faith

Faith-Works: What’s the differance?

April 24, 2013 by Stephen Keating 8 Comments

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— 9not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life. –Ephesians 2.8-9

For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead. –James 2.26

Ah, the old faith versus works debate. Paul vs. James: cage fight! Who wins?

To be honest, it has been a while since I have given this one any thought. Once you realize that the various documents of the Scriptures were written with/regards/to/from various communities with differing problems and emphases, making them all fit together exactly isn’t so important. And yet, what if this particular “problem” shouldn’t be?

In his new book Outlaw Justice: The Messianic Politics of Paul, Ted Jennings offers a fresh reading of Romans, bringing together insights from ancient political thinkers and contemporary philosophers. In the introduction, he explains some of the choices that he had to make in translating the text.

The reading of this text that I propose here breaks with this tradition of reading Paul. The reading begins by restoring terms like “law” and “justice” to their basic political significance. So dominant has the apolitical reading of Romans become that it will be necessary to introduce a number of unfamiliar translations into this reading. In part this is neces- sary to help the reader encounter a text with fresh eyes not blinkered by the tradition. A strategy of defamiliarizing is almost always necessary to allow a fresh encounter with the text. But in this case it is even more important if the text is to be liberated from its cloying confinement in the cult like enclave of traditional religious reading. Much of this is simple substitution warranted by the text itself: Judean rather than Jewish, messiah rather than Christ, justice rather than righteousness, fidelity or loyalty rather than faith, generosity or favor rather than grace, Joshua rather than Jesus, and so on.

So next time you’re reading your Bible, try translating “faith” as fidelity. It works!

Filed Under: bible stuff, books, engaging, latest, philosophy, politics, thinking Tagged With: Ephesians, faith, fidelity, james, outlaw justice, paul, Romans, ted jennings, works

Living Out Faith Loud (Day 15)

March 7, 2013 by Bo Sanders 12 Comments

I’m blogging my way through Neighbors and Wisemen for Lent. Today we read chpt. 15 where the author tells us a story about Dr. John Perkins’ visit to a packed Reed College auditorium.

For those of you who don’t have the book, here are some selections from the chapter to get you up to speed.

With his simple Southern accent, he set the stage of racial and economic injustice in America. He began with his childhood and walked the room through the essential and painful drama of the 1960s. He unapologetically insisted that the disparities of race and class remain today.

From there Dr. Perkins moved to his own thoughts on the very real plight of America’s disenfranchised and marginalized communities. He expressed how these populations have been systematically removed from the national consciousness, and affirmed the absolute need for a new generation, one fueled by compassion and a sacrificial life.

Tony was shocked at the amazing reception Dr. Perkins got from a student body that allegedly not only had no interest in Christianity but a real and serious dislike of all things Christian. Then he says:

“Reedies want the same thing that Jesus wants. They want authenticity, not hypocrisy. They want faith that leads to activism, not institutionalism. They want to believe in something not because it is redundantly preached but because it is sacrificially lived.”

Yesterday I mentioned Christianity’s territorial participation in the Culture Wars that developed in the 20th century. Whether you think I was too partisan or pessimistic in my assessment of the situation, what you can not get around is that there is a problem.

We have a problem.

More specifically, we have a problem with how we frame the cultural conflicts. When we use the militaristic language of “combat” we miss what may be really going on. As I said earlier this week, our language about combat not only influences how we interpret our experiences, it is actually creating those experiences at some level.

I’m going to say this again: while I do not like drawing lines and attempt to be generously orthodox, it seems to me that there is a kind of christianity that the world is fine to let us hold and actually finds quite intriguing. Dr. Perkins has that kind of faith. He even gets to use Jesus’ name without folks getting offended or upset.

There is however another type of Christianity that is not as well received. This other kind of Christianity, in many ways, is seen to make the world a worse place. I think that I know at least part of why that is the case.

Modern Enlightenment Christianity – an inheritance from Christendom and the Inquisitions – seeks to categorize, compartmentalize, then control the categories. It is forceful, muscular Christianity. Much more like the Romans in power than the type of power we see Jesus utilizing.

