wes hargrove

wes hargrove

Wes Hargrove  //  a place where art, theology, and philosophy collide.

May 24 / 10:03pm

A New Kind of Christianity 1

I guess I've recently come to the realization that I'm not going to be in school for the foreseeable future, so I need to read a little more. Brian McLaren, though quite controversial among Evangelicals, has been one of my more favorite authors among the emerging church and the general pomo-christian culture. I read his book, 'A New Kind of Christian' way back shortly after it first came out and it was one of those books that really brought to life a lot of questions I had in my but didn't know how to put words to them. So, more or less, I owe Brian a great deal for what he's risked and explored in his journey as a pastor, an author, and a spokesperson for the emergent culture.

In a way, at least after reading the preface and the first section, A New Kind of Christianity  a re-telling of his earlier book 'A New Kind of Christian.' Where the latter is a pseudo-autobiographical version of a Christian's entrance into the postmodern consideration, the former is an elevated look at the same conversations. This time, however, the discussion takes place at 30,000 feet instead of ground level; Brian attempts a pulling away of the magnifying glass and starts talking about concepts, theories, and narratives.

Brian asserts that the Christian culture (around the world) is experiencing an identity crisis because it can no longer answer many questions that are relevant to people of newer generations. It is a crisis specifically because "paradigms and dogma remain profoundly vulnerable when anomalies are present. They can be undone by something as simple as a question—a question about the divine right of kings, the origin of species, the relation between matter and energy, how races can and should relate to one another, the motion of planets, and the standard operating procedures used by the church." What Brian is trying to point out here is the source of the identity crisis facing the church: questions. These questions are the framing of Brian's discussion in A New Kind of Christianity, and these questions will be the formative points on which the church will carry itself through to future generations. So what is the first question?

1. The narrative question: What is the overarching storyline of the Bible?

This question has fascinated many theologians for centuries, so he's definitely not claiming to be the first person to tackle the question of narrative, nor is what he's proposing never been proposed before (though the title of the book may suggest otherwise). He is proposing, however, that the way the story of the Bible has been told in recent history has contributed to a destructive narrative, one that is not genuine to the story of Jesus of Nazareth, and one that is increasingly turning off many people to religion in our world today.

Brian proposes that the Biblical narrative has been told through a Greco-Roman framework (more akin to Neo-Platonic/Aristotelian philosophies). Brian calls this reading the Bible backwards. We're looking at it from the perspective of a Greco-Roman framework which had no influence on the formation of the Hebrew scriptures. The most obvious evidence that this Greco-Roman framework has permeated our Christian narrative is that popular belief concedes 'Heaven' as a place 'above,' and 'Hell' as a place 'below.' These orientations are products of a cultural philosophy far separated from the culture and the message of Jesus. Anyways, back to narrative.

According to the Greco-Roman narrative, the narrative of the Bible flows through 6-lines. (1) A state of perfect creation, (2) a descent into condemnation, then the path forks: (3) some are ascend by salvation, (4) others fall further into eternal damnation, while those who were worthy enough for salvation enter into (6) a renewal of the former perfection. According to this narrative, not only does the Biblical narrative follow this route, but the whole of humanity (including that which is not included in the Bible flows along a similar arch).

Brian cites the problem of this story lies in its foundation: It is the Greco-Roman framework which assumes creation to be 'perfect.' When something is perfect, where can it go? If history is to progress, can something be perfect already in perfection? No. Perfection can only fall, therefore the natural progression for Creation is descent. This is precisely the problem of this 6-line narrative, creation was good--not perfect. In fact, perfection implies state. If something is perfect then it cannot (ideally) go anywhere. This is not the vision of creation told in Genesis 1-2. When we learn to read the Bible from the beginning (starting with Genesis, instead of looking back through history and theologians and doctrines). Rather we are faced with a God who creates a world teeming with brilliant life, a life that not only is blessed but also bursting forth with the creative potential. God implants his creative identity into the root of his creation. Creation is meant to move forward, which means that creation is released into the vast realm of possibility.

Starting with 'good,' instead of 'perfect,' effectively repositions the Biblical narrative as the beginning of a journey with a loving Creator and a foolish creation as companions. With the 'old' narrative, there was a Fallen narrative and a Rescued narrative. With creation beginning as 'good,' there is a Creation narrative (opening the world to possibility), a Liberation narrative (from foolishness), and a Reconciliation narrative (restoration of the World back to goodness). Genesis, combined with the story of Exodus, lays out those narratives. The journey of the Hebrew people, along with the story of God, follows along the path of liberation and reconciliation and foolishness. But Elohim, the God of the Hebrew people, remains ever present throughout their journey, never abandoning them. 

