leads to the healing of the sick, to the acceptance of the marginalized, to the forgiveness of sins, and to the saving of impaired life from the powers of destruction. This is the way the Gospels tell about Jesus’s mission. And according to the Gospels this is also the character of the mission of the women and men who life in his Spirit (Matthew 10:7-8).
Absolutely. The question remains, however, why we all should care what a theologian that the great majority of Christians have never heard of has said on this topic. It is important because so much of emerging/missional thought has risen out of a interest in liturgical or organizational change. And so much of the books are about practices or church models or leadership or other kinds of structural issues. However, underlying these instincts towards institutional change is something much deeper, and I think not as well explored. It is a renewed look at the core theology of our faith. This isn’t about ignoring Scripture or drifting into liberal rejections of core principles. It is about taking Scripture as a whole, a more thorough examination, and finding where we have missed the mark.
Fundamentalism and Liberalism are, as Moltmann states earlier in the book, products of the Modern Age, actively fighting against each other with now very clear models of attack and defense. However, modernity is behind us and so we entire into something new.
And what this something new becomes is not a rejection of the past as much as it is an embrace of the future of the Holy Spirit who has always been working in the life of those who call on Christ, even if the church has not well reflected this.
So Moltmann is important because he comes to the conclusions mentioned above not out of a rejection of church leadership or an experience of dry, parched Evangelicalism. He comes to those conclusions having walked forty years through the utter depths of Scripture and Theology. Which means he, and those who share this journey, can give emerging church thought a foundation that goes far beyond fleeting liturgical transformation and becomes instead a new face of the Church that takes better more holistic note of Scripture, better more holistic understanding of the Trinity, better more holistic balance of breadth and depth, and in every way points to the fuller, richer mission of God that we experience and are called to pursue.
“Subversive bloggers are unsatisfied with the status quo, whether in church, politics, economics or any other power-laden institution, and they are searching for (and blogging about) what is new (or a “return to”) – even though it may be labeled as sacrilege, dangerous, or subversive.”