Think that I am over stating it? Look at Dr. Perkins. What if it came out that he did not have perfect theology? What if he held some views about social issues that did not meet the litmus test contemporary clashes? Would he be discounted? Marginalized? Attacked and discredited? I don’t think that there is any doubt.

Part of this comes from our categorization of ortho-doxy and ortho-praxy. We live in a climate when the former (right-belief) is far more scrutinized than the latter (right-action).

The seminary that Tony and I went to tries to correct this by adding another overlapping area called ortho-pathy (right feeling). This is a spiritual formation-discipleship emphasis.

That is a move in the right direction. What I fear is that we have become so ingrained with this rabid obsession with our form of orthodoxy that we not only neglect the other two but would discount someone like Dr. Perkins who’s life speaks so loudly about Jesus that his words do not have to.

Our contemporary spiritual climate is so inflamed with animosity, conscientiousness, adversarial approaches, combative critiques, and dismissive polemics that we become gun-shy about adopting the kind of faith that makes the world a better place and shines a welcome light in dark situations.

If you think that this world is full of spiritual poo and it is only a matter of time before Jesus steps back in with vengeance and flushes this world down the eternal drain … then any good we do now is no more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

In that case the only thing that really matters is right belief (orthodoxy) for which we will be judged …

Well, you know the rest. The us-them mentality becomes completely acceptable. The neglect of right-living (orthopraxy) and right-being (orthopathy) becomes justifiable.

I would simply say that Jesus’ story of the sheep and the goats seems to put far more concern on being judged by our right actions than any theological litmus test. So not only does God seemed more concerned about it, but the world what God loves seems more attracted by it.

I loved this story about John Perkins’ visit to the college. I am inspired at one level and completely discouraged at another.

Is it just me?
Am I overstating the scope of the problem?

Filed Under: conversations, latest Tagged With: Bible, book, books, Christianity, church, Culture, faith, George Fox, God, jesus, John M. Perkins, judge, justice, orthodoxy, orthopraxy, Portland, race, religion, Seminary, society, Tony Kriz, world

Day 13: Poetic Language About God

March 5, 2013 by Bo Sanders 10 Comments

I am constantly struck by the complications of talking about God and faith. In this chapter Tony tells an amazing tale about coming to a realization about how he thinks about his faith.

The words that we use are very powerful in forming our experience.

They not only help us interpret our religious experiences. They actual create those experiences at some level.

When Tony talks about his former view of faith, he uses phrases like:

“We must take the mountain, kill the giant, win the battle, defeat the enemy, fight for truth. This language had subtly convinced me that I was just a mercenary for God, nothing else.”

This language ends up failing him. It is one of those moments in life when you realize that the way you have conceptualized faith is no longer working for you.

There are just times when the framing story, the vocabulary or the metaphor fails you.

His friend asks him, “Was this something that came from God or was it you?”

Tony answers “Well, no, God did not ask me to be a mercenary. That is just where I ended up, a hired gun in the army of God.”

This is a devastating admission. It’s not that God didn’t call him. It’s not that he didn’t do some good. It’s not that the experience was completely hollow or B.S.

It’s just that he had reached the end of his metaphor.

Tony ends with a powerful re-frame of his approach:

“So, I decided to stay in the game. I tried to see each new opportunity through new eyes, free of violence, full of love. I looked for opportunities not to fight for God, but to walk with him. I began to believe that God was the one who was creatively tilling, planting, and harvesting all around me. The joy was to take his hand as he led me into his eternal play of love.

So, like a walk in the cool of the day, God led me to a new garden to explore.”

It is no mistake that Jesus used language about gardens, plants, birds, fields, and farms. Jesus just as easily could have talked about Roman wagons and battering rams. The thing is – that language matters.

When it comes to things of soul, language matters even more than usual. The way that conceptualize, frame and vocalize the

word pictures
metaphors
framing stories
analogies

truly impacts how we both interpret things that happen and participate in our community and journey.

I have never liked the military language about faith and life. I know that Paul used it. I just think that we have lost the irony of him using it since he was a part of the oppressed minority. Paul wasn’t armed.

