Returning to Postmodern and Wesleyan?

Turning my thoughts once again to the book Postmodern and Wesleyan?, I must honestly admit that I find myself somewhat hesitant to discuss certain questions or issues the book raises. My concern flows from the perception that some topics seem to spark more misunderstanding, distortion, and misquotes than others. At the same time I realize that, for this very reason, these issues need to be put on the table and engaged with open, honest conversation. So, here we go with the often contentious question of the relationship of Christianity to other religions, and more specifically, the relationship of Christians with the people of other religions.

In the chapter titled Christianity and Other Religions, Dr. Albert Truesdale opens the dialogue on how we, in the Wesleyan tradition, should understand and approach this often difficult question. (Side note: Dr. Truesdale was one of my professors as a student at Nazarene Theological Seminary. Not that he would remember me - my academic record at NTS was far less than stellar!) None of us can deny the importance of the issue, as complex or contentious as it might be. In many ways, the world has come to our doorstep and we find ourselves surrounded by a culture of religious diversity. In sharp contrast to my own childhood experience, my children now attend school alongside a number of children from Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist homes. Whether or not we want to deal with the question, it is and will continue to be before us.

Let it be said up front that there can be no wavering in our affirmation of Jesus Christ as Lord and God. We are rooted and established in the firm conviction that "God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ." (2 Cor. 5:19) What I appreciate about Dr. Truesdale's discussion, however, is not only his strong affirmation of who we believe Jesus to be, but also his challenging reminder of our Wesleyan understanding of God's prevenient grace and how it comes to bear on this issue. Recognizing both, he says:

"Wesleyans clearly recognize the importance of evangelical conversion resulting from a Spirit-inspired proclamation of the gospel. But we set no limits on how or when the Spirit will accomplish God's purposes. In various ways and measures, the Spirit can preveniently (i.e., with anticipation) employ religions - and any other device God chooses - in service to the gospel." (p. 81)

It seems to me that one of the critical issues that must come into play as we discuss our relationship to people of other religions is our understanding of prevenient grace. While we are unapologetic in our affirmation of who Jesus is, we also believe that God is at work prior to our conversion, speaking, awakening, and drawing us toward Him. Do we dare believe that the prevenient grace of God can be at work in the lives of those from other religions? Please understand me - that is not the same as affirming or accepting those religions themselves as being true or valid paths to God. To do so brings us into conflict with core Christian beliefs regarding the nature, person, and work of Jesus Christ. What it does affirm, however, is that God, in His sovereignty and grace, can use any variety of means, circumstances, and opportunities to begin to awaken a person's heart, stir their desire to know Him, and prepare the way for their necessary acceptance of Jesus as Lord and God.

We do believe, as Wesleyans, that God is at work before we arrive on the scene. We accept that the Spirit is moving in the lives of people, seeking them out and drawing them toward a relationship with Christ, even before we recognize it. So, if we believe that, then how should we understand our relationship with the Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist next door? Should we not seek to lovingly and graciously nurture what God might already be doing in their lives through his prevenient grace? Rather than cut them off or push them away, would it not be better to cooperate with that grace, allowing love and friendship to draw them toward an understanding of Jesus as Lord and helping them enter into a relationship with Him? I think Dr. Truesdale's summary at the end of this chapter says it well (certainly far better than I could):

"In summary, a Wesleyan answer regarding Christianity and other religions contains four elements.

First, we affirm the New Testament's witness to Jesus Christ as God incarnate.

Second, we affirm that the promised Spirit of God unfailingly and creatively acts in the world. The Spirit seeks to draw all people to eternal life in Christ and prepares the way for the gospel's proclamation. We must seek to discern and cultivate the Spirit's work.

Third, we affirm that religions can become vehicles the Holy Spirit uses to draw people to Christ. But religions are at best incomplete anticipations of the fullness of God manifest in Christ.

Finally, we Wesleyans abhor mean-spirited opposition to other religions. Instead, we seek to understand and dialogue with those from other religions. We dialogue because we want to serve, not obstruct, the Redeemer's prevenient work." (p. 82)

Let the conversation continue.

