Christian Faith and Culture
As I’ve reflected on the “labyrinth” discussion and the material I’ve seen from groups like Lighthouse Trails a few things have really stuck out to me.
1. The belief that there is a strictly “biblical” way to do things. I’ve attended churches that say they are biblical - but I see nothing biblical about using auditorium seating, projectors, theatre lights, pews, hymnals, organs, etc. As I see it there is no such thing as a “biblical Christianity” because the Christian faith always comes embedded into a culture - including our own. Even people who are from a Reformed Presbyterian background who practice the regulative approach to worship (in other words doing nothing in worship that isn’t specifically mentioned in the bible) still have a cultural expression of the Christian faith by the means of the very language that is used in worship. Even our bibles that we buy are come wrapped into a culture - they’re printed in English and marketed to us like any other product. Christians don’t learn to speak Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek - we translate the bible into our own languages and we write songs that reflect our culture. Hence, we are forced to adopt cultural tools and symbols in our practice of worship. Remember that once upon a time the organ was a popular bar instrument that was then used by the churches because that was the popular music of the day. There is nothing wrong with adopting cultural symbols - it’s how things have been done for thousands of years. Most of the Old Testament treaties appear in a form common to the cultures of the time, Jesus entered into cultural debates of his time, and Paul’s form of arguments are similar in style to other authors in in the Greco-Roman world at the time. To try and be “culture free” is senseless and impossible. What the emerging conversation has helped me to realize is not how awful culture is, but the embedding nature of the faith and the recognition that our churches embrace cultural norms for communication, etc.
2. That being said, the issue of using “eastern” methods of spirituality seems to have gotten a lot of heat lately, and I don’t understand why. It’s true that the labyrinth doesn’t have a specifically Chrisitan past - but why should that stop us? We use many things that don’t have a specifically Christian past. Ask anyone who has attended seminary that you’ll find that pastors are given a basic introduction to psychology. After all, Pastors work with people and it’s helpful to know how people tick. Pastors and Christian Educators are also introduced to the work of educational psychologists, whose work isn’t exclusively Christian. The methods we’re taught are helpful in fulfilling our callings. If the labyrinth (and other meditative practices) can be an effective tool in Christian faith formation, why not use it? We’ve adopted cultural tools for years and made them tools in our ministries. (Just look at your church and count the number of TVs)
3. We only need the bible. This is perhaps the most naive claim out there, because what is really being said is “we only need my interpretation of the bible”. My view is no one reads just the bible - we read it through our own eyes and from our own social location. In fact, to say that there is only one correct interpretation of the bible actually de-values and disempowers the scriptures within a given community. The power of the bible comes not from its intrinsic value but rather from the power of the Holy Spirit speaking through them. To argue that how we interpret the bible yesterday is the same way we must interpret it today and tomorrow simply closes our minds to what God might be saying to us down the road. The bible is not the end, but the means to the end (and in case you think I’m being un-reformed and heretical, see Calvin and Barth on scripture and you’ll find a very similar understanding in both authors). The bible is a tool and should be used like one rather than a user manual that you read once and put away.
That’s my three cents. Thoughts?
Comment by Steve Clark on 13 March 2007:
Brian,
Your comments are very helpful and insightful. I’d give you a whole nickel for them.
Of course, I would say that, since I agree with all that you’ve said. But you remind me of the “behind the scenes” issues that are almost always at work whenever a sense of panic and alarm sets it. Which reminds me to be aware of what’s behind the scenes in my own mind and heart whenever I feel threatened or afraid.
Peace,
Steve Clark
Comment by Neal Locke on 13 March 2007:
Well said, Brian. You capture succinctly in one post what I’ve been trying to dance around in my last twenty comments. Not to mention a core precept (if there are such things as “core” and “precept”) at the heart of the emergent conversation.
The “biblical” (or bible-based) buzzword seems to be a holy requirement of church doctrinal statements in my area (Texas). A lot of people use it as a litmus test — though for some of us, it’s more of an indicator of a church’s conservative politics than of any particular value the church places in the diligent study of scripture.