Paul’s military analogies don’t sound the same after our Constantinian-Christendom-Crusade-Nationalist-Militaristic historic drift.

It would benefit us greatly to migrate away from military language (even the metaphors in the New Testament) and get back to fields and farms, birds and flowers.

Of course, there is a danger in even that! Since not many of us are connected to our food sources – we are in danger of using allusions and word pictures that we have not connection to.

What are we left with then? I would love it if we would humbly revisit and revise our religions language. The analogies we use, the word pictures and the metaphors are very powerful in not just how we interpret our experiences afterward but in how we participate with them in the moment.

Filed Under: conversations, latest Tagged With: army, birds, book, books, faith, farms, fields, flowers, God, jesus, Language, Military, plants, religion, Tony Kriz, words

Introduction: Loss and Lent

February 13, 2013 by Bo Sanders 14 Comments

As we begin this journey through Neighbors and Wisemen, I want to do two things by way of introduction. The first is to lay out my many points of contact with this book. The second is talk about why I think this is going to work as a Lenten journey.

I have may layers of overlap with this book. Tony and I are friends. We have eaten lunch together, slept in the same hotel room, sat by the river together and met at the pub on several occasions.

Tony is a big fan of place. So am I. More specifically, Tony’s place is his neighborhood in Portland. Portland holds a special place in my heart. I went to seminary there and am always scheming as to how I can get back there for a visit.

The Balkans play an important role in the stories of Nieghbors and Wisemen. The former Yugoslavia is a terribly messy and heartbreaking story. Tony’s connection to Albania and my connection to Bosnia will show up several times over the coming weeks. This war-torn region is amazing and unlike any other place I have ever been too. There is something special about the people that gets a hook in your heart and once you are snagged … it will pull at you at severely.

The last point of contact I will mention is that Tony and I share several friends. Randy Woodley is the person who first introduced us and several of the times that we have been together it has been with Randy and, of course, Richard Twiss – who passed away last weekend.

In fact, I am very aware as I write this that the last time I hung out with Tony was at Wild Goose West last Summer, it was in Richard’s tipi. Tony and I have been deeply influence by the work of Randy and Richard and brought into a larger community of First Nations and Native American believers. For that, my life and my faith are bigger and richer that I ever knew they could be.

Loss

The intro opens with a story of loss. He had lost his faith.

This story is what originally gave me the idea to go through this for Lent. Lent plays a significant role in the Christian calendar. It can be a time of solemn reflection, of preparation, of repentance and of sacrifice.

But what do you do when you didn’t willingly give up your faith? You didn’t mean to. You didn’t want to.

You lost it.

or it was taken from you.

At least … that is how it feels.

I have heard so many people – pastors and seminarians included – who have lost the kind of faith they once had.

It can be a gut wrenching, heart rending ordeal.

“A cadaver soul impacts everything. It makes faith impossible. It makes prayer impossible. But that is only the beginning.”

As we begin the journey together I want to ask a couple of very simple question.

What have you lost?

Where did you lose it?

The reason that I ask it like that is because I have theory.

What if it isn’t the worst thing to lose one’s faith? I’m not talking about losing it all together – which is what it feels like at the time. I’m talking about circling around in order to revisit, renovate and maybe even reclaim some kind of faith.

What if we are supposed to lose our faith? What if that is just part of the growing pains? Like a butterfly coming out of cocoon or a snake shedding it’s husk skin …

What if what we are losing isn’t our faith – not our true faith – but our ability to hold it that way. What if maturing is coming to hold our faith differently – not so tightly, not so confidently.

It wouldn’t mean losing everything you once held so dear, it would mean having faith in different way than you used to.

I will offer up a personal example in closing: I can’t say “God told me” anymore.

I still pray. I still feel the spirit move. I still get inspirations. But I can’t say that phrase any more. There is just something about the posture one has to be in to say that phrase that I have lost. I have lost the ability to say “God told me”.

