Review Copy — Not for Distribution
Contact author for purchase information
Fo
or
rew
K E N
d by Brian Mc
La
re
n
H O W A R D
PARADOXY
Creating Christian Community
Beyond Us and Them
A
ft
er
wo
rd
by
a
. P
r
The
D
V e r y R e v.
®
1B S B D M F U F 1 S F T T
BRE WSTER, MASSACHUSET TS
ul
h
Za
l
Paradoxy: Creating Christian Community Beyond Us and Them
2010
First Printing
Copyright © 2010 by Ken Howard
ISBN: 978-1-55725-775-8
Unless otherwise noted, Scripture references are taken from the New Revised Standard
Version of the Bible. Copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the
National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America and are used
by permission. All rights reserved.
Scripture references marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New International
Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.
Scripture references marked TNIV are taken from the Holy Bible, Today’s New
International Version®. TNIV®. Copyright © 2001, 2005 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by
permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved worldwide.
Scripture references marked THE MESSAGE are taken from The Message Copyright ©
1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002. Used by permission of NavPress Publishing
Group.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Howard, Ken (Kenneth W.)
Paradoxy : creating Christian community beyond us and them / Ken Howard.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p.
).
ISBN 978-1-55725-775-8
1. Church. 2. Church--Unity. I. Title.
BV600.3.H68 2010
262’.72--dc22
2010023207
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in an electronic
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical,
photocopy, recording, or any other—except for brief quotations in printed reviews,
without the prior permission of the publisher.
Published by Paraclete Press
Brewster, Massachusetts
www.paracletepress.com
Printed in the United States of America
In memory of my great-grandfather,
Rabbi Reuben Minkoff
T A B L E
O F
C O N T E N T S
I L L U S T R A T I O N S
vii
F O R E W O R D
Brian McLaren
ix
I N T R O D U C T I O N
May You Live in Interesting Times
P A R T
xiii
I
Does the Future Have a Church?
1 The End of the World as We Know It:
Collapsing Paradigms
3
2 Constantine’s Ghost:
Christendom
16
3 Reality Ain’t What It Used to Be:
Foundationalism
30
4 Hanging by a Thread:
Christianity as Religion
47
5 O God, Our Help in Ages Past:
Christianities That Might Have Been
66
Peter, Paul, and James and Fellowships of Grace
Martin of Tours and Servant Leadership
Celtic Christians and Radical Hospitality
Common Threads
P A R T
I I
A Church for the Future
6 The Shape of Things to Come:
Promising Principles for a New
Way of Church
99
7 A New Middle Way?
Characteristics of an Incarnational
Orthodoxy—a.k.a. Paradoxy
138
8 Paradigm Pathways:
Which Reality Is Your Church Living Into?
166
C O N C L U S I O N
Alpha and Omega—
Beginning and End (and Beginning)
A F T E R W O R D
173
177
The Very Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
180
N O T E S
183
S E L E C T
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
197
I L L U S T R A T I O N S
F I G U R E S
4.1
Curbing Our Dogma
59
T A B L E S
5.1
7.1
Christianities That Might Have Been
Key Differences in Theology, Ecclesiology,
and Missional Strategy
86
164
F O R E W O R D
In this exciting new book, Ken Howard does what good
leaders do in times of change and challenge. First, he describes
where we are. Then he tells the story of how we got here. Then he
gives us a vision of where to go from here.
In describing where we are and recounting how we got
here, Ken strikes a beautiful and difficult balance: he simplifies,
without oversimplifying, complex historical and philosophical
developments. His approach provides a good on-ramp if we don’t
have a lot of historical, theological, or philosophical background,
and yet it won’t insult our intelligence if we’re more knowledgeable
in these matters.
The vision Ken proposes isn’t a step-by-step plan. It can’t
be, because we live in vastly different settings and face different
opportunities and different obstacles. Instead Ken offers an
intriguing vision, evoking a twist on Robert Frost’s famous poem.
Where Frost pictures two leaf-strewn pathways diverging in the
yellow wood, one of which is “less traveled by,” Ken sees two wide
and well-traveled roads, but between them, a barely visible path.
That’s the one he invites us not only to explore, but to widen by our
walking it so that others may follow.
x
PA R A D O X Y
Along the way, he provides apt and intriguing quotes, much
like roadside rest stops with interesting historical markers, to
remind us that though we may feel like pioneers moving into
uncharted territory, we are part of a long tradition of pioneers who
blazed trails of their own in the past, making possible the future
we know as the present. Seen in that light, suddenly it matters
very much whether we seek to preserve the church in its current
state, abandon it altogether, or help it become a creative agent for
a better future—the world that will be the present for our greatgrandchildren.
The key to that creative work is not simply good ideas, but true
faith, hope, and love, rooted in the living God in whom we trust
and love, and by whom we seek to be empowered. It’s at that point
of connection with God, not just in theory, but in experience and
practice, that Ken’s proposal—what he calls Incarnational Orthodoxy
or Paradoxy—offers a vision that transcends old polarities between
liberal and conservative.
As a person from a very conservative background, I know that
what conservatives cherish beneath their arguments and divisions
is the experience of God, the nearness of God. It’s their pearl of
great price, and in defending a lot of other things, I believe this is
what they really are seeking to defend. And as a person who has
grown first to accept, then begrudgingly to respect, and eventually
to love liberals, I also believe the same is true for liberals. On both
sides a lot of other issues get mixed in, but in appealing to this
core treasure, this core desire—and not only in appealing to it, but
more, in embodying it—Ken offers a way forward that I believe
has the only real hope.
It’s no accident that Ken “gets” this way forward and embodies
it, because it flows from his own biography, spanning Jewish and
Christian, conservative and liberal, Pentecostal and liturgical,
academic and pastoral. And beyond that, as you’ll learn in these
FOREWORD
xi
pages, Ken also knows this way forward because he has seen a
church polarize and divide, and then saw another church take
shape beyond schismatic polarity.
For Episcopalians and for all mainliners, this book holds great
value, and for evangelicals and charismatics, I believe the same is
true. It can help us discover an identity where those terms become
less like epithets applied to enemies and more like family names
applied to neighbors.
May that better day come!
—Brian McLaren
I N T R O D U C T I O N
May You Live
in Interesting Times
A Conse r vative / Libe ra l S c h ism ?
“May you live in interesting times. . . .” This ancient Chinese
aphorism, that is said to be both blessing and curse, certainly seems
to have come true for the church.
It seems that in almost every denomination, conservativeliberal conflicts that have simmered for decades have come to a
boil. Mainline liberal denominations are in turmoil. In my own
denomination, the Episcopal Church (a part of the worldwide
Anglican Communion), following the consecration of the first
openly gay bishop and the first female presiding bishop, dozens
of conservative congregations and several dioceses (representing
about 3.5% of U.S. Episcopalians) have severed ties to align
with conservative bishops and archbishops on other continents.
While we may have the most visible and vociferous conflicts at
the moment, we are not alone. Just about every mainline church is
experiencing similar conflicts and departures.
xiv
PA R A D O X Y
Moreover, this is not a one-way, liberal church phenomenon.
Mainline conservative denominations are also experiencing
turmoil. The Southern Baptist Convention, following the takeover
of the seminaries by hard-line conservatives, lost more than 7% of
its membership to moderate-liberal groups such as the Cooperative
Baptist Fellowship. Contrary to the popular belief that growth rates
in conservative denominations are increasing, while liberal ones are
decreasing, recent research has shown that both have experienced
steadily decreasing growth rates since the late 1950s, and if
current trends continue, conservative denominations will follow
liberal ones into decline within a generation. If you factor out that
portion of conservative denomination growth that is due to higherthan-average birthrates among conservatives and “conversions”
of mainline liberal Christians to conservative denominations (as
opposed to growth by attracting the unchurched), real conservative
church growth rates are already in decline.1
A potential liberal-conservative fault line exists in almost
every congregation in every denomination. If left unaddressed,
might not this rift eventually split these denominations? That we
are living in interesting times may be the only thing everybody in
the church can agree on.
S licing and Dicing an d S lip p e r y S lopes
At a recent official gathering of the churches in my diocese, I
watched with astonishment as an exchange between a conservative
delegate and a liberal delegate became both brutally hot and cruelly
cold at the same time. First, the conservative delegate submitted
a resolution angrily demanding that our largely liberal diocese
insist that our national church legislative body fall into line with
the demands of conservative churches worldwide (a resolution
INTRODUCTION
xv
he had to know would either be voted down or amended). This
was followed by an amendment from the liberal delegate, that
was gracious in its words but seemingly patronizing in its intent:
couched in words of toleration of differences and respect for
“my conservative brother in Christ,” but that would have cut the
guts out of the conservative’s resolution. As the exchange wore
on, the conservative’s remarks grew more and more sarcastic
and condemnatory, while the liberal’s grew more and more icy
and smugly tolerant. In the end, the amended language passed,
effectively reversing the intent of the original resolution. At one
level, it seemed like the liberal had won and the conservative
had lost. But at another level, both had won: they got to walk
away from the meeting with their preconceived prejudices about
each other’s side confirmed. Both appeared to feel justified by the
exchange.