Comment by bobpearson on 13 March 2007:
This raises the most common question I get when I attempt to discuss the emerging church movement/conversation with others. That question is “But what holds it all together, what are the core values, tenets, assumptions ground rules, etc.”.
It shows a concern for the spirit driven, personal value viewpoint and multiple truths perspective that is at the heart of the emerging dialog by those who have relied on firm doctrine in the church in the past. What they want are our core, un changiing beliefs written down, but that is not in the spirit of emerging dialog. So what to do?
I recently attended a lecture by FR. Richard Rohr, who postulated six levels of human consciousness, informational, knowledge, intelligent, understanding, wisdom and transformational. Perhaps we are engaged in a dialog with many different people who are at different stages of their evolution as humans and Christians. I postulate taht the emerging dialog is being led by people who have made intuitive leaps, a the three “upper” levels of conciousness. Many people who are critiquing our experimantation have not made that leap yet. This might account for the wide variety of reactions to things like labyrinths, eastern styles of meditation, lectio divino, art, etc. being explored in emerging worships and faith formation.
We may need to develop a set of processes to walk people from where they are to where the emerging church is moving. Many of us already in the dialog have made some intuitive leaps that appear dangerous or heretical to others of sound faith. Perhaps we need to do more in building bridges over the chasms we have recently leaped, as we explore the new lands in which we find ourselves.
Bob Pearson
Bend, OR
Comment by Neal Locke on 13 March 2007:
In response (and agreement) to Bob:
The emerging church needs a wiki.
Comment by Tom Robinson on 13 March 2007:
This has all been a confirmation about where I stand on the labyrinth thing (I’m still scratching my head trying to figure out what the problem with the labyrinth is). One thing that Bob mentioned got me to thinking about something Peter Steinke has shared with us - that our human brains operate on, basicaly, three levels of thinking. The basic, surface area is the reptillian brain; it is seeking survivial and reacts quickly to threat. The second, mammalian (sp?) operates our level of play. But it is the third and the deeper level of thinking, in the neocortex, that we need to tap into. This is the level in which we consider more deeply the issues around us and get away from flailing out at anything that we determine to be a threat.
It’s easy to go into reactive mode (reptillian) rather than to think deeply. That may be why it is so important for us to do that in the church.
Comment by Jason Burns on 13 March 2007:
Brian–interesting thoughts. I have a question on point three. How do you take what you said about each community applying the Word to their specific cultural situation (which I would agree with) and yet not let that slip into everyone gets to make the Bible into what they want to. This is the sort of argument I seem to regularly hear from people that I believe are just trying to find a nice sounding theology to disobey the Bible and do whatever they like.
Bob–You may want to be careful about your six levels of consciousness theory. Being only pseudo-emergent, I don’t like to think of myself as thinking only on lower levels and the reason I don’t agree with all things emergent is because I have yet to take the leap to upper levels of consciousness. May I suggest the bridge to convince others is to understand them first and make your appeals in ways that are cultural sensitive to where they are coming from, which will likely involved detailed theological arguments from the Bible. While this sort of discussion may not be what many emergents like, it is the meat and potatoes of modern Christianity. The gospel calls us to enter the cultural of the “other”, which I understand the emergent church is all about, even if that culture is the old modernism.
Comment by George Love on 14 March 2007:
Jason Burns writes, “The gospel calls us to enter the cultural of the “other”, which I understand the emergent church is all about, even if that culture is the old modernism.”
Thanks for this bit of reasoning. I like it. It’s making my head hurt a bit, but in a good way. So let’s see, the new kind of Christian having viewed the new world that we are entering into and having learned new ways of communicating and expressing their faith must also relearn the language that they must leave behind in order to continue to engage the world that is almost over with so that they may invite others to do likewise. Just being playful. I really do find the idea fascinating.
Comment by Jan Edmiston on 14 March 2007:
Good post. So much to say.