When I hear it, it rubs me the wrong way. I know what people are trying to say when they use that phrase. But I have lost the ability to say it like that.
It haunts me, because I used to say it a lot and now – where it used to be on the workbench – sits an empty space that I am all too aware of.

I haven’t lost my faith. I have lost the ability to hold my faith like that anymore.

What about you?

Filed Under: conversations, latest, living Tagged With: Albania, Balkans, Bible, book, books, Bosnia, faith, God, jesus, Lent, loss, Mission, Spirit, Tony Kriz

The Economy, Election, Ayn Rand-Ryan-Romney, Occupy, & More from Joerg Rieger [podcast 171]

October 29, 2012 by Tripp Fuller 5 Comments

47% of you will not like this podcast… but 99% of the angels started dancing when they heard that Joerg Rieger was coming back on the podcast! Joerg’s last visit has remained one of the most popular episodes & this return visit will not disappoint. Rieger and I had a monster of a conversation. We discuss the election, the economy, the gaffs, Ayn Rand, and all that is being left of the table of our political discourse when it comes to economic justice. Then we move on to a bunch of the HBC Deacons’ questions.

Rieger is the Wendland-Cook Endowed Professor of Constructive Theology at Perkins School of Theology (SMU), prolific author, regular speaker, motorcycle enthusiast, and just plain awesome dude. In the podcast we discuss the relationship of politics, power, the economy, and our present crisis from a theological and biblical perspective. We move from the abstract to the practical and along the way I hope it’s clear we both had a good bit of fun.

*** Come see Rieger, Philip Clayton, Rita Brock, & more at the American Academy of Religion this year in Chicago. Homebrewed Christianity is sponsoring a session: Occupy the Church: Church Theology for the 99 Percent. It will be on Monday November 19 from 7:00 PM to 9:00 PM in the Conference Room 4A at the Hilton Chicago Hotel. The details will be posted soon.***

Rieger is author of many books including:

Occupy Religion: Theology of the Multitude **[This Book Currently Blowing My Mind Nightly]**

No Rising Tide: Theology, Economics, and the Future (Kindle $9.99)

Christ & Empire: From Paul to Postcolonial Times

and Globalization and Theology ($8.80 Kindle, $9.80 paperback)

Check out his amazing website for great resources!

* SUPPORT the podcast by just getting anything on AMAZON through THIS LINK or you can get some Homespun Craftianity. We really appreciate your assistance in covering all the hosting fees which went up 30 bucks a month due to the growing Deaconate!

Protect Your Table. Buy a Coaster.

One Click to the Homebrewed Hotline!

Standard Podcast [ 1:24:07 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Filed Under: features, podcast Tagged With: ayn rand, Ayn Rand-Ryan-Romney, church, economy, election, faith, joerg rieger, multitude, Occupy, paul ryan, politics, religion, rieger, Romney, ryan, social justice, The Economy, theology

Mormons in America, the White House & on Evangelical Radio with Jana Riess [podcast 170]

October 17, 2012 by Tripp Fuller 5 Comments

What would a PhD in American Religious History who converted to Christianity as a teen and then to Mormonism while at Princeton Seminary have to say about Romney’s run for the White House? Well guess what? Jana Riess is here to chat about it.

We discuss much more than the election including a number of rumors I picked up off evangelical talk radio, bits of Mormon history, and the faith’s changing relationship to America and Christianity. Buckle Up!

Jana is the author, co-author, or editor of nine books, including Flunking Sainthood: A Year of Breaking the Sabbath, Forgetting to Pray, and Still Loving My Neighbor; What Would Buffy Do? The Vampire Slayer as a Spiritual Guide; Mormonism for Dummies; and The Writer’s Market Guide to Getting Published. Jana is an awesome blogger for Religion News Service.

*YOU MUST FOLLOW JANA ON TWITTER*

For more Mormon-casting check our the Culture Cast’s “I Love Mormons” episode and the Theology Nerd Throwdown where Bo and I chat about Jana’s last challenge to me.
* SUPPORT the podcast by just getting anything on AMAZON through THIS LINK or you can get some Homespun Craftianity. We really appreciate your assistance in covering all the hosting fees which went up 30 bucks a month due to the growing Deaconate!