Some Good Stuff

Taking a little break from the Postmodern and Wesleyan? discussion, I thought I would share some good stuff I came across this week. I was able to catch a little bit of "The Nines," Leadership Network's online conference where a number of church leaders were each given nine minutes to share something they were passionate about. One that stood out to me was Skye Jethani, editor of Leadership Journal, who challenged the all too common perception that "large" is equivalent to "legitimate" in ministry. It was a genuine and much-needed reminder to pastors and leaders that ministry must be judged by more than the scorecard of size.

Another item that caught my attention this week was an editorial by David Felter in our denominational magazine, Holiness Today:

http://www.nph.com/nphweb/html/h2ol/articleDisplay.jsp?mediaId=2402180&nid=lcol

The editorial itself is not specific and could probably be applied to any discussion of change or transition in the church. However, the title - Are the Emerging Church Folks Stealing the Church? - leaves no room for doubt as to the issue being addressed here. Personally, I believe he rightly captures and defends the heart and motivation of those in our church who are trying to engage our rapidly changing world with the radical hope of God's redeeming love and grace. I applaud his assertion that "they are different does not mean they are aberrant" as a word that needed to be spoken; I affirm his conclusion that these folks "are not thieves among us," but are in reality "our brothers, our sisters, and our children."

I know there are some who will immediately point to the extreme elements of the so-called emerging/emergent church movement and issue a blanket statement of condemnation over anyone and everyone who identifies with it in any way. Yes, there are elements under the "emerging" umbrella that walk a fine line, and a few may cross that line and truly qualify as aberrant. Now, I'm not a historian by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know enough to realize that the same could be said of every movement in the history of the church. Movements tend to be reactionary and there are always those who go too far in their reaction. History also teaches us, though, that God can be at work in a movement even if elements of that movement need to be corrected, disciplined, or rejected.

Apart from the general debate, my specific concern at the moment is for those within the Church of the Nazarene who have been tagged with the generic labels of "emergent" or "postmodern" and, as a result, have been attacked, rejected, or dismissed. I've sat across the table from a number of bright, gifted, and passionate leaders in our church who have been labeled these things (and, at times, labeled things less flattering). What I have personally seen, heard, and experienced with them is this:

• They have no desire to reject the authority of Scripture or the doctrinal foundations of the church. What they want is an understanding of Scripture and doctrine that truly means something for the way we live. For them, the Bible is not a mere textbook and doctrine must be more than propositional statements. These things should form us and inform our way of life.
• They do not wish to undermine or destroy the idea of holiness. They are passionate about following the way of Jesus, embracing the idea of "love made perfect" in our hearts, and living out this Christlike love in genuine community.
• They do not reject or resent traditions as historic expressions of genuine Christian faith. At the same time, they are frustrated by a traditionalism that sacrifices the mission of the church for the sake of the comfort of church people.
• They do not want to be conformed to the world, but desperately want to make a difference in the world. Rather than live in irrelevant isolation, they long to embody the love, grace, and hope of God's kingdom in the midst of a world that is broken.

There is one thing I would add to this list: some of these bright and passionate followers of Jesus are openly wondering if there is going to be room for them in our church. That is why, if for no other reason, I find this Holiness Today editorial to be encouraging, helpful, and hopeful. It reminds us that the table is a big one, that there is in fact room for those who are truly seeking to change our world for the sake of God's kingdom. Although we may differ on many non-essential issues or in matters of philosophy and style, we are united by a common love and a shared mission. Despite our questions, differences, and disagreements, those of us in the Body of Christ can and must learn to trust one another's hearts.

May it be so on all sides of the table.

Again With the Postmodern and Wesleyan?

Personally, I'm enjoying the thoughts and conversations related to the book Postmodern and Wesleyan? If you've had enough already, feel free to stop here and read no further. In fact, you may want to stay away for a few weeks. It's okay if you do - I'll just assume that you're going to devote those extra minutes to Bible study.