It is astounding how rapidly discussions become heated these
days when the topic turns to religion, perhaps even more so
when the topic is Christianity. It is shocking how much vitriol,
invective, and good old-fashioned abuse are being doled out in
the name of the Prince of Peace, especially between his followers.
It is disturbing how deeply divided the body of Christ has become,
with its “right” and “left” arms each growing more and more willing
to amputate the other.
Not that this is anything new. In many ways, the church has
been dividing itself in the name of unity since the “one, holy,
catholic, and apostolic church” first opened its doors. It was
probably to counteract this very tendency that the apostle Paul,
in the first century, employed his “body of Christ” metaphor in the
first place. It was likely in response to this tendency that Richard
Hooker in the sixteenth century urged his fellow Anglicans to view
“even heretics” as “wounded Christians,” rather than as heathens.2
Is it any wonder that many Christian leaders both on the left and
xvi
PA R A D O X Y
the right have so often asked themselves why the Christian church
is one of the few armies that shoot their own wounded?
Even so, things do seem to be getting more heated of late.
It is as though those on either side of the divide view the other’s
most distinctive feature as a slippery slope to be avoided at all
costs. Conservative Christians seem to view liberals’ emphasis on
love and acceptance as the first step toward a Christianity without
the truth of Christ at its center. And liberal Christians seem to
view conservatives’ emphasis on Scripture and doctrine as the first
step toward a Christianity without the love of Christ at its center.
On any of the issues that ostensibly divide them, the two ends
of the theological spectrum divide the spectrum into “sides” that
view each other’s words and actions with suspicion, filtering them
through judgments they’ve already made about each other and
through reacting against them.
It sometimes seems that each “side” is more interested in
“winning” than in hearing any truth its counterpart might have
to share. Having declared the other side the “enemy” and labeled
it either “heretical” or “devoid of love” (having failed their own
side’s test of orthodoxy), each then feels free to defeat the other
by any means necessary: name calling, misrepresentation verging
on libel, ad hominem attacks, even outright harassment. On issues
of human sexuality, for example, conservatives accuse liberals of
being “revisionists,” while liberals call conservatives “homophobic.”
These knee-jerk reactions only serve to reinforce existing suspicion, providing each side with ammunition for further attacks and
thus widening the gap between them.
In my denomination, these divisions have tended to be over
sexual orientation and gender roles. For some, the issues represent
choices between stark opposites: whether to affirm or condemn
same-sex relationships, whether to permit or deny the ordination
of gays and lesbians, whether to permit or deny the ordination of
INTRODUCTION
xvii
women, or some combination thereof. For others, the issues are
more nuanced: whether or not to ordain “practicing homosexuals”
or whether or not to allow female bishops. I have seen liberals vote
down resolutions affirming the authority of Scripture, not because
they disagreed with the proposition, but because of who proposed
it: they feared that it was some kind of setup by their conservative
opponents. I have seen conservatives reject alternative Episcopal
oversight plans, not because they had objections to any of the
candidates suggested as potential overseers, but because of who
would be choosing them: the presiding bishop (or as some of
them have called her, “The Presiding Heretic”3)—whom they see
as “too liberal,” rather than someone on their side. The fear and
loathing expressed by bloggers on both sides is very disturbing. A
parishioner of mine, a former JAG commander with the Navy, calls
this way of interacting the Tribal Narcissistic Tendency (T.N.T.),
and suggests that it is at the heart of most conflicts.
I A gr ee wit h My Fr ien ds:
The Le ssons of Pe rson al E x p e r ie n c e
Despite the uncharitable behavior I have witnessed, there are
people on both sides that I have come to know, respect, and count
among my friends. I know these people to be my brothers and
sisters. I know their commitment to Christ and to the church, and
their love of the gospel.
Back in my seminary days, my theology professor, whenever
he was asked his opinion about a contentious theological issue,
would say, “Some of my friends say [insert opinion here] and some
of my friends say [insert opposite opinion here]. Me? I agree with my
friends.” I, too, agree with my friends. In fact, even on the issues that
divide them, I’ve been surprised by how many points of agreement
PA R A D O X Y
xviii
I have with my friends—and thus they with each other—on both
sides of these issues. It is exceedingly frustrating—even painful—
to watch my friends focus so single-mindedly on what divides
them, while living in denial about the many points of agreement
that they share.
Having a foot in two camps is a familiar experience for me.
I am to many a living contradiction: a Jewish Christian. Born
the son of a Jewish mother and a Gentile father, I am by Jewish
tradition and Halakhic law a Jew. Being a follower of Jesus Christ
makes me a Christian. As usual, agreeing with my friends, I claim
both traditions and the best of both faiths.
I became a follower of Christ through the actions of a
conservative, evangelical, Pentecostal friend, who challenged me
to consider the claims of Jesus. I took up the challenge and tried to
prove him wrong, wanting to shut him up, and the rest, as they say,
is history. While my friend’s approach could be quite annoying, the
challenge he offered was one I needed to take seriously, because
I couldn’t make a commitment to follow and worship Jesus Christ
unless I was convinced that Christ was God. The fellowship
Christianity offered was necessary but not sufficient for me to
make such a commitment (not when it meant I would have to give
up the fellowship I could have in a synagogue).
●
Generosity without orthodoxy is nothing.
Orthodoxy without generosity is worse than nothing. 4
Hans Frei German-born, American postliberal theologian, 1922–88
Over time, I came to find that while doctrine was necessary
for me to start my journey into the Christian faith, it was not
sufficient to sustain me in that journey. Doctrine couldn’t feed
INTRODUCTION
xix
my spirit. I needed to experience the love of Christ and to
experience the transcendent yet immanent mysterious presence
of God. Moreover there was truth and value in my Jewish heritage
that I didn’t wish to leave behind. I found these qualities more
present on the liberal side of the church, and most present in the
Episcopal Church. Not only did it allow me to experience the
Divine Presence in the Eucharistic liturgy every Sunday, it was
also, as I have often told people, “the most Jewish church I could
find.” Yet sometimes I find the reticence of many of my fellow
Episcopalians and many liberal Christians to make doctrinal truth
claims frustrating as well. I often find myself caught in a tension
between love and truth, heart and mind, spirit and doctrine.
●
If . . . you are truly my disciples . . .
you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free
By this everyone will know you are my disciples,
if you have love for one another.
Jesus of Nazareth (John 8:31–32, 13:35)
I appreciate—though don’t always agree with the conclusions
of—the biblical rigor of my friends on the conservative side of
the church, a rigor that my friends on the liberal side seem to
fear. And I often feel that my friends on the liberal side of the
church operate out of a spirit of acceptance and tolerance that I
frequently find lacking on the conservative side.
I’m generalizing from my own journey, of course. Even as I
make this generalization, I recognize that it does not completely
describe even my own experience: I count among my circle of
Christian friends both tolerant conservatives and biblically
rigorous liberals. But isn’t that the nature of human learning,
that we generalize from our journeys? In fact, it would be nearly
xx
PA R A D O X Y
impossible for us to engage in a serious exploration of new ideas
and concepts without making all kinds of generalizations. But as
we will see as we continue this particular journey of exploration,
the problem is not that we make generalizations about the world
around us, but that we mistake our generalizations for the truth.
Yet our generalizations must have some truth to them or they
would be of no use to us. Both sides of the conservative-liberal
divide do have their predominant tendencies and these tendencies
do have characteristic strengths and weaknesses, though they are
often flip sides of the same coin.
So I want to say to my friends on both sides that each has
something of value to share with the other. I want to remind my
liberal friends that Jesus said, “[If] you are truly my disciples . . .
you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free” (John
8:32). And I want to remind my conservative friends that Jesus
said, “By this everyone will know you are my disciples, if you have
love for one another” (John 13:35).
I n Christ The re Is N o Us an d Th em :
The Le ssons of My Co ngr e gat io n
My own congregation has experienced both the curse
and the blessing: a premature and painful death, followed by a
resurrection. The first St. Nicholas Church (Version 1.0), planted
in the early 1990s, experienced the curse. A relatively conservative
congregation, it grew quickly at first but within two years had
“crashed and burned,” ostensibly in conflict over human sexuality
issues, but really over issues of power and control.
Two years later, blessing followed curse. Version 2.0 of St.
Nick’s rose from the ashes of 1.0. And as is often the case, Version
2.0 was a bit more stable, with a newly ordained leader (me) and
INTRODUCTION
xxi
composed largely of “survivors” of the first plant. Determined
to learn from painful experience, we dedicated ourselves to
discerning and living into a new way of being church, in which
conservative and liberal Christians could live together in love, and
that conservative-liberal theological differences could not kill. We
have been engaged in this journey of exploration for more than a
decade.
We tried to be good interpreters of the spiritual signs of the
times (see Matthew 16:1–3), looking critically at ourselves, our
church, and the church at large. We discovered that neither we,
nor our denomination, nor its parent body, were transiting these
turbulent times alone. Churches everywhere are wracked by these
conflicts. It’s just that we Anglicans tend to be more public in our
disagreements than others. (A healthy sign, we thought.)
In time, it dawned on us: this conflict was not your average,
everyday schism, but a paradigm shift—and not just one paradigm
was shifting, but several. Realizing that we live in—and what we
should expect in—an age of collapsing paradigms has helped
our congregation respond to changes around us with less anxiety
and more compassion. Realizing that what we had thought was
a field of battle between unalterably opposed sides was really an
emerging landscape, helped us understand that we needed each
other’s eyes to find our way safely through.