Protect Your Table. Buy a Coaster.

One Click to the Homebrewed Hotline!

This podcast is sponsored by Deacon Ken Alton who dropped the HBC a donation via PayPal! Mucho appreciated!

Thursday Night – October 25th – 7pm – Monkish Brewing Company

Come on out for a live mutinous podcasting experiment. Join Captain Brewin, Peg-Legged Pete, & Barry the Skull Keeper for some philosophical swash-buckling & fresh brewed pints at the Monkish Brewing Co.

Kester Brewin is bringing the good news of pirate inspired mutiny to the USA. We shall be seeking the wisdom of Blackbeard, Luke Skywalker, Peter Pan and Odysseus and other eye-patched heroines as we reflect on personal development, art, economics and faith. If hearing from Kester about his newest book Mutiny! wasn’t enough… he’s bring two fellow philosophical swashbucklers, Peter Rollins & Barry Taylor, who shall assist him in over-throwing the intellectual & cultural scurvy.

Get your Mutiny! tickets here. They are $15 in advance and $20 at the door.

Those in attendance are encouraged to come in Pirate gear. Should you NOT come with at least an eye patch you will be publicly shamed into purchasing Tripp an additional pint and yell ‘Arr’ with gusto.

Jan Reiss and Mormonism [ 1:36:48 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Filed Under: features, podcast Tagged With: America, cult, election, evangelical, faith, jana riess, joseph smith, lds, mitt, mormon, myths, politics, president, religion, Romney

I Could Not Be Less Reductive: Love, Sex and Faith

September 10, 2012 by Bo Sanders 9 Comments

It has become quite clear over the past several years that the source of many arguments in my life and in our culture ordinate with a desire to reduce things down to their simplest components or lowest common denominator. Over the past decade I have really embraced a complexity model of things. I can illustrate it with two examples:

The foundational thinking of Josh McDowell and Ravi Zacharias – the apologetics school I had been groomed in – began to ring hollow in a number of areas. Through that process, I came to see the advantage of conceptualizing reality as a web, anchored in several locations, rather than a building resting on one key foundation.

The foundationalist approach is scary in a shifting culture. What used to seem rock solid is in danger of falling like a house of cards if even one element is moved or compromised.

I moved from a magical ex nihilo understanding of 6 day creation (it was not the theologically sophisticated one you might be familiar with) but could not buy the cold darwinian evolution that had been so demonized in my camps. Turns out that both a fairly reductive. It wasn’t until I discovered emergence thought and the interplay of elements that I was able to move beyond the simple either-or option of creation vs. evolution.

This move away from the reductive becomes important in three key conversations: love, sex, and faith.

Love - when I talk with other youth pastors or teens from other youth groups, I am frequently surprised with just how often a reductive approach is taken on the topic love. “Is love an action or an emotion?” Sometime a third option will be given: “or a decision”.

Its not that the answer to the question is that consequential. That is easy enough to deal with. It is the thinking behind the question that is so dangerous! Of course love is an action, it comes with feelings and creates more feelings and we make decisions about that at every step along the way. Its easy enough to side step the either/or trap … what concerns me is why something as grand and essential complex as love has to be reduced down to a single element? What is the driving influence there? It is bigger than just getting christian teens to not ‘give into their emotions’ or to show their love for God and the world by putting it into ‘action’ whether they feel like it or not. There is something else behind that reductive move.

Sex - I am truly shocked by how often a reductive maneuver is employed by those who are a little more conservative than me when the topic of sex comes up. “While sex may be pleasurable – in the end, it is primarily about procreation” my debate partner will say. “In fact, God probably made it pleasurable so that we would want to do it more.”

I object to this live of reasoning strenuously! Sex is about a whole myriad of things.

Our sexuality is about pleasure, connection, expression, intimacy, power, procreation and drive. It certainly is not about just one thing.

Look, I know a heterosexual couple that can’t procreate. They have a very healthy sex life. I know another couple who did procreate (twice) and are finding that it is significantly impeding their sex life.