I agree with Rob Bell who wrote that we who follow Jesus can claim “non-Christian things” in the name of Christ. Heard Matthew Polly on radio today talking about his years as a Shaolin disciple and as he was speaking, he clearly made some Christian references too. Why not claim Shaolin practices, Muslim practices (no debt), etc. if they contribute positively to our attempts to follow Jesus?
Comment by Brian Wallace on 15 March 2007:
Jason writes: How do you take what you said about each community applying the Word to their specific cultural situation (which I would agree with) and yet not let that slip into everyone gets to make the Bible into what they want to.
Very fair question without a simple answer. But here’s a few things
1) Scripture is not interpreted in a vacuum, but with reliance to the historical interpretation (how has this text been interpreted and applied in the past)
2) The interpretation of the text is not an independent task, but one done as part of a community (this helps prevent individualistic tendencies)
3) Eschatalogical Orientation - our interpretation of the text needs to be orientated toward God’s eschatalogical purposes.
This, in large part, is borrowed from Grenz/Franke’s work, Beyond Foundationalism.
Comment by Tony Arens on 19 March 2007:
I believe it comes down to how others respond to the use of Eastern techniques. Many youth in our church have been very confused after introducing yoga into our curriculum, for example.
As we delve further and further into techniqes shared by other religions, we cloud the distinction between those religions and our faith as followers of Christ.
In the world, not of the world! Not to mention, we’re a bright group of believers that have creative minds and can creatively develop techniques that we can call Christian, thus not leaving a door open to confusion…
Comment by James on 20 March 2007:
As Reformed Christians, we used to speak about the ordinary means of grace. Westminster Confession’s list includes Scripture, the Sacraments and prayer. Earlier, John Calvin named the preaching and hearing of the Word and the Sacraments as the marks of the church.
I am well aware that Scripture must be interpreted, and there is no interpretation that is free from cultural influences. Nonetheless, if we accept the primary role of Word and Sacrament in the life of the church, shouldn’t we be careful not to muddy the waters with things that are not primary?
Granted, we may want to expand the list of the ordinary means of grace, but isn’t that another conversation.
Comment by Tony Arens on 21 March 2007:
Bob Pearson,
You commented that: the emerging dialog is being led by people who have made intuitive leaps, a the three “upper” levels of conciousness. Many people who are critiquing our experimantation have not made that leap yet.
Could it perhaps be just the opposite? That those who are in the emerging dialog are looking for ways to make this “leap” that you suggest?
Bob, for many years I was a Catholic Mystic, spending a great deal of time practicing the spiritual disciplines. I have made an “intuitive leap” and suggest that eastern forms of meditation and other activities, when executed “properly”, can lead us into a spiritual realm where we as humans (regardless of how you’ve “evolved” as you state) are naive to think that we cannot be deceived. You can pray a prayer of protection as Thomas Merton and Richard Foster suggest, but WE MUST understand that the evil one is the master of deception - he can cloak himself in light and look almost like Christ Himself. I believe that this is very serious business and to “experiment” with these practices do lead people astray - I can sight many sad instances when this has happened.
My guess is that if you are practicing these “spiritual disciplines”, you have not yet evolved them to a state where you have entered into this spiritual realm - your “upper level” as you have stated. If this is the case, then I would submit that you might reflect on the possibility that you are endorsing a practice that you know very little about. Walking the labyrinth and prayer through one of the many contemplative practices are merely vehicles that assist to transcend the mind. Bob, you are on very thin ice, I am afraid.
Peace,
Tony Arens
Comment by Tom Patterson on 21 March 2007:
Brian,
I appreciate very much your thoughts on not reading Scripture in a vaccuum, etc., and agree with you wholeheartedly. I’m finding myself bothered, however, by the characterization of the Bible as “a tool (that should be) used like one.” If, as you say, the power of the Bible is not in the words, but in the “power of the Holy Spirit speaking through them,” how does that square with viewing the Bible as a “tool” in our hands? Even given the reality that our usual nod to biblical authority more often than not means, “the authority of my interpretation,” might it not be (perhaps) more accurate to say that the Bible really interprets us?