This week I have been processing chapters 2 and 3. In the second chapter, T. Scott Daniels discusses the "big tent" of the the Wesleyan tradition. Our tradition is clearly one of "liberty in nonessentials," seeking to maintain a spirit of unity and fellowship while allowing for a difference of opinion in matters not deemed essential to the Christian faith. It's not that these matters of opinion are of no significance at all, but we realize that Christians can differ in these areas and still all be Christians. The third chapter is Thomas Oord's thoughts on the idea of truth and its place in the postmodern mindset. While some seem to believe that all postmoderns reject the whole concept of truth, Oord points out that a postmodernist does not need to reject the idea of truth. At the same time, acknowledging that our human perception and understanding is faulty and imperfect at best, our posture should be one of humility.

I'm not nearly intelligent enough to be a part of the conversation with these guys, but in my simple-minded way, I see a significant point of connection between these chapters. In what I have read and observed, in the real-life conversations I've had, this is what comes across to me:

• Many postmoderns are not questioning the idea of truth as much as they are questioning our ability, as human beings, to perfectly understand and communicate truth. Given our obvious fallibility, our walk should be one of humility.
• Many postmodern Christians are not rejecting the idea of absolute truth, but the spirit of absolutism they have seen and experienced within the church. They are reacting to those who want to believe that their understanding or interpretation of absolutely everything is absolutely correct.
• Many postmodern Christians are not trying to diminish the value of doctrinal distinctives or various Biblical interpretations, but are rejecting the "small tent" mentality that too often reveals itself in judgmental stone-throwing between different Christian camps and traditions. They are reacting to those who seem to reduce Christianity to nothing more than a set of propositions and those who elevate their own distinctives and opinions to the point that they become the definition of a "true Christian."

It seems to me that the "convictions embraced in humility" attitude that Thomas Oord speaks of will naturally create in us the "big tent" perspective expressed by Scott Daniels. Conversely, the "big tent" concept of "liberty in nonessentials," which is an integral part of our Wesleyan tradition, seems to resonate deeply with the concerns and ideals of many postmoderns in their search for truth. Perhaps being postmodern and Wesleyan is not all that far-fetched?

With that said, are there potential dangers related to the postmodern mindset? Have some gone to extremes, rejecting all truth and drifting into absolute relativism? Is there the danger of allowing the essentials of the faith to become lost or labeled as nonessential? Absolutely. Remember, though, that every age and movement has those who go to unhealthy extremes and the Church has always faced the danger of losing its essential identity when interacting in and with our world. Words of caution are necessary, but not new; the warnings were just as needed in the modern era as they will be in the postmodern era.

For me personally, I have come to see that many postmodern Christians are, at least to a degree, calling us back to something that is not only a part of our Wesleyan heritage, but the Biblical command to reveal Jesus in the way that we love one another. Love compels us to find unity in those things that are essential and to maintain fellowship despite the differences of opinion in the nonessentials. Love calls us to walk in humility, with an open and teachable spirit. This attitude seems to echo that of John Wesley in his sermon Catholic Spirit:

"But although a difference in opinions or modes of worship may prevent an entire external union, yet need it prevent our union in affection? Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. . .

And it is certain, so long as we know but in part, that all men will not see all things alike. It is an unavoidable consequence of the present weakness and shortness of human understanding, that several men will be of several minds in religion as well as in common life. So it has been from the beginning of the world, and so it will be till the restitution of all things. . .

I ask not, therefore, of him with whom I would unite in love, Are you of my church, of my congregation? Do you receive the same form of church government, and allow the same church officers, with me? Do you join in the same form of prayer wherein I worship God? I inquire not, Do you receive the supper of the Lord in the same posture and manner that I do? nor whether, in the administration of baptism, you agree with me in admitting sureties for the baptized, in the manner of administering it; or the age of those to whom it should be administered. Nay, I ask not of you (as clear as I am in my own mind), whether you allow baptism and the Lord's Supper at all. Let all these things stand by: we will talk of them, if need be, at a more convenient season, my only question at present is this, 'Is thine heart right, as my heart is with thy heart?'"

Amen.