Sex in the 21st century is not just or even primarily about procreation. Even heterosexual couples who can procreate have sex that does not result in pregnancy.

Faith - I have heard voices as disparate as Slavo Zizek and Martin Luther pull a reductive move when it comes to faith. Zizek has said on more than one occasion that he would like to see good deeds done for no other reason than that they the right thing to do – good on their own merit – and not because the one who does it gets anything out (like an altruistic sense of satisfaction) or believes that she will be rewarded for it in the next life. This reminds of Luther’s early wrestling with loving God (If I only love God for saving me then I have loved God for the wrong reason and it is not love worthy of God … etc.)

I don’t get this at all! It seems to me that whether you believe in a God (I do) or whether you subscribe to a social construction theory of morality (that as social mammals it benefits us to benefit others in a series of non-zero and reciprocal relationships) that both are best understood as essentially complex webs of meaning and relationship.

Let’s take the God road for a minute. If there is a God who wants me to do good things, then it stands to reason that I may be made in such a way that I both enjoy doing that good and benefit from it. That does not take away from the goodness itself, it is just distributed to several factors of befit. Why is it only truly a good deed if I get nothing – not even satisfaction – out of it. Even if I do something anonymously for which there can be no reciprocal or social benefit, I’m not allowed that simple satisfaction of knowing I did something good? So the only truly good deed is done with emotional distance and internal steel? That is bogus! It seems to me that even without God in the equation, that reductive move is limiting and harmful, even self-defeating.

A far better approach would be embrace the social locatedness of human existence and to recognize the collective pot of goodness to which we both benefit from and contribute to. A pot of common-wealth that is both relational and substantial that has made us who we are – we have been molded, shaped and groomed by it – and to which we participate that can benefit others as well as be rewarding for us.

Doing good is complex and it is essentially complicated. We don’t need to break that down and diagnose it as much as we need to embrace it and pour ourselves into it.

In the end, I see this impulse toward the reductive to be not only limiting to thought but detrimental to joy. I think we are missing out by not embracing the multifaceted and layered complexity of love, sex and faith.

-Bo Sanders

Filed Under: engaging, latest, living, thinking Tagged With: apologetics, Bible, book, books, creation, evolution, faith, God, jesus, joy, love, Luther, sex, zizek

Game Changer! or how emergents are different than fundamentalists

August 20, 2012 by Bo Sanders 17 Comments

In chapter 7 of Predicament of Belief, Philip Clayton introduces a 6 tiered scale of epistemic certainty. Things that are nearly universally agreed upon (by the ‘community of experts’) are at a level 1. Issues like ‘Ultimate Reality’ that can not be verified but can deduced in relative certainty are at a level 2. Matters of specific religions might be a level 3. Issues particular to branches within a religion would be level 4.

Clayton has pointed out in his podcast appearances how important this type of scale is. In decades past, there seemed to be a collective ability to recognize nuance and to acknowledge differentiation between ‘core’ and ‘peripheral’ matters.

In the current climate of polarized animosity, we seem to have lost the ability to distinguish. Now everything is core.

The other way to say it is that instead of ranking issues in importance on a scale of 1-10 or holding to beliefs and theories at different levels of epistemic certainty, now everything is held at level 10.

Merold Westphal said the same type of thing in his podcast visit. Belief in the resurrection should not be held at the same level theories about the rapture (for instance).

The Reformers made an important distinction about matters of adiaphora and those essential to faith. Centuries later, I think we should at least start but reclaiming that distinction (at a minimum) and probably need to adopt something similar to Clayton’s scale to reflect the complexity of religious and inter-religious issues.

I was explaining this epistemic certainty thing to a friend a while ago. I said that I held Clayton’s real presence resurrection at like a 7 or 8 (out of 10). Process at a 8 or 9. Linbeck’s post-liberalism at a 5 or 6. Pannenberg’s eschatology at a 3 or 4. The virgin birth at like a 1. That the virgin birth provides a literary function in Matthew and Luke I hold at a 9 or 10.