We learned that major paradigm shifts are almost always
accompanied by turmoil and disorder. Take science, for example.
The primary mission of science is the discovery and integration of
new knowledge. Yet studies have shown that, when confronted with
data that conflict with the dominant paradigm, scientists reacted
anxiously. Warring camps developed: “liberal” camps prematurely
proposed new paradigms based on insufficient data; “conservative”
camps defended the old paradigm by attacking the new data
and the proposed paradigms. Eventually, the old paradigm fell,
PA R A D O X Y
xxii
yet neither camp really won. Some aspects of the liberal camp’s
proposals found their way into the new paradigm, many did not.
Some aspects of the old paradigm, that the conservative camps
were protecting, remained standing, many did not. Because their
vision was still limited by the old paradigm, both camps were
blindsided.5
●
World views, in fact, are not very often exclusive.
Most of us carry two or three around with us all the time.6
E.P. Sanders Theologian and scholar of Jewish Christianity
Major paradigm shifts have been even more traumatic for the
church, provoking anxiety, anger, and reactivity in the form of
conflict and even violence. Yet somehow, with God’s help, the
church has always found a way to survive the fall of old paradigms
and eventually to adapt to new ones.
Coming to terms with our natural anxiety has helped the
members of my congregation develop a sense of humility about
what they know to be true, and to exercise a greater degree of
tolerance toward those with whom they disagreed than they had
previously. Conservatives learned to ask: “Are we truly acting
to protect God’s will (as if God needs our protection) or merely
protecting the status quo?” Liberals learned to ask: “How do we
know we are prophetically promoting God’s will (as if God needs
our promotion) or merely our own innovations?” Understanding
our own propensity for reactivity has tended to give us pause
about attributing evil intent to those who oppose our point of
view. Recognizing that the dominant paradigm has created blind
spots in our vision helps us realize how much we need the insights
of those who disagree with us.
INTRODUCTION
xxiii
We began to realize that our paradigms are really our finite,
human attempts to domesticate God. Because we cannot handle
our reality raw and unfiltered, humanity creates paradigms in
order to impose meaning, stability, and predictability upon wild
and untamed reality. As long as we realize that our theological
concepts must be provisional in nature, and are only our best
attempts at expressing what we know about God and reality, this
is okay. The problem comes when we begin to believe that our
concepts are the full expression of God’s reality, and then refuse to
modify them. There is a word for trying to domesticate God. It is
called idolatry. Yet over and over again throughout their histories,
church after church has found itself doing precisely that.
●
Orthodoxy:
What God knows,
some of which we believe a little,
some of which they believe a little,
and about which we all have a whole lot to learn.7
Brian McLaren
We have come to view changing paradigms as God’s way
of telling us, There you go again: trying to put me in a box. We have
come to understand that the dis-ease we feel when we experience
such change is God’s way of showing us that we have become
so attached to our paradigms that we have rendered them
impervious to change; so brittle and inflexible that the tiniest new
breath of God’s Spirit crumbles them to dust. We have come to
recognize that when a familiar paradigm begins to fall, we have
an opportunity to release God to the wild of mystery and paradox
(actually God never left it) so that God can un-domesticate our
faith.
PA R A D O X Y
xxiv
This involves curbing our dogma.8 Back in my seminary days,
one of my theology professors said the functional definition of the
word dogma was “let’s stop talking about this and move on.” The
core dogmas of the church, as described in the great creeds—the
overflowing love and grace of the Triune God, and Christ’s humandivine essence as the conduit for that love and grace—were the
best that humanity could do to describe the infinite essence of
God after almost 400 years of grappling with the issue. It wasn’t
going to get any better than that. After all, the essence of the
infinite (God) is that it is beyond the finite (humanity). It was time
to stop trying to refine the dogmas and to instead get on with
living them out “with God’s help,” as the baptismal formula goes.
My congregation and I have learned that, as much as our
concepts of orthodoxy are intended to express truth, they are not
themselves truth, and they certainly are not The Truth. They are
human constructs, subject to the influences, understandings, and
assumptions of culture, as well as the limitations of the finite human
mind, and to the extent that they contain such imperfections
they are less than sufficient as organizing principles of Christian
community.
●
Orthodoxy is my doxy—heterodoxy is another man’s doxy. 9
William Warburton English literary critic and churchman, 1698-1779
(Bishop of Gloucester from 1759)
I am not advocating dispensing with dogma, but limiting its
use to where it’s constructive to Christian community, rather than
destructive. In other words, we would do well to distinguish more
clearly between our dogma—those primary doctrines that form
the core of our common Christian faith—and what some have
INTRODUCTION
xxv
called our doctrinal distinctives—doctrines that are secondary—
and not to allow what is merely distinctive to separate us. This
is not to say these distinctives are without value. The doctrinal
distinctives of a particular denomination or group might best be
understood as part of its unique calling. As such, they may have
great value as a witness to the whole church. However, the more
of these distinctives we raise to dogmatic significance (i.e., make
accepting them mandatory for membership in the body of Christ),
the more we splinter our churches. Our congregation has been
trying to learn the difference between essentials (things that truly
matter) and nonessentials (what Augustine called adiaphora) and to
be very, very cautious about what we put in the first category.10
A n I nvitation to a Journe y o f E x p lo r at io n
So interesting times come with a blessing as well as a curse. The
curse of a paradigm shift is the loss of a familiar way of organizing
life. Like any death, it gives rise to feelings of uncertainty and
anxiety about what the future may hold. Yet, while the death of a
way of life is not to be pursued for its own sake, when it does occur
it always brings with it the possibility of the birth of a new way:
the rising of a new paradigm more complete and encompassing of
the fullness of reality than the one we lost.
I believe that there is a new paradigm emerging: one that will
transcend our current US/THEM attitudes; one that will bridge
the increasing chasm between the “right” and “left” arms of the
church; one that will reconcile the parties in this divorce between
truth and love. But there’s one big problem with this paradigm: it
is still emerging. Because our eyes have been trained by the old,
we cannot yet see clearly what the new will look like. But we can
begin to explore its outlines. That’s the purpose of this book.
xxvi
PA R A D O X Y
So I would like to invite you to join me on a journey such
as the ones taken by the explorers of old; a journey into an as
yet undiscovered country; a journey of exploration to map the
boundaries of the new world. We will start by digging deeper into
why the current paradigms of Christian community seem to be
collapsing, so we can stop “looking for love (and unity) in all the
wrong places.” Then, since there is nothing entirely new under the
sun, we will begin to train our eyes to recognize the new paradigm
by exploring several “Christianities that might have been”—
movements in the early church that had different ideas about what
it meant to be a community of faith. Our journey concludes with an
exploration of the possible outlines of a new way: thinking about
orthodoxy that unites rather than divides; a concept of orthodoxy
that transcends the distinction between liberal and conservative,
yet captures much of what is at the heart of each; an incarnational
orthodoxy anchored in the love of Christ.
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
Whether you are reading by yourself, or as part of a study
group, you may want to supplement what I am asking you to
consider with reading in the Bible, and reflecting and praying
about what you discover there.
If so, read the following texts. And if time permits, look
them up in the Bible and read them in their fuller contexts. Then
consider the questions that follow.
John 17:22–23
The glory that you have given me I have given
them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I
in them and you in me, that they may become
completely one, so that the world may know
that you have sent me and have loved them
even as you have loved me.
Jesus called us to be one in the same way that he (God the
Son) and God the Father are one. In what manner are God
the Father and God the Son one? What then are the implications for how we, as the followers of Christ, are to be one?
1 Corinthians 13:12
For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we
will see face to face. Now I know only in part;
then I will know fully, even as I have been fully
known.
PA R A D O X Y
xxviii
How confident can we be that our knowledge of God’s will is
complete and correct? What does this say about the attitude
we should hold toward those who disagree with us?
Luke 24:30–33
When [Jesus] was at the table with them, he
took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it
to them. Then their eyes were opened, and
they recognized him; and he vanished from
their sight. They said to each other, “Were
not our hearts burning within us while he was
talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?”
On the road to Emmaus, Jesus taught the disciples from the
Scriptures, but it was not until he communed with them in the
breaking of bread that they recognized him. What does this
say about the relationship of doctrine and common worship
to our recognizing that Christ is among us?
●
Questions to Consider
1 What was your image of God as a child? . . . As a teen? . . . As a
young adult? At the age you are now? How has your image of God
changed?
2 In your opinion, which do you believe is more important to the
church: correctness of belief or the unity of the body? How are they
related?
3 Draw two large circles that overlap side by side. Ask the group to
divide itself into two sections: one composed of people who identify
themselves as theologically liberal, the other composed of people who
identify themselves as theologically conservative. Identify the things
upon which you agree and the things about which you disagree.
Write the things upon which you agree in the area of overlap. Write
the things upon which you disagree in the outer circles (liberal ideas/
issues in the one circle, conservative ideas/issues in the other). Are
there other circles? What did you learn?*
*Question 3 is an important one for a study group that includes
people holding opposing viewpoints. A facilitator should allow
sufficient time for a full exploration of views on the part of all who
are present.