Postmodern and Wesleyan? The Conversation Continued

In the first chapter of Postmodern and Wesleyan?, Jon Middendorf addresses the question of why we need to enter into this conversation. No doubt there are those who deem the conversation unnecessary and even others who would consider it dangerous. As Jon points out, though, the God we believe in is one of dynamic interaction, reaching out to creation, speaking and working in countless ways, and inviting response. Interaction, speaking, inviting response - sounds like a conversation, doesn't it? If we truly believe that God is actively working to redeem and restore that which He loves, then we must accept that, in some way and on some level, a divine conversation is happening. And those of us in the Wesleyan tradition, who hold to the idea of prevenient grace, or the "grace that goes before," believe that this conversation is taking place even beyond the walls of our churches and our circles of Christian fellowship.

As I listen to many Christians who would be labeled by some as "postmodern," what I hear is a genuine desire to become a part of this divine and redemptive conversation. Jon, in this chapter, expressed it well:

"Postmodern Christians have grown increasingly frustrated by the Church's lack of familiarity with and lack of desire to dialogue with the broader culture. In the spirit of our Wesleyan heritage, these postmodern believers hope that those outside of the church walls will be treated as something other than a threat or an enemy.

Many postmodern Christians have a deep desire to reenter neighborhoods, towns and cities as the people of God. This reentering is not done with a posture that would have us pointing fingers, however. It is a reentering in conversation, with a genuine interest in people and places all too often considered beyond our church walls and responsibility.

Perhaps postmodern Christians can return to an understanding of the phrase 'Holiness Tradition' that will release and reenergize them. For too long 'holiness' has been a kind of wall keeping us separated from a culture we have deemed inherently evil. But this understanding of holiness not only puts us in danger of losing touch with postmodern believers but also denies our part of what is distinctive about our Wesleyan heritage." (p. 21)

Perhaps I can take Jon's statement one step further: the understanding of holiness as isolation not only denies our Wesleyan heritage, but also denies the spirit and character of Jesus revealed in the Gospels. The Jesus we claim to follow was a friend to sinners, engaged in love with all those around him. Much to the dismay and horror of religious isolationists, Jesus shared a table and conversation with those considered unclean and unworthy. Why would we think that Jesus no longer wants to have those surprising conversations with unlikely people in unexpected places? For many postmodern Christians, there is the feeling that the Church has disconnected from what God is doing "out there" and they desire to reengage our world, becoming an active part of this divine conversation.

Some will argue that, in reality, this attempt to engage the world is causing the Church to become conformed to the culture of the world. Is there the temptation and danger of becoming absorbed into the culture to such a degree that we no longer reflect the radical alternative of life in God's kingdom? Certainly - but that is not a new danger that just cropped up with the onset of postmodernism. Every generation of the Church has faced that same issue, and there have been those in every generation that ended up being shaped more by the culture than redeeming the culture. How many Christians in the modern era, especially within our culture, have conformed to the priorities and values of materialism and consumerism? The followers of Jesus have always faced and will always face the challenge of being "in" the world but not "of" it, the task of engaging culture effectively and redemptively without abandoning the values of the kingdom. To use this as an excuse to isolate ourselves in fear, however, is a rejection of our call to become part of God's mission of reconciliation and restoration.

Words of caution are necessary and valuable as we engage the culture around us. We must constantly remember who we are in Christ, what He has called us to be, and what it means to embody the values of His kingdom. With that said, the example of Jesus clearly challenges us to enter into a Spirit-directed, loving, and redemptive conversation with our world. Setting ministry methods and particulars aside for a moment, it seems the followers of Christ can find plenty of room for common ground, and at the very least, we can appreciate and affirm the desire of all those who long to impact our world with His love, grace, and mercy.

Postmodern and Wesleyan?

I am currently making my way through the book Postmodern and Wesleyan? from our own Beacon Hill Press. The spirit and intent of the book and its various authors is to enter into a conversation about the life and mission of the Church in this postmodern context in which we find ourselves. I fully realize that the mere mention of "conversation" and "postmodern" in the same sentence will cause some to rejoice and will fill others with visions of the apocalypse. It is well stated in the book's introduction:

"Change is in the air. Many people sense something uncommonly different. The change they see and feel and imagine is more than simply whatever is supposedly new and improved. This change entails a radically different way of looking at life. The most common word to describe this change is 'postmodernism.'

