LIVING QUESTIONS IN COMMUNITY

I saw this title (Living Questions in Community) in a book I’m reading, though I haven’t read that chapter yet. But I know a bit what he’s getting at. One of my book clubs read a book called “Love Wins” by Rob Bell. It’s supposed to be a controversial book in Western Christian circles because the pastor questions the doctrine of hell or the dominant interpretation of it. His questions and his current understanding of the answers to those questions have upset a lot of people. He’s being called a universalist (which Universalist/Unitarians like), a blasphemer, a heretic, etc. So I’ve been watching somewhat, and yet completely fascinated.


What’s fascinating is not that he’s saying anything new (he’s not), but many of the people in Western Christianity aren’t exposed to the wide diversity of Christian thought and perspectives because only certain dominant ones are presented. Most people who see the entire spectrum are professors or seminarians, but not lay people. So what’s fascinating is that there is a man who wrote a set of books called “The Chronicles of Narnia.” He was a friend of J.R. Tolkien and his name is C. S. Lewis. Now C. S. Lewis is rather interesting to me because he is quoted by a lot of people in mainstream Christianity or who promote the dominant versions of it. Because of this, I was never eager to read him because I pretty much knew what he would say (I’ve read fiction works by him). So I decided to read him last year, and I was glad I did. He’s very different than I thought, and he thinks a lot of unconventional things, one among them is his understanding of hell. Lewis’s understanding of hell is very similar to Bell’s but Lewis never received (and doesn’t receive) a backlash like Bell received. That’s fascinating to me. It’s fascinating to me that people quote Lewis in some passages but ignore other parts of the same work or other works in which he may something quite controversial (to dominant forms of Western Christianity).

Now I don’t believe you can only quote someone if you agree with everything they said. That’s not a good policy. But I do think you should only quote someone if you agree with everything they said that is central to who they were and if the centrality of her message births the passage you’re quoting. Let me give an example. There have been a few conservative news commentators who have quoted Martin Luther King Jr. or have said they support his dream; however, at the same time they supported the war in Iraq. Now this is complete conjecture, but I’m going to make an educated conjecture. I think it’s quite fair to say that Martin Luther King Jr. would have opposed the war in Iraq giving his writings, his speeches, even his opposition to the Vietnam War. In fact, the strange thing about supporting part of his message (like the “Dream” speech) is that the dream speech is completely connected to his views about going to war in Vietnam, and I posit, Iraq, as well. Martin Luther King Jr. was a peace man, and he was a man who practiced the way of love. It was from that sensibility, and even more, that way of life that the “I have a dream” speech flowed and from that same understanding that I believe he would have opposed the war in Iraq (and probably Afghanistan).

So those occurrences in the news reminded me that I left out one characteristic about a church I would create or found. I want a place that understands how to live questions in community, a church with questions. I have thought about what that looks like. At first I thought it would be nice to have a board of judges who would review cases in which understandings of God would be challenged and that would make decisions on doctrinal amendments or clarifications (like the constitution; this process happens clumsily and inadvertently in religious groups like the Mormons). Such a board reminds me of the Supreme Court, but with the potential for abuse it reminded me of the Spanish Inquisition.

The main point is that some people have said that I am against institutions. That’s not true. I have worked to institutionalize good movements. That’s our hope. You start or join a social movement that seeks to create change to old institutions. Then one day the social movement is institutionalized and becomes the new institution. The new institution is celebrated because it is an improvement to the old institution. The new institution corrects the wrongs of the previous institution. But then what happens? Well, the new institution hasn’t arrived itself. But it thinks it has. So gradually it becomes more and more resistant to change, to the change that it initially institutionalized; thus, it becomes like the very institution it replaced, not in content but in how it manages the content, allows thought, and decides rules and doctrine. I wonder if you see what I’m saying.

I’m deathly afraid of this happening to me, that I grow up and run some organization or group that I started or that corrected or solved a problem in society. Then one day people in my organization want to make it better but I resist it and then I become the very person I used to fight against, but now, in a new generation. I saw this when I was a teacher at my innovative school, and I hated it. I hated that process, and I didn’t understand why it happens. I wonder if it has to do with the increasing distance that happens with institutionalization. One loses one’s “feet on the ground.” The ground perspective is always crucial.

So my dream is a system in which social movements become institutions that continue to meld and mold according to corrective social movements that show where the institution is lacking. Instead new institution after new institution, I want an ever-changing, never-complacent institution that continually births, promotes, educates, and questions itself through social movements and then answers, incorporates, and grows with those social movements birthing a new stage for a higher point of awareness and consciousness. That’s my hope.

Sometimes people think they you remain conservative is to cling to the message (the content) of the social movement that became institutionalized. In reality, to be conservative in the truest sense of the word (conserving the spirit of the institutionalized social movement) you must be willing to make the resulting institution better and respectfully question the new place you are at. In other words, you conserve the spirit of the movement; you remain faithful by betraying it, questioning it. It’s the fidelity of betrayal all over again. That’s my hope.