P A R T
I
Does the Future Have a Church?
C H A P T E R
1
he End of the World
as We Know It:
Collapsing Paradigms
par·a·digm [pār´ -d¯m’, -d˘m’] n. 1. One that serves as
a pattern or model. 2. A set or list of all the inflectional
forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories:
the paradigm of an irregular verb. 3. A set of assumptions,
concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way
of viewing reality for the community that shares them,
especially in an intellectual discipline. From paradeiknunai,
“to compare”: para-, “alongside,” +deiknunai, “to show.”
USAGE NOTE: Since the 1960s, paradigm has been used in
science to refer to a theoretical framework.11
I know. I know.
The term paradigm sounds a little clichéd
these days. In the world of business it seems like every other week
somebody is promoting some new management technique as the
newest paradigm in leadership. Yet while the term may have been
overused (or even abused) of late, it is of great importance to
understanding the turbulent times we face. If the word paradigm is
a little hackneyed to you, just substitute world view, conceptual model,
or some other equivalent term. Whatever you want to call it, if we
want to understand how human beings learn and practice truth,
we have to talk about paradigms. Because paradigms are the way
we think and the way we interpret our perceptions of reality. It’s
in our DNA.
PA R A D O X Y
4
The words truth and reality are commonly used as though they
were interchangeable. But while they are integrally related, they
really are two very different things. If we were to look at them in
the form of a mathematical equation, the relationship might be
expressed like this:
●
T=R+M
Truth Equals Reality plus Meaning
(what we seek when we seek what we call truth)
With apologies to agent Fox Mulder of The X-Files, it’s not the
“truth” that is “out there” but “reality.” And while we are borrowing
phrases from old TV shows, we might borrow a line from officer
Joe Friday of Dragnet and say that reality is “just the facts,” without
any meaning attributed to them.
We do like our reality filtered. Our minds seem “hard-wired” to
develop paradigms. We are meaning-seeking creatures, determined
to understand how and why things relate together the way they
do, and we are driven to create conceptual systems based on our
experience and observation of the world. It is this understanding
of the hows and whys and relationships of reality that is what we
mean by “truth.”
In fact, we so depend upon such understanding that we will
create conceptual systems even in the face of minimal experience
and a paucity of observations. For example, rather than accepting
that major natural disasters are just expressions of random chaos at
work in the world, we call them “acts of God.” Some find it easier
to attribute poverty to character traits of the poor than to accept
that their poverty and our prosperity might be as much a product
of luck as of anything else. When a woman is sexually assaulted by
a stranger, some are tempted to ask if she was wearing something
THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT
5
revealing or acting in a seductive manner. In this way, creating
paradigms gives us the illusion of predictability and control.
Paradigms help us negotiate our way through the world more
effectively. As with walking, if we had to think about each step
before we took it, our minds would be preoccupied with putting
one foot in front of the other. We wouldn’t be able to chew bubble
gum and walk at the same time. But once we “get” how walking
works, we can move the activity out of our conscious minds
and focus our conscious thinking processes on more important
questions, such as “Where are we going?” and “Are we there
yet?” Paradigms are the conceptual models we’ve developed to
explain and predict how reality works. They provide a framework
within which we can organize and integrate new experiences and
observations.
Th e Pr oblem wit h Par adigm s:
Confusing Truth with Re alit y
Paradigms seem to work so well for us so much of the time
that we sometimes confuse our paradigms of reality with reality
itself. Just like the glasses or contacts many of us wear, we forget
that we have them on.
Similarly, when we lose sight of the provisional nature of our
paradigms and begin to think of them as timeless and immutable,
we can become reactive when faced with new experiences that
don’t fit our old way of thinking. We may be tempted to deny
them. We may be suspicious of anomalous observations that
threaten the old way of seeing things, or of the motives of those
who bring them to our attention.
But our denial cannot stop the accumulation of discordant
observations and experiences that the old paradigm no longer
PA R A D O X Y
6
explains. Sooner or later—usually later, human nature being what
it is—the weight of the evidence becomes so great that the old
paradigm collapses it. It is only then that a new paradigm can
arise.
Physicist and historian of science Thomas Kuhn12 once
explained the process of individual and collective denial that
historically happens when major paradigms shift in fields of
scientific knowledge. Some scientists dismissed discrepant
data as measurement errors, even when they arose in their own
experiments. Others attacked the competence or motivation of the
researcher (when anomalies arose in other scientist’s experiments).
Some appeared to “adjust” the data (mostly unconsciously) to fit
the ruling paradigm. Others worked heroically to adapt the old
paradigm to fit new data by introducing corollaries or constants.
In some cases, researchers’ commitment to the old paradigm was
so strong it actually rendered them incapable of perceiving the
data that didn’t fit. These reactions were not limited to individual
scientists. Resisters of change tended to be drawn to other
like-minded scientists, eventually forming factions to oppose
any consideration of abandoning the old, ruling paradigm of
knowledge.
●
Rather than being an interpreter,
the scientist who embraces a new paradigm
is like the man wearing inverting lenses.13
Thomas Kuhn
Meanwhile, Kuhn noted, other scientists would react in the
opposite direction, intuitively formulating and often aggressively
proposing alternative paradigms to account for those discrepancies.
Often, several alternate paradigms would be formed. Some of
THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT
7
these would be truly radical departures from the ruling paradigm;
others merely an artful repackaging of the old way. Sometimes
several of these alternative paradigms would be mutually exclusive
of each other. The one thing they shared was that each would be
championed with great hubris by their promoters. And as with the
conservative scientists, factions of these progressive theorists tended to
form to defend their positions.
●
Do not confine your children to your own learning,
for they were born in another time.14
Talmudic proverb
But when the new paradigm finally emerged, it was neither
exactly what the reactionaries feared nor what the radicals were
advocating. Rather, the new paradigm usually contained some
aspects of the heavily defended ruling paradigm, some aspects of
the heavily promoted proposed ones, and—this is the interesting
part—some aspects that neither side expected. Obviously, if
scientists, who are in a field of understanding that is supposed to
be the epitome of open-minded objectivity, respond to shifts in
understanding reality with such a high level of reactive subjectivity,
how can we expect the rest of us to be any less reactive and
subjective in our responses?
It is our nature to resist change of any kind. When our
paradigms are challenged, we fight tooth and nail. The greater
the shift required, the stronger we tend to react against it, even
when the loss of the paradigm would not threaten core operating
principles.
Historically, the church has been especially prone to these
reactions. Take the case of Church v. Galileo in 1616. Galileo’s
observation that the Earth orbited the sun was contrary to
8
PA R A D O X Y
long-standing church teaching. Yet Galileo’s discovery was not
exactly new to science, nor unknown to the church, it was only a
confirmation of earlier observations by Copernicus. Nevertheless,
Galileo’s announcement of his “discovery” was met with angry
denunciations from the church in a manner that Copernicus’s
observations were not.
Why did the church react so “reactively” to Galileo after
virtually ignoring Copernicus? The answer probably lies in the
way human organizations react when a dominant paradigm
collapses, especially when the collapse of the dominant paradigm
would diminish their own dominance. Copernicus had published
his observations among his peers, while Galileo announced his
“discovery” publicly. Galileo’s pronouncements of his findings
were sarcastically dismissive of the church’s position on the matter,
while Copernicus did not “connect the dots” from his findings to
the church’s teachings. Galileo’s observations—because they were
brashly and publicly defiant—threatened the church’s dominance
in a way Copernicus’s did not.
To be fair to the church, before Copernicus, most scientists
also believed the Earth was at the center of the universe, and their
initial reaction to the new findings was not all that welcoming.
Scientists had the luxury of less publicity and a few extra years
to get used to the change. Otherwise they may have reacted to
Galileo just as badly as the church.15 The bottom line is that the
hardening reaction to public criticism is typical of institutional
reactions to the attacks on dearly held paradigms that often
precede their collapse.
We live in an age of rapid change when paradigms that
have served us for centuries no longer adequately describe the
reality we are coming to know. Our knowledge is changing faster
than the capacity of many paradigms to adapt. Just about every
field of human endeavor—from physics to politics, from art to
THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT
9
psychology—is experiencing this shifting of the sands underfoot.
Theology, which monk and theologian Anselm of Canterbury
once called “faith seeking understanding,”16 is no exception.
Theology is the church’s division of paradigm development.
We seek to develop paradigms to describe the nature of the
spiritual realities that we have experienced; things such as the
nature of God, the nature of Christ, the nature of God’s Spirit, the
nature of the world, the nature of humankind, and other issues.
Understandings that have emerged from theology have in
turn profoundly affected the way the church has understood its
role and mission in the world, its understanding of faith and what
it means to be a community of faith, its relationship to other faith
communities, and more. But just as in other fields of knowledge,
theological paradigms are still only human approximations of a
reality that only God can fully know. They are not the reality they
seek to represent.
T he E nd of the World as We Kno w I t
I believe the church is facing a particularly rough patch this
time around, because it is losing several familiar paradigms of
Christian community:
1. Christendom. An approach to Christian unity grounded in
institutionalized power and control that came into full play
when Constantine made Christianity the official religion
of the Roman Empire. While Christendom may no longer
be the “official” paradigm of Christianity, its memory still
has an influence on the Christian imagination.