What I really like about this book so far are the questions that come up surrounding the current discourse. With a view of biblical narrative like the one Brian proposes in chapter one, I can't help but bring up questions about the identity of God, or how does one read the Bible? Indeed, as you may have guessed, these are questions that Brian tackles subsequently in the book. It seems to me, and maybe this is a premature assertion, that Brian is hashing out one of the few (and rare) theologies of the emerging church (it's been done before, but not in a way that really espouses the popular theology of the emerging conversation). This is an exciting prospect, as one of the many critiques against emerging discourse has been a lack of theological foundation (too much love and not enough definition). I'll leave it to you to decide whether or not theological discussion constitutes boundaries (which to many would be anti-emergent).

Stay tuned for part two of a ten-part series about A New Kind of Christianity.

Wes

Filed under  //  Bible   Brian McLaren   Creation   Emergent   Emerging   Narrative   New Kind of Christianity   Story   Theology  

Comments (8)

May 24 / 6:26pm

Restless Faith

"The raising of Christ is... God's contradiction of suffering and death... Faith, wherever it develops into hope, causes not rest, but unrest, not patience, but impatience. It does not calm the unquiet heart, but is itself this unquiet heart in man. Those who hope in Christ can no longer put up with reality as it is, but begin to suffer under it, to contradict it. Peace with God means... restlessness."

Jürgen Moltmann

Filed under  //  Faith   Moltmann   Theology   Uncertainty  

Comments (1)

Jan 14 / 12:58am

Nothing So Secular

There is nothing so secular that it cannot be sacred, and that is one of the deepest messages of the incarnation.

Madeleine L'Engle

Filed under  //  Quotes   Theology  

Comments (0)

Oct 25 / 2:24am

Bet

No Talmudic tracate has a page one; the book always begins, so to speak, on the second page. An old explanation of this practice has it that by starting on page two, by not learning page one first, you know from the beginning of your studies that you will never 'know it all.'

I had a conversation with a great friend the other day about creation and 'knowing' creation. I thought this sentence (or two) summed it up pretty well. You can't 'know it all.' You can't 'know' creation; there is an epistemological fracture between the moments of creation (vis-a-vis page 1) and what exists to us.

Wes

Filed under  //  Bible   Theology  

Comments (0)

Oct 20 / 4:35pm

Not

God is not weak

God is not powerful

God is not transcendent

God is not present

God is not ignorant

God is not caring

God is not hate

God is not love

God is not a lie

God is not truth

God is not unfair

God is not just

God is not reckless

God is not in control

God is not nothing

God is not real

Filed under  //  Philosophy   Theology  

Comments (1)

Sep 1 / 1:28pm

LeRon Shults on 'Reforming Emerging Church Ecclesiology'

Check out this podcast: Homebrewed Christianity with LeRon Shults on Reforming Emerging Church Ecclesiology.

I met LeRon about two years ago; he came to Westmont to talk about one of his current projects 'Transforming Compassion.' It turns out he's good friends with one of the professors that led my group through the Middle East this summer, so I've become more interested in his projects recently. It's great to see him dialoguing with the Emerging conversation, he can bring a lot of deep theology that we're in need of.

Wes

Filed under  //  Podcast   Theology  

Comments (0)

Jul 22 / 2:09am

Thoughts on Atonement

My friend at http://jridenour.wordpress.com has been blogging about atonement recently. The conversation has reminded me of my recent visit to the 'Dominus Flevit' church on the Mt. of Olives overlooking the city of Jerusalem. Dominus Flevit, in Latin, means 'Cry of the Lord.

"When He (Jesus) approached Jerusalem, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, 'If you had known in this day, even you, the things which make for peace! But now they have been hidden from your eyes. For the days will com upon you when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, and surround you and hem you in on every side, and they will level you to the ground and your children within you, and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.'" (Luke 19:41-44 NASB)

The picture above is a view looking towards the Old City of Jerusalem through the 'stained glass' window of the church. It's a beautiful window except there's no stained glass. That's because the designer of the church (Antonio Barluzzi) wanted the 'art' of the stained glass to be the city of Jerusalem itself. Luke 19 tells the story of Jesus walking from Bethany to Jerusalem (he would have walked over the Mt. of Olives down into the Kidron Valley and into the city from the East) and upon seeing the city broke down in tears. Maybe it was because of the beauty of the 2nd Temple (now the location of the Dome of the Rock, the golden-topped building you see in the above image)? Maybe he wept for Jerusalem because he knew she would be destroyed and because his people would be scattered through the nations because they did not 'heed' the coming of the son of Man? Maybe both?