EMERGENCE

I didn’t mean to have a whole section on religion again, but it’s because someone had questions about me not being more expressive about friends who turn to atheism. Continuing with this understanding of the difference between God as God really is and God as I understand God, I’m reminding of this question of emergent thought. People always ask me “isn’t the emergent church a bunch of balderdash?” Normally, I would say it’s not a church; it doesn’t have a hierarchy or a denominational structure. It has no denominational manual to guide its actions. It doesn’t even have a set of written beliefs that instruct people on what to believe. No, it’s just a movement, I would say, of different voices. And if you criticize you must specifically criticize a specific person because they have different voices.

Well, I read the best analogy or actuality of what is emergent. It’s not a church or a denomination, but it’s also not a movement. It’s more properly called a conversation. I’m thankful for that reminder. It’s a conversation among disparate and disagreeing voices, but most importantly it’s a group of people who have felt comfortable enough to create a space in which people can struggle and wrestle with questions that don’t seem to be satisfyingly (intellectual, emotional, spiritual satisfaction) addressed by mainstream Christianity. But the voices themselves don’t agree. They offer up various interpretations and understandings. So when criticizing the group it’s important to criticize specific people since they don’t all believe the same points. But they are so willing to enter into conversation together, that you can find one person write a review on the first inside pages of a book of a person with whom he disagrees on some points.

I love this! In one way, it implicitly suggests there is something higher than belief or faith (and there is). They have found it and I want to experience and share in it; it’s called love. Secondly, it creates a place where, as I said before, it’s less about naming God and more about entering the space where God names you (experiential truth rather than descriptive truth).

Now most of these guys are obscure, some are academics (and academics always disagree and say crazy things. . . .well, sometimes). But I’m always quite curious when someone who is in the spotlight has the courage to ask a question and offer a different understanding contrary to mainstream belief. And that’s what happened with Love Wins. I normally don’t like to speak about controversial matters, especially when they don’t matter. But I know what it’s like to step out and put your neck out there for a cause, for family, for a friend, for a beloved one, for an enemy. And I know what it’s like to experience the onslaught of criticism and the silence of friends. So since I’m a friend of Bell, the author of Love Wins, I thought I would say how courageous he is and how I admire that.

Usually people consider Brian McLaren the “elder statesman” of the emerging conversation. But to be honest, there are many that have questions and thoughts though many would never say anything because they belong to orthodox churches or groups or lead them and it wouldn’t work. Some might lose their job or position. In the middle of all this is a pastor who has been steadily rising in visibility and influence (he has a widely popular video serious called Nooma used by all types of Christians). He normally writes suggesting stuff in the forms of hints or whispers. He doesn’t always write everything he thinks or push you all the way out of your comfort zone. So I used to read his books and wonder “I wonder if he’s holding back or thinks other things that are different than the mainstream.” I could give examples, but he has now written a book that questions the doctrine of hell. Remember people don’t like doctrine to be questioned. This is because doctrine is tied into belief. And for many people belief is central because it is identity forming. Belief determines who you are. Belief also determines where you go when you die. Not relationship, but belief. So it’s unsettling for a lot of people. And I wanted to say amidst the vast onslaught of negative criticism and silence of friends, that I admire Bell for asking the question and going there. I also admire Bell because he asks such questions not out of a sympathy for people who are not Christians or out of a desire to have a more convenient message. No, he asks because he’s actually seeking the truth. He studies hard and long and reads everything he can. He’s seminary-trained and he dives into the culture and context of the times. He’s coming with a fully armed knowledge base. No, it’s not soft, fluffy convenience. He’s rather trying to conform to the image of God he’s experienced in Jesus.

So let me end this section with the prompt for the book. Bell’s church recently had an art exhibition with artwork displayed around the church. One picture was a picture of Gandhi. Someone—no one knows who—decided to take a note and stick it under the painting of Gandhi. It read “News Flash: He’s in Hell!” Bell then asks “Really? Gandhi’s in Hell? And you know this for sure? And someone felt the need to share it with the rest of us?” Bell goes on to ask from where does the idea of hell come. How does it all work in the end? Is the central message of Jesus that God is going to send you to hell unless you are one of the select few who are saved from hell by Jesus? If that’s true, how are the select few chosen? Who decides who is in each group? And what happens to the rest of us?

It’s quite provocative and not new. The tough part of mainstream Christianity today is that there are plethora of diverse voices in the history of it, but many times we miss different understandings and interpretations because only one perspective maintains the dominant space in popular literature, movies, and sermons. That’s why it was so strange to see someone popular say something like that. But hey, as Bell would say don’t just accept what he says. Test it, prove it, wrestle with it, and probe it. “God has spoken. The rest is just commentary right?”