2. Foundationalism. Conservative and liberal Christianity, as
we know them today, have their roots in the Enlightenment
paradigm of Foundationalism that assumes that ultimate
10
PA R A D O X Y
truths can be grasped through human rationality.
Foundationalism had two main schools of thought: one
that sought to establish universal truths by objective
observation of the outside world, and another that sought
to discover universal truths through objective analysis
of internal human experience. The modern conservative
belief in biblical inerrancy grew out of the first approach.
Modern liberal Scripture analysis grew out of the second.
Both forms are now collapsing.
3. Religion. Organized religion is itself a paradigm based on
the assumption that spiritual unity requires the security of
an organized, centralized system of beliefs and practices.
Where Foundationalism sought unity in certainty about
truth, those employing the paradigm of Organized Religion have sought unity in the security of organization. If
the increasing number of people identifying themselves
as “spiritual, not religious” is any indication, Christianity
conceived as organized religion would seem to be in some
trouble.
The collapse of these paradigms presents the church with
danger and opportunity. The danger is obvious and immediate:
schism. When the church’s governing paradigms have shifted in
the past, the process has been chaotic, if not violent; the emotional
climate confused, if not angry; the outcome has been the tearing
of the fabric of the church, if not actual schism. The Reformation,
the church’s last great paradigm shift five hundred years ago,
was a violent and disruptive affair. Protestant–Roman Catholic
schism was just the beginning: after the separation Protestantism
rapidly began to splinter into dozens of smaller denominations
whose members were willing to die (and kill) for their distinctive
doctrinal visions. Many today fear that the rapidly disintegrating
consensus around the nature of Christian community will result
THE END OF THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT
11
in increasing schism: a rapid cell division spreading through the
body of Christ like a cancer, that in the end will prove deadly to
the unity of the church.
But is our rapidly disintegrating consensus really such a bad
thing? It all depends on the meaning we assign to uniformity.
If we view agreement on things as an indicator of health, and
disagreement as a sign of pathology, then the loss of consensus we
are facing is very frightening indeed. But what if those valuations
were reversed? What if we viewed difference and differentiation
as a positive thing and conflict as a natural part of life—a sign of
health? What then? Maybe what makes cancer such an unhealthy
condition is not that cells are dividing rapidly, but how they are
dividing. Cancer is one kind of cell division: mitosis.
But mitosis is not the only form of rapid cell division. There is
another kind that is completely healthy and much more hopeful:
meiosis. Instead of creating a duplicate of itself, the cell divides
in two and redistributes half of its DNA to each of the two new
cells, so that each new cell carries half the encoded traits of the
original cell. This kind of rapid cell division is essential to healthy
biological reproduction. Whenever we have tried to defeat it in
the hope of maintaining uniformity—in the breeding of pedigreed
dogs or royal families—the results are frequently detrimental and
sometimes deadly. Meiosis ensures a level of diversity in our DNA
that keeps us healthy.
What if we viewed the diverging consensus in the church in a
different light: not as mitosis gone wild, but as a return to healthy
meiosis. Could it be that the Holy Spirit is moving in the church
to initiate a kind of spiritual-theological meiosis? Could the Holy
Spirit be preparing to birth something new? A new way of being
church? A fresh, new basis for Christian unity? One that depends
on the welcoming of differentiation as a way of becoming a more
whole and complete body of Christ?
PA R A D O X Y
12
●
It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
Sherlock Holmes From “The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet” by Arthur
Conan Doyle, 1900
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
Deuteronomy 8:2
Remember the long way that the Lord your
God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, testing you to
know what was in your heart, whether or not
you would keep his commandments.
As the old saying goes: it took God a day to get the Israelites
out of Egypt, but it took God forty years to get Egypt out
of the Israelites. Why is it so difficult to leave behind even a
paradigm that has ceased to be healthy? A whole generation
of Israelites had to pass on before the Israelites were prepared
to enter the Promised Land. What has to die before we are
able to enter a new paradigm?
Acts 10:11–16
[In a dream, Peter] saw the heaven opened and
something like a large sheet coming down,
being lowered to the ground by its four corners.
In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and
reptiles and birds of the air. Then he heard a
voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” But
Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never
eaten anything that is profane or unclean.”
The voice said to him again, a second time,
PA R A D O X Y
14
“What God has made clean, you must not call
profane.” This happened three times, and the
thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.
In a dream, God revealed to Peter a new paradigm for a
community of faith, yet Peter was resistant to giving up the
old way. If God were to reveal to us a new way of being a
Christian community, what might hold us back from living
into that revelation?
Matthew 7:3–5
Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s
eye, but do not notice the log in your own
eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor,
“Let me take the speck out of your eye,” while
the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite,
first take the log out of your own eye, and
then you will see clearly to take the speck out
of your neighbor’s eye.
Imagine a conflict that you have experienced in church. To
what extent was each side criticizing the other for things they
are overlooking in themselves? In what ways do we engage in
this dynamic on a routine basis?
●
Questions to Consider
1 Which part of your church’s liturgy would you be most resistant
to changing? Which item of liturgical “furniture” (e.g., altar,
baptismal font, etc.) would you be most resistant to moving? What
does this say about the spiritual meaning you invest in the action or
item in question?
2 List several things you value about the nature of spiritual community in your congregation. Which thing on your list do you
consider the most important? The least important?
3 Which of the above would you be willing to give up for the sake
of Christian unity? Explain. Answer the same question for your
congregation and/or denomination.
C H A P T E R
2
Constantine’s Ghost:
Christendom
Chris·ten·dom [kr˘s’ n-d m] n. 1. Christians considered
as a group. 2. The Christian world. From Old English
cristendom: cristen, Christian; see Christian + -dom, -dom:
kingdom.17
Christendom. In its wider sense this term is used to
describe the part of the world which is inhabited by
Christians. . . . But there is a narrower sense in which
Christendom stands for a polity as well as a religion, for a
nation as well as for a people. Christendom in this sense
was an ideal which inspired and dignified many centuries
of history and which has not yet altogether lost its power
over the minds of men.18
An interesting thing about paradigms is that once one
becomes dominant it eventually becomes so pervasively engrained
in our subconscious mind that not only does it become invisible
to us, but it continues to influence our thinking, behavior, and
social interactions long after it has fallen. Given the right set of
cues—especially in times of conflict—we find ourselves slipping
back into them like a comfortable old shoe: a kind of paradigm
regression.
Garrison Keillor tells a story about going home for Christmas.19
He left his own home a fully grown, mature adult, but as he drove
toward his parents’ home it was as though he grew smaller with
C O N S TA N T I N E ’ S G H O S T
17
each passing mile, and had more and more trouble reaching the gas
pedal and seeing over the steering wheel. The story ends with him
hopping down out of his car, skipping up to the house and into the
living room, climbing up onto the sofa, dangling and swinging his
legs, and shouting, “Hi Mommy, what’s for dinner?” That’s often
how it works with us and it’s one way of understanding what has
happened with the paradigm of Christendom.
The ideal of Christendom may have reached its most
complete fruition with the near-complete merger of church and
state under the Roman Emperor Constantine—that is why some
call it Constantinianism.20 Yet Christendom neither started with
Constantine in the fourth century nor ended with the fall of the
Roman Empire in the fifth.
The seeds of Christendom were actually planted in the early
second century. Christianity was still illegal in the Roman Empire,
largely due to the efforts of politically conservative defenders of
the Empire who sought to depict the church as threatening the
stability of the Empire by undermining its values. In an attempt
to soften the resulting persecution, Justin Martyr and other socalled “apologists” wrote and published tracts portraying the
church as having no axe to grind against the Empire. Later that
same century, the apologist Tertullian went a step further. Instead
of portraying the church as merely nonthreatening to the Empire,
Tertullian argued that the virtues of Christianity were supportive
of the virtues of Imperial Roman culture.21
The third century found the church fathers venturing even
further down the path toward the syncretisation with the state,
adopting in their writings the metaphor of God as the church’s
heavenly Emperor and suggesting that the heavenly emperorship
of God ought to be mirrored on earth by a human emperor over
the church. By the end of the century, many were arguing that, for
the good of the church, Christianity ought to be the unifying force
18
PA R A D O X Y
behind the Empire. So when fourth-century emperor Constantine
attempted to unify the rapidly disintegrating Empire and quickly
crumbling culture of Rome by making Christianity the official
religion and himself head of both church and state, it was a small
leap rather than a radical departure.
To be fair, the larger God-King paradigm did not originate
with Christianity, having been the worldwide cultural norm for
millennia prior to the birth of the church. Long before the birth of
the Prince of Peace, God had already fought a losing battle with
the people of Israel and gave in to their demand for a king to rule
in God’s name like the nations that surrounded them (1 Samuel
8:4–22). So it’s hard to blame the church for falling prey to the
temptation of the God-King paradigm. Perhaps the only surprise
is how fast it fell.