My friend was shocked. He said “You are not a 10 on everything? I assumed that you held everything at a 10. When I knew you as an Evangelist, you sounded certain of everything. I just assumed that you were equally certain now.”

Now, he can be forgiven at several levels.

We are both from a background where everything is a 10 and if you believe it, it is core. Nuance is not a part of the game.
My voice is mostly the same as it was 10 years ago, so unless I specifically clarify or qualify the statement – it probably sounds identical.
If you haven’t read Predicament of Belief or been exposed to a sliding scale of epistemic certainty or something similar … you may just assume matters of faith are held at a 10.

This, to me is the second biggest difference between say an emergent type and a fundamentalist. The first is willingness to engage scholarship and advancements in science. The second is this ability to distinguish appropriate levels of certainty about things.

I think that it would be fun to add to all my future blogs an EC rating – “epistemic certainty” on a scale of 1-10. That way if I was talking about eschatology, folks would know to read it at a 2 (for instance). When we talk about Jesus walking on the water – a 4. The dipolar nature of the Process God – a 7.

This is a game-changer for many. As I get to talk to more and more people are migrating, emerging, adapting, and awakening to the multiplicity of possibilities within Christian theology, just knowing that not everything needs to be held at a 10 is freeing and energizing.

* I would go back and retrofit my recent posts with an EC rating – but my posts on pluralism and homosexuality have already caused such a stir, I would hate to mess with folk’s heads at this point.

Filed Under: engaging, latest, living, thinking Tagged With: adiaphora, Bible, book, books, Certainty, church, Clayton, faith, God, history, jesus, reformers, religion, virgin birth, Westphal

The Problem: with Peter Rollins

August 1, 2012 by Bo Sanders 18 Comments

I love Peter Rollins. I have even stuck up for him on several occasions (I like both Peter Rollins).

In fact, there is no author I am more prone to give my nieces and nephews than Peter Rollins. I am a fan and a promoter.

That is why I’m always to intrigued by those who feel the need to criticize, critique and call into question the motives and message of the young Irish poet-philosopher. Here is what I have begun to say:

Its not that there is a problem WITH Peter Rollins. However, there IS a problem and we need to address it with what Peter Rollins provides.

Let me attempt to clear up a couple of critiques that I hear about Pete Rollins – they seem to center on the fact that he is one step ahead of most folks … and that makes it seem like he is up to something.

He’s just trying to sell books: He is an author. He is trying to sell books. But do you think that this little slice of the christian publishing industry that he would appeal to is lucrative? There is far more money to be made outside the faith for a guy this smart and likable. He is a friend of the church and he helps people’s faith. Keep in mind that he speaks at churches! If he wanted to use his considerable smarts to simply sell books – this would not what he wrote about.

He’s importing Post-Modern stuff into the church: in the book ‘The Postmodern God’, Graham Ward was explaining his inclusion of a certain author by outlining the sensibilities that overlapped in four areas:

an inescapable recognition of the linguistic role in formation of thought and experience
overturning of traditional hierarchies
shattering of meta-narratives
concern with otherness

These four things seem to me to be vital areas for people of faith and the church to engage in for the 21st century. Pete is not pulling the wool over people’s eyes with this post-modern stuff: he is asking them to consider that they may have pulled the wool over their eyes in some way. That is not being tricky – that is being the best kind of mischievous.

People just like his Accent/Stories/Language: Yes he has a beautiful Irish lilt. Yes he tells amazing stories. Yes he is very engaging. But if you think that this is a personality-package-presentation thing, I am afraid that you are missing the radical nature of his content. Certainly the presentation doesn’t hurt anything – as a delivery system. The drug, however, is potent and I don’t want to confuse the content because of the form.

Here what Rollins bring to the table (as I said yesterday):

Part of what I love about Rollins’ project is that he helps expose the invisible or unstated second sentence so that we, as communities of faith, are not assuming something that should not be assumed – and then allowing us to state it appropriately so that everyone is on the same page and it is not invisible or hidden.