To some, postmodernism is a dream becoming reality. To others, it's a nightmare they hope will soon end." (p. 15)

Despite the strong reactions, the conversation is a necessary one. This is the world in which we live, the world in which we are called to carry out God's mission. And all of us in this conversation must remember who and what we are called to be; neither blind acceptance or fearful isolation will enable us to live out the transforming mission of God's kingdom. Every world view is shaped by a variety of circumstances, events, and reactions, producing both good and bad. Modernism produced some good and beneficial qualities, but we must also admit that it bore some fruit that is not in line with kingdom values, such as consumerism and extreme individualism. Likewise, the postmodern reaction we find ourselves in has, and will have, a mixture of strengths and weaknesses, positives and pitfalls. To reject either in its entirety or to accept either uncritically will render us irrelevant and ineffective in our mission.

The call that rests on Jesus' followers continues to be the same, regardless of the culture and worldview that surrounds us: to live out the love, grace, and transforming power of God's kingdom in this present moment in such a way that we become a part of His ministry of reconciliation and restoration. To do so, we must understand and engage the world around us, effectively communicating this radical alternative we know as the life-giving way of Jesus.

Let the conversation begin.

The Overlooked Heresy

In some of my recent reading, I came across these words from Gregory Boyd:

"If love is above every other consideration, and if everything without love is devoid of Kingdom value, as the New Testament teaches, then it seems we should regard the command to love to be the ultimate test of orthodoxy. To fail to love like Jesus is the worst form of heresy, regardless of how true one's beliefs are." (The Myth of a Christian Religion, p. 60)

Pretty interesting thought.

You don't have to read too many of the "discernment" blogs and websites that crowd the internet to become convinced that there are a lot of folks in the church that are pretty fond of the words heresy and heretic. They seem to delight in dropping the "h" bomb on those with whom they disagree. Yet somehow, in the midst of their battle for truth as they see it, they excuse and justify the use of slander, insult, and distortion.

If you have been a part of a church for any length of time, you have come to realize that a lot of people have some very definite ideas on how church is supposed to be done. There's nothing wrong with that; if fact, it is a good and necessary part of the community of faith. Sometimes, though, it seems we can become so convinced that our way is the right way that we view every other opinion or approach to ministry as some sort of falling away. Matters of style, preference, or methodology can quickly become, in the minds of some, a battle for orthodoxy. And too often, that battlefield mentality leads us to rationalize and accept behavior that is divisive and destructive.

Jesus made it clear that the greatest commands are to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love others the way we want to be loved. God's kingdom is marked and shaped by love. To act in violation of love, then, is to act in opposition to His kingdom. Understanding that, could it be that the greatest heresy is one that is deeper than ideas or doctrine? Is it possible that the greatest of all heretics is the one who refuses to love?

Is there something to this line of thought, or am I just a heretic?

A Little Knowledge Can Be A Good Thing

Our youngest son had a rough time on the bus the other day. He came home frustrated and upset because another kid pushed him out of the seat and was calling him names. Naturally, our parental instincts kicked into high gear and we immediately went into defensive mode, wondering why such delinquents are not banished from our schools and what could be done to shelter our child from this future felon. Then my son said something that changed our whole perspective and tone of the conversation. He said, "The kid didn't used to be that way, but his mom died."

It's amazing how a little knowledge can unlock a wave of compassion and understanding.

As much as we want to make quick and simple judgments about everyone and everything, life in this world and the people around us are just too complex for that. We categorize, label, and define others by what we see, but we often do so without knowledge. In our admittedly correct observation that some behaviors are wrong and destructive, we lose all sense of grace and compassion for the person behind the action. In our defensiveness, we become blind to the hurt and brokenness that has shaped the one who offended us. Our casual and easy judgments deny our inability to truly know someones story, their pain, or their heart. At the same time, and what may be our greatest motivation, our careless condemnation of those around us masks our own brokenness, dysfunction, and desperate need for grace.

They say a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and we've all seen cases that seem to prove the point. But when it comes to the realm of passing judgment, it seems like a little knowledge can be a good thing. A little information changed my perception of a kid on the bus from an abusive punk to a hurt, grieving little boy in need of love and understanding. A little knowledge makes me aware once again that I don't have the knowledge necessary to be the judge of the world.