U nity through U niformit y, E nfo r c e d b y Po w e r
Constantine’s goal was to bring unity to the Empire by
bringing uniformity to civil affairs, with the church as the new
civil religion. But first, by the power of the Empire if necessary,
he had to impose uniformity. As a result, uniformity of doctrine
and practice increasingly became the paramount concerns of the
church. And for the first time in its history, churches were able
to pull the levers of power to enforce such uniformity. This was
the heart of the Christendom paradigm: unity through uniformity,
often enforced by power.
It is difficult to overestimate the extent to which the church
allowed itself to be re-shaped and re-purposed by the Christendom
paradigm.22 It is difficult to overstate the degree to which, once
adopted, the paradigm rendered the church unaware of the scope
of these changes.
C O N S TA N T I N E ’ S G H O S T
19
Ironically, it was these first attempts to employ the power of
the Empire to unify the church that would sow the seeds of the
first schism. Before Constantine’s unilateral decision to call the
Council of Nicaea, the great ecumenical councils of the church
were called and their issues considered and decided in a conciliar
(i.e., consensus) fashion among the representatives of the various
“Apostolic Sees” (major centers of Christianity thought to be
established by the apostles). But his heavy-handedness did not end
there. He lobbied hard for (and later won) the excommunication of
Jewish Christianity from the church, not on the basis of heterodox
belief, but because he misunderstood their desire to worship in the
same Jewish style as did their Lord and Savior.
The effects of the Christendom paradigm were perhaps most
keenly felt in the church’s attitude toward war and violence. For
its first three centuries, Christianity understood violence and war
as incompatible with the teachings and example of Jesus.23 I am
not sure early Christians would have thought of themselves as
pacifists: they did not always remain passive in the face of violence
but were willing to actively resist it at the cost of their lives. But
the resistance offered by early Christians was almost always nonviolent. In fact, they refused to respond violently, even when their
lives were at stake. Until the time of Constantine, imperial soldiers
who became Christians resigned from the military at the first
opportunity. Because of this, the Roman army banned Christians
from its ranks in the fourth century. Yet by the fifth century,
writers such as Augustine were justifying military service24 and
Christians began joining the military in increasing numbers, and
by 416 CE it was illegal for anyone but Christians to serve in the
Roman army. It is astonishing to think that it took only a century
for Christianity to morph from a religion that abhorred violence
into one that came to believe in, as Walter Wink called it, “the
myth of redemptive violence.”25
20
●
PA R A D O X Y
I am a soldier of Christ.
To fight is not permissible for me.26
Martin of Tours 316–397
The Christendom paradigm also led to a reversal of the
church’s understanding of evangelism. The church before
Constantine thought of evangelism as an interpersonal and
hospitality-oriented process: the Christian community tended
to offer fellowship to all who wished to participate in the life of
their community. Recipients of this love would sometimes be won
over by it and then express their desire to enter the Christian
community formally through baptism (Acts 8:36; 16:29–33). As
they say in the Cursillo movement (Cursillo is short for “Cursillo
en Cristo”—literally, “A Short Course in Christianity”), “Make a
friend . . . Be a friend . . . Bring your friend to Christ”—except in
the early church the evangelism effort was an effort of the entire
community, rather than just of individuals.
Under the influence of Christendom, the role of the evangelist
quickly evolved into the equivalent of the Roman proconsul.
Dealing with potential subject nations or peoples, the proconsul
would (1) present the Emperor’s terms to their leaders; (2) demand
an immediate decision as to whether they would accept or reject
those terms; and (3) if they accepted, make them subjects of the
Roman Empire, enjoying all the benefits of Roman citizenship. If
they declined, the result was war and enslavement. In the church
the evangelist would (1) present the gospel; (2) ask for a decision
as to whether his listeners would accept or reject Christ; and (3) if
the answer was positive, offer fellowship. Rejection of Christ (or
at least the image of Christ that was presented) was often said to
result in eternal condemnation. To this day, imperial evangelism
remains common in some areas of Christian life and expression, so
C O N S TA N T I N E ’ S G H O S T
21
strongly associated with evangelism that liberal Christians often
reject evangelism itself because they can picture no other way of
doing it.27
This tension is evident in the memoirs of Christopher
Columbus, who clearly felt called to share the gospel with
the indigenous peoples of the New World, yet until they were
converted he felt little need to treat them as human beings. As
a result, many Caribbean natives met their death by the sword.
Even after their conversions, he did not treat them as having
equal humanity to Europeans like himself. In Europe, this kind
of thinking would lead to the excesses of the Inquisition and to
wars between Catholic and Protestant nations, and even between
nations populated by closely related Protestant sects. In the United
States, it would inform the destructive relationship between
Christian European settlers and Native American Christian
tribes, such as the Cherokee Nation,28 and between Christian
slave owners and their slaves, whom they Christianized enough
to maintain social order, but continued to treat as subhuman. Of
course, it’s possible that this kind of racism would have emerged
in the absence of Christendom-based evangelism. However, it’s
fair to say that the two reinforced each other.
This dehumanizing way of thinking has left a legacy in the
church’s present conflicts. Those who hold differing opinions
about theology or worship practices often view people on the
other side almost as non-Christians. They often feel free to treat
their opponents with extreme disrespect, saying and doing things
to them that they would ordinarily never direct toward another
human being, let alone a brother or sister in Christ. One has to
wonder how the world might be different today if those who
brought the cross to the New World had not been so profoundly
influenced by the Christendom paradigm. In fact, one writer of
popular science fiction and fantasy, Orson Scott Card, has done
22
PA R A D O X Y
exactly that. In Past Watch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus,
Card imagines a team of time travelers who go back in time to
strand Columbus on Hispaniola by sinking all his ships, thereby
forcing him to live among the indigenous people for a decade and
come to terms with them as equal human beings.29
The transformation of Christianity from a nonviolent
movement into a religion that endorsed armed warfare would
have been unthinkable to the earliest Christians. However, the
evolving Christendom paradigm, in which the church came to
accept the exercise of power as a given, made this transformation
not only possible, but inevitable.
D e monizing the O ther
The effect of the Christendom paradigm is to divide the
world into “us” and “them.” This tendency to demonize and
dehumanize those with whom we disagree has contributed to
some of the worst excesses of the church over the centuries, by
whichever branch held legitimate authority. This US/THEM
demonization has continued to the present day, practiced by
liberals and conservatives alike. Just sample some of the “scorched
earth” rhetoric on the more extreme blogs on either side of the
current debates and you will see what I mean. Those on both sides
feel free to employ sarcasm, derision, and ad hominem attacks on
their “enemies” on the “other side” of Christianity that they would
never think of using on their non-Christian next-door neighbor. It
is simply breathtaking, and incredibly sad.
In all of these areas, and perhaps many more, Christendom
has continued to haunt us long after it has been officially laid to
rest. Like a divorced couple who won’t release their hold on each
other, church and state still reach out to bend the other to their
C O N S TA N T I N E ’ S G H O S T
23
will, sometimes without either of them realizing it. Such is the
seductive memory of Christendom. The Christendom paradigm
reaches down through the years to influence all of us, conservative
and liberal alike, even as it grows increasingly irrelevant.
What once was the unifying principle of the culture has
over the last several centuries become increasing irrelevant to
it. The spheres of influence of the church and Western culture
are rapidly separating. We live in a largely post-Christian world.
Christianity is rapidly losing its dominance in the northern
hemisphere. Once the established, or at least preferred, religion
in most Western nations, it is now one of many options (and not
necessarily the majority option). Christianity is no longer the
answer that most people seek, even those people who remember
the question.30
Organizations that perceive their power and influence to
be threatened by changes in their surrounding culture generally
respond reactively to preserve that power and influence. They
respond reactively (i.e., reflexively, without much forethought),
because, at some level, they perceive that the loss is a threat
to their very existence. Therefore, organizations that perceive
cultural change as a threat react in one of two ways: (1) defending
themselves against the change in the culture or (2) accommodating
themselves to it. Being very human organizations, churches
—and the various groups that exist within them—react in similar
ways. Sensing that their values, beliefs, and influence are being
threatened by the culture, conservative churches tend to react by
defending themselves against it. They do this by:
UÊ -ii}Ê,ivÕ}iÊÊÌ iÊ*>ÃÌÊ/À>`Ì>î° This reaction is found mostly in mainline denominations (those
with a received tradition). The goal seems to be to draw
the line on change or perhaps even to roll change back.
This may take different forms in different denominations.
24
PA R A D O X Y
UÊ -ii}Ê ,ivÕ}iÊ Ê i>Ì>Ê Õ`>Àið Many
denominations and individual churches are raising barriers against ecumenical, interfaith activities.
UÊ -ii}Ê ,ivÕ}iÊ Ê iÀÌ>ÌÞ° In Protestant Christianity,
this reaction is evident in fundamentalist, literalist strains
developing within almost all denominations. Similarly, in
recent years Roman Catholicism has begun returning to a
greater emphasis on the magisterium (the teaching authority of the church’s hierarchy).
These survival-level, defensive responses have not been
without positive effects. One gain has been an increase in concern
for the clarity of belief and integrity of doctrine, which can be
a healthy challenge to conservative and liberal Christians alike.
Likewise, there has been an increased concern for the consistency
of belief and behavior, which is also healthy for Christians
generally. Other gains have included a concern for consistency
and connection with what has come before. This can provide a
sense of certainty and stability for those who value them. Many
such congregations are reporting rapid growth.
On the other hand, these defensive reactions have also resulted
in losses. Some groups that seek refuge in certainty become more
easily disconnected from society (becoming a subculture), develop
an inability to adapt to change, and begin to lack tolerance for
those who are different. Ironically, this may leave them less able
to accomplish their goals over the long term.
Liberal churches have also responded to their sense of a
loss of influence in a reactive way. Perceiving a need to be more
attractive to those in the culture, liberal churches attempt to adapt
to and be tolerant of the changes in society. This accommodation
is evident in:
UÊ « >Ãâ}Ê ,iiÛ>ViÊ Ê ÌÕÀ}V>Ê >}Õ>}iÊ >`Ê
*À>VÌVi°Ê This reaction is sometimes evident in an over-
C O N S TA N T I N E ’ S G H O S T
25
emphasis on remaining current in language and style by
reflexively adopting popular language and sensitivities
into the language and style of the liturgy.
UÊ ii« >Ãâ}Ê1µÕiiÃÃÊvÊ>Ì Ê>`Ê i>Ì°Ê
It is not unusual to see doctrine de-emphasized in preaching
and teaching for fear that these may not only seem irrelevant
to the culture, but also potentially divisive. Differences
between world religions are minimized by assuming that
they all teach the same ultimate truths.
UÊ VÕÃ}ÊÊ ÕÌÕÀ>Ê iiÛ>LÌÞ°ÊIt is common for liberal
church groups to present only those aspects of the faith that
the culture finds easy to accept and de-emphasize those it
does not.
Like the aforementioned defensive reactions, these accommodating reactions are not without positive aspects. Liturgical
language and practice must be renewed if they are to speak
the truth in ways that a changed culture can comprehend.
Similarly, it is important to acknowledge the ideas and values
that the Christian faith shares with other religions. And as the
apostle Paul said, there is some benefit in feeding new believers
with baby food before making them chew on the tough meat
of the faith (1 Corinthians 3:1–2). Such actions can be healthy
if taken in order to make the faith understandable to the culture, resulting in outreach to marginalized groups, openness
to cultural differences, and a sense of radical hospitality and
inclusivity not unlike that of Christ.
But if such actions are taken in an effort to accommodate (as
opposed to explain) the faith to the culture, they can become
destructive. The losses inherent in such accommodation include
a loss of scriptural/theological grounding and a loss of courage—
attempting to be all things to all people, but ultimately standing
for nothing.
26
PA R A D O X Y
Moving For ward Toge t he r
A collapsing paradigm does not peacefully release its grip on
those who hold it. Perhaps the intensity of the argument between
the conservative and liberal strands of Christianity ought to be
viewed as merely the final gasps of the Christendom paradigm
before it departs the body of Christ for good. The departure of
the Christendom paradigm is slowly but surely disconnecting
the church’s syncretism with the culture and ending its ability to
directly exert power, control, and influence over it. This is not a
bad thing, because such a connection always works both ways.
When the church attempts to lead the culture, it has to hold the
culture in an intimate embrace. And in the end, the church ends
up following as much as it leads.
We now have entered a new era with new opportunities. We
have an opportunity to faithfully and undistractedly focus our
attention on our true marriage: our union with Christ. Rather
than trying to change the world through worldly means—power,
control, and influence—the church instead changes the world
through the witness of its communal life and its servant ministry.
Simply put, if we take away power and control as the binding
force of Christian community, we are left with love: the love of Christ
experienced in common worship and fellowship—the kind of love that does
not insist on having its own way (1 Corinthians. 13:1–13). What
might that mean for us, moving forward together?
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
Mark 12:17
“Give to the emperor the things that are the
emperor’s, and to God the things that are
God’s.”
What belongs to the emperor? What belongs to God? How
do we discern the difference?
John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not from this
world. If my kingdom were from this world,
my followers would be fighting to keep me
from being handed over to the Jews. But as it
is, my kingdom is not from here.”
Where is our kingdom? How does this influence our relationship with this world?
Matthew 5:43–45
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall
love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But
I say to you, love your enemies and pray for
those who persecute you, so that you may
be children of your Father in heaven; for
he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the
good, and sends rain on the righteous and on
the unrighteous.”
28
PA R A D O X Y
If this is how Jesus asks us to treat those who are enemies of
the gospel, how then should we deal with brothers and sisters
with whom we disagree?
●
Questions to Consider
1 To what degree does your church or denomination demand uniformity as the price of admission into its spiritual community? List
the areas of your church’s or denomination’s corporate life in which
complete agreement seems important. Of these areas, which do you
most want to be enforced? Least want to be enforced? How much
uniformity can you enforce without producing disunity? How
much unity can you tolerate before you stand for nothing? Where
is the balance point?
2 Describe for your church or denomination: who is “us” and who is
“them”? Is there more than one category of “them”? Which of these
groups would be the hardest to include? Is it necessary for there to
be a “them” for there to be an “us”?
3 What social or moral issues do you, your church, or your denomination feel strongly enough about that you want to directly exert
power or influence in order to effect change? In what ways have
you attempted to exercise this kind of influence? What have been
the results? Is it possible to influence the culture without resorting to
power and coercive methods?
C H A P T E R
3
Reality Ain’t What It
Used to Be:
Foundationalism
Foundationalism. In epistemology, the view that some
beliefs can justifiably be held by inference from other
beliefs, which themselves are justified directly—e.g.,
on the basis of rational intuition or sense perception.
Beliefs about material objects or about theoretical
entities of science, for example, are not regarded as
basic or foundational in this way but are held to require
inferential support.
Foundationalists have typically recognized self-evident
truths and reports of sense-data as basic, in the sense
that they do not need support from other beliefs. Such
beliefs thus provide the foundations on which the edifice
of knowledge can properly be built.31
Have you ever been looking around for your glasses, only to
find out you’re already wearing them? Paradigms operate like that.
We get so used to looking through our lenses that we forget we
are wearing lenses at all.
Researchers trying to determine how much of the phenomenon
of vision was “hardwired” fitted subjects with special lenses that
turned their vision upside down. For several days the subjects
were extremely disoriented, but after about a week of wearing the
R E A L I T Y A I N ’ T W H AT I T U S E D T O B E
31
special lenses twenty-four hours a day, they suddenly began to see
normally again. Their eyes were still receiving the images upside
down, but their minds were correcting the view. Our paradigms
similarly “correct our view” without us even being aware of it. We
tend to see reality the way we are used to seeing reality and, when
our five senses tell us something different, we learn how to filter
out the discrepancy between what is really there and what we
“know” is there. Hence, as we look back at previous generations,
we assume that they must have seen reality the same way we do,
but weren’t smart enough to interpret it correctly, the way we
do. (“Once upon a time, people were stupid, but now we know
better.”) In reality, we just have different glasses than they did.
The last time we got a new pair of paradigm lenses was
almost 500 years ago. Europe had recently emerged from the
so-called Middle Ages and was heading into what has been
called, variously, the Age of Enlightenment, the Age of Reason,
or simply the Modern Age. The cornerstone of this age was a
paradigm of epistemology (i.e., the development of knowledge)
known as Foundationalism.
Foundationalism promised a solution to a long-standing
human concern: the desire for epistemological certainty (how
to prove that what we know is true). This concern is as old as
humankind itself, but by the time of the Enlightenment the
concern had become acute and the desire urgent.
Before the Enlightenment, a different sort of epistemological
paradigm held sway. Questions of knowledge, especially moral
or religious knowledge, could be resolved by appealing to
the authority of common tradition. However, the Protestant
Reformation fractured that common tradition, closing off that
means of resolution, resulting in decades of turmoil across
continental Europe, and revealing the need for a new approach.
Philosophers, secular and religious, sought to reduce the turmoil
32
PA R A D O X Y
by establishing new ways to establish with certainty the truth of
competing claims.
Foundationalism promised precisely such certainty. At its
core was the belief that human reason, exercised appropriately,
could ascertain absolute, incontestable, universal truths.
Foundationalism assumed that knowledge was like a building: if
the foundations were strong, the rest of the building was strong;
and if the foundations were weak, everything built on top of
them was shaky. Foundationalism was about determining those
incontestable beliefs or irrefutable first principles—universal,
objective, and discernable to any rational human being—upon
which all other beliefs and principles could rest.32
This paradigm had two “fathers,” each of whom developed
a different approach to isolating universal principles. René
Descartes and John Locke were driven not only by their concern
for society as a whole, but for the future of the church. From
opposite sides of the Roman Catholic–Protestant divide, they
both wished to avoid, as Descartes put it, further “tearing of
Christ’s seamless Garment.”33
Descartes worked the problem from the inside out, attempting
to isolate universal innate ideas, undistorted by culture, tradition,
subjectivity, or error, from which it would be possible to derive
truths about reality by deductive reasoning. Locke, on the other
hand, worked the problem from the outside in, attempting to derive
truths about reality from sense perceptions by a process of inductive reasoning. So we can see why Descartes, focusing as he did on
isolating the truths of ideas, could reasonably be called the father of
modern philosophy, while Locke, focusing on deriving truth from that
which was observable, measurable, and testable, might reasonably
be called the father of the modern scientific method. Both approaches
brought about the virtual explosion of knowledge over the last
several centuries, and the Foundationalism paradigm became so
R E A L I T Y A I N ’ T W H AT I T U S E D T O B E
33
pervasive in its influence that for centuries humans literally could
not think without using terms that connote foundations. We had
“grounds” for our actions, we “built” our arguments, and our opinions were “based” on “underlying” logic.
What may be harder to see (especially for Christians) is that
Descartes and Locke are also the fathers, respectively, of modern
Christian liberalism and modern Christian conservatism. Entire
books have been written outlining the evolution of Christian
conservatism and liberalism from their roots in the Foundationalist
approaches of these two men, so I will not attempt to develop
that history here. Suffice it to say that Descartes’s approach,
which chose for its universal and unassailable foundation the
inner spiritual experience, evolved into what we now know as
theological liberalism. Meanwhile, Locke’s approach, choosing for
its universal and unassailable foundation external divine revelation,
evolved into what we now know as theological conservatism.
The reason this familial relationship is sometimes hard to see
is because the original positions have evolved to become what
they are today. Few people today would espouse Descartes’s
purely internal, spiritual experience approach to truth any
more than they would Locke’s purely external, divine revelation
approach. Almost all of these people would wish to nuance their
approach in some way. Yet that does not alter the fact that those
two extreme and seemingly mutually exclusive approaches are
the most logically consistent with the foundational beliefs of
their side. In order to understand that theological liberalism and
theological conservatives are, in fact, two sides of the same coin,
it is useful to understand the strict logic of those pure, radical,
original positions.
The position of liberal Christianity is often mischaracterized
by conservative Christians as theological relativism or indifference
(i.e., “it doesn’t matter what you believe”). However, a more
34
PA R A D O X Y
accurate way of stating the pure experientialist position from
which theological liberalism descends would be to say that while
doctrinal beliefs do matter, they are simply not foundational truths.
The most universal and indisputable truths are to be found in the
innermost human experiences of spiritual awareness. Doctrinal
beliefs, while important, are our attempts to express those deeper
truths and are secondary in importance.
Meanwhile, the position of conservative Christianity is
often mischaracterized by liberal Christians as a rigid and
unthinking commitment to certain untenable truth claims, with
fundamentalism and biblical inerrancy at the extreme. Yet if we
examine the logic of theological conservatism’s divine revelationist
forebears, it is unassailable. The only way this approach could
provide certainty of truth would be through an unimpeachable,
external source: God’s divine revelation. Spiritual experiences,
while important, cannot be authentic unless they are grounded
in scriptural truths.
So what we often think of as the extreme ends of the liberalconservative divide are actually the logical extensions of their
branch of the Foundationalism tree. They share the same goal
of establishing indisputable, universal, foundational truth. Yet
because they approach the problem from different directions—
liberals from the inside out; conservatives from the outside in—to
accept the logic of one side is to deny the other, both cannot be
true. If one of them is right, the other has to be wrong. This has
brought us to where we are today: a division across which neither
side can reach without repudiating its core.
Unless both are wrong. . . .
R E A L I T Y A I N ’ T W H AT I T U S E D T O B E
35
Cr ac k s in t h e Fou n dat ion
Despite the early enthusiasm, it was not long before those on
both sides of the theological divide were faced with observable
facts that called their assumptions into question. Liberal
Christianity’s assumption that core spiritual experiences were
universal seemed obvious at first. But that seeming universality
of experience turned out to be more artifact than fact: an artifact
of the still fairly homogeneous cultural context of Europe rather
than a fact independent of context. Even though Europe was
splintering politically and denominationally at the time of the
Enlightenment, it still shared a common cultural heritage (Roman/
Western civilization) and faith tradition (Christianity). The other
cultures and religions that were known at the time existed at
the fringes of Western civilization and were not a part of social
experience for the vast majority. Even Judaism, Christianity’s
only serious competitor within Western civilization, shared
common roots with Christianity, and their often acrimonious
conflict was over which faith had the stronger claim to those
common roots.
But in the centuries since the Enlightenment, as the West
developed an increasing diversity of cultures and religions, the
assumption that all religious experiences were created equal was
called into question. Could one really say that the Christian’s
ultimate desire for communion with God is the same as the
Buddhist’s desire for the transcendence of nirvana? Is it not a
form of religious chauvinism to assert that the ultimate aims of
other religions must be the same as ours? Does it not deny both
their distinctiveness and our own? The conviction that Jesus
Christ is the unique expression of God has always been the heart
of Christianity. In all of this questioning, it soon became clear
that it was difficult to make the case for universality of spiritual
PA R A D O X Y
36
experience without undermining the case for the uniqueness of
Christ.
Meanwhile, conservative Christianity’s assumption of the
existence of a divinely revealed, error-free, bias-free, external
source of universal truth in the form of inspired Scripture came
face-to-face with inconvenient truths. With the invention of
the printing press and moveable type came typesetting errors.
These small but troubling mistakes quickly led to the more
nuanced theory of autographic inerrancy, claiming that only
the manuscripts written by the hand of the original author were
inerrant. Soon even the nuanced version faced increasing challenge
as increasing numbers of primitive manuscripts were unearthed
and discrepancies between them were revealed. And just as liberal
Christianity’s assumptions about common universal truths of
human spiritual experience were challenged by contact with other
cultures and religions, so conservative claims of a unique, external,
nonexperiential expression of universal truths in the Scriptures
were challenged by the discovery that the holy books of other
faiths contained similar—and sometimes older—stories.
As vexing as these problems might be, they were peculiar
to the field of theology—mere cracks in the foundation of
Foundationalism that continued to spur on major discoveries in
other fields, especially in the field of science. Ironically, within
a few centuries it would be one of the most advanced fields of
science that would poke so many holes in Foundationalism that its
whole house would begin to crumble.34
●
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain;
and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.35
Albert Einstein Theoretical physicist, 1879–1955
R E A L I T Y A I N ’ T W H AT I T U S E D T O B E
37
The first significant holes were punched by Albert Einstein in
the early twentieth century. Einstein demonstrated that matter had
no ultimate, indivisible foundation, but that at the atomic level,
matter and energy were fungible (to use an accounting term):
matter could be turned into energy and energy into matter. He
also demonstrated theoretically that the properties of reality were
not fixed: time could be dilated, mass could become infinite, and
causality could be changed, all dependent on the observer’s point
of view. Okay, but which view is true? According to relativity
theory, both are true (or stated more accurately, neither point of
view is more valid than the other). This was not the certainty and
universality of truth promised by Foundationalism.
If Einstein put a few holes in the wall of Foundationalism,
quantum physicist Werner Heisenberg turned it into Swiss cheese.
Heisenberg mathematically demonstrated that it was impossible
to observe reality without changing it: that unobserved, matter
(or energy) could exist in several states simultaneously, but once
observed, could only exist in a single state, which could not be
predicted. He called this the “Uncertainty Principle.” Later,
Heisenberg proved this principle experimentally, demonstrating
that the more accurately one measured the direction of a particle,
the less accurately one could measure the velocity, and vice versa.
He called this the “Observer Effect.” The practical impact of these
discoveries was to render Foundationalism-based Newtonian
physics useless at the quantum level. Classical physics posited that
if one knew the initial state of a system with infinite precision, one
could predict the behavior of the system infinitely far into the
future. Both the Observer Effect and the Uncertainty Principle
demonstrate that such precision is impossible to attain.
Consider what these principles of quantum physics say
about the nature of reality itself: they leave us two basic
options for explaining the nature of reality. On one side is the
38
PA R A D O X Y
Copenhagen Interpretation—so called because it was formulated
by Nils Bohr and Werner Heisenberg during their collaboration
in Copenhagen—that posits that the properties of reality are not
fixed and that conscious observation creates the reality observed.
In effect, human consciousness exists in a field of statistical
probabilities and, at some level, chooses which of the possibilities
becomes the reality.
On the other side is the so-called E.P.R. Thesis—the name
being obtained from the initials of the last names of the three
theoretical physicists who proposed it: Einstein, Podolsky, and
Rosen. The E.P.R. Thesis rejects the notion that reality is somehow
created by the observer, holding instead that reality, while infinite,
is also fixed. The reason observation seems to have a causative
effect on reality is because finite human observation can only see a
portion of reality. Infinite reality contains things that, to our finite
powers of observation, seem paradoxical (for example, light being
both a wave and a particle, or electrons being in multiple orbits at
the same time). So for us to observe reality at all means we must
only observe a portion of its seemingly impossible possibilities.
There is actual reality and there is observed reality, which is a
cheap imitation of the real thing.
Think of it this way: if reality were a video game, actual reality
would be the internal programming of the game. The program
is real (just ask the programmer who created it). The program is
fixed (until you get an upgrade). Yet its code contains multiple
levels, and an effectively infinite number of permutations, the full
range of which is known only by its creator. Observed reality is
what the players see when they pick up the controllers and play
the game. Each individual player must make successive choices
between multiple mutually exclusive alternatives and can only
negotiate a minute portion of the permutations available within
the programming code. Different players make different choices
R E A L I T Y A I N ’ T W H AT I T U S E D T O B E
39
and so experience the game differently. But any programmer will
tell you what complete reality of the video game resides in the
code, not in the small portion of the code that comes into play in
any