Admittedly, the danger is that it might take some of the magic out of it. I acknowledge that. The tradeoff, however, is that we can be honest about what is really going on and move forward A) together and B) with integrity. I think that the tradeoff is worth the risk even if we do lose some of the magic.

Now, having said all of that – I DO think that there is a problem with Peter Rollins, but it has nothing to do with any of those things.

My problem with Peter Rollins has to do with the medium and message. I think that he is all too right all too much of the time when he critiques TV preachers, evangelists and celebrities. I had an epiphany the other night as a I was standing there watching him watching him talk.
We were in the building where I work, which is getting ready to launch a new gathering this Fall (called the loft). Part of the Bass-Rollins event was to help our folks catch the vision and see the need for such an endeavor. The whole things is being conceived of a conversation: the way the room is designed, the staffing, the facilitation, etc.
So when I was listening to Pete the other night make some astoundingly insightful points about televangelist and revival preachers I realized the importance of the medium and the message. Here was one guy, standing up front, we were all facing him and listening to him – and he was a little bit smarter/further ahead than we were. It’s still the problem of the one person at the front of the room with all the ideas/answers.
Now, that is not Pete’s fault. He is utilizing the medium to get out the message. But it did convict me that the architecture, furniture, and facilitation need to be different so that the medium matches the message if what I am concerned about is community and authenticity.

In the end, I am grateful for Rollins. I appreciate what he brings to the table. I admire his project and think that we need it even more than we know – which is kind of his point.

Filed Under: engaging, latest, living, thinking Tagged With: a/theist, accent, atheism, book, books, church, expose, faith, God, Irish, peter rollins, philosophy, postmodern, problem, talk

That damned Second Sentence

July 31, 2012 by Bo Sanders 6 Comments

I have always been suspicious of that second sentence. Usually it is the obvious second sentence that is preceded by the unstated first sentence.

“We hold these truth to be self-evident” is a great second sentence. The problem is that it is often put forward as a first sentence. People just start with “We hold these truths to be self-evident… that all men are created equal.” It is a wonderful sentence. The problem is that there is something unstated that goes before it. The first sentence there is “After we killed the original inhabitants, stole their land and imported free labor from Africa …. We hold these truths to be self evident…”

So often what appears to be a first sentence is really a second sentence and the first sentence goes unstated.

Last week Peter Rollins showed up in LA and talked about why ‘Its not the size of the wand that matters … its the magic that is in it.’ In that talk he pointed out the danger of of a different kind: not understanding the (assumed) second sentence. This is particularly relevant to fundamentalist thinking.

The sentence is ‘We trust God’. The implied second sentence is ‘but we still lock up the church building when we leave and arm the security system.’

Or ‘I trust God’. The second implied sentence is ‘still lock your car doors’.

‘I pray for the headache to go away’ is followed by the implied ‘I take the aspirin to help’

Rollins says (around minute 26) that what is tragic is when somebody believes the first sentence too much and doesn’t pick up on the implied second sentence. Like when a child is sick and the community prays for them to be healed, the dad takes the kid home and doesn’t take them to the hospital or give them medicine and the kid dies.

People are always shocked and horrified that the parent took it too far. Yes, we pray for healing. Yes, we have faith. The implied second sentence is that we also partner with modern medicine – and I would add – even thanking God for the advances is technology and unlocking the potential (often of plants) for medicines.

The tragedy is when someone doesn’t pick up on the implied second sentence and takes the first sentence way too seriously. It’s that damned second sentence that will get you in trouble.

Part of what I love about Rollins’ project is that he helps expose the invisible or unstated second sentence so that we, as communities of faith, are not assuming something that should not be assumed and then stating it appropriately so that everyone is on the same page and it is not invisible or hidden.

Admittedly, the danger is that it might take some of the magic out of it. I acknowledge that. The tradeoff, however, is that we can be honest about what is really going on and move forward A) together and B) with integrity. I think that the tradeoff is worth the risk even if we do lose some of the magic.

- Bo Sanders

Filed Under: engaging, latest, thinking Tagged With: book, books, church, faith, God, healing, invisible, jesus, magic, medicine, peter rollins, prayer, thinking

Claremont School of Theology