Barluzzi designed the cross in the stain glass window to point to another church inside the Old City. At the tip of the cross there are two domes, these are the domes of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, originally built by decree of Emperor Constantine in the 4th century.

So what does the church of Jesus weeping have to do with the church where we remember his death? Was the death of Jesus the result of his own people 'not recognizing the time of their visitation?' (Some texts render the words: the coming of the Son of Man, or opportunity for salvation.) There's a million-dollar-word if I've ever seen one.

Salvation. Does Jesus' death have anything to do with salvation? Seems like this question would be a no-brainer to any student of religious studies, or really anyone who's ever gone through a semi-substantial catechumen or confirmation in the Church.

But maybe this is precisely the problem. It turns out there are many different ways to understand 'atonement.' (Atonement being the theological word for why we have salvation.) Jeremy gives a nice history lesson on the various themes atonement has taken on throughout church history, but his most recent comments on J. Denny Weaver's book 'The Nonviolent Atonement' have intrigued me. Jeremy points out the flaw of many atonement theories in that they only focus on the death/resurrection of Jesus as providing the catalyst for reconciliation with our Creator. Theology has been duly focused on the bloodshed of Jesus on the cross for centuries (the words 'What can wash away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus...' come to mind); has this focus been a misguided one? Is theology missing out on a complete facet of atonement by focusing solely on the cross?

With atonement's focus on a singular event in history (the death/resurrection, okay maybe two events) the church has relegated the moment of salvation to an abstract distant past moment that we are largely disconnected with. We are disconnected from these events which took place close to 2000 years ago in a far-away land called Israel. Chances are most of us associated images of the cross with either Mel Gibson's 'Passion of the Christ' or a random 300 year old painting by some Italian guy, or even (and to some more shocking) images of Abu Ghraib. The fact is that we speak so highly of this 'substantial' moment when in fact we are so utterly disconnected with its reality. What we are really connecting with is the euphoria we have associated with these mental images of the crucifix.

I understand the caution that many show when discussing the role of the cross in atonement and salvation. If the death/resurrection focus is detrimental then will we throw out their significance all together? If the cross is not needed then does such a denial compromise the 'faith' of the individual? I think these are appropriate questions and deserve equal attention along with the ones I've raised earlier. What does a cross oriented atonement theory give us? But simultaneously we must also ask ourselves what we lose when we focus on the cross? This I think is the true task of the theologian: what are we missing?

Continue following this conversation at http://jridenour.wordpress.com and here (http://weshargrove.com).
Filed under  //  Middle East   Photography   Theology  

Comments (3)

Jul 18 / 11:23am

The Intersection of Psychoanalysis, Philosophy, and Theology

My good friend Jeremy Ridenour just started a blog: http://jridenour.wordpress.com. He just (7 months ago) graduated from the University of Texas at Austin with a degree in Psychology and is moving on to grad school to pursue a doctorate in Psychology.

Anyways, He's another voice that has influenced me and continual pushes me to read more and to think seriously about theology and what it means (to myself, to others, and to the church). What he will write (as you can see in his 'Charting the Future Course') will undoubtedly be of great importance to theology and philosophy.

Filed under  //  Friends   Philosophy   Psychology   Theology  

Comments (1)

May 5 / 11:08am

Any Discussion...

The mission of Jesus is healing justice, [and] the ending of disease, dislocation, and oppression... if this is Jesus' vision, and atonement is one way of speaking of what God's redemptive work in the world is designed to accomplish, then the creation of a community where God's will is done is inherent to the meaning of atonement. Any discussion of atonement apart from discussion of the kingdom fails to do justice to the biblical framing of God's redemptive work in the world.

Scot McKnight, A Community Called Atonement

Filed under  //  Quotes   Theology  

Comments (0)

Apr 25 / 11:48am

The Singular Answer by Peter Rollins

Filed under  //  Theology   Youtube  

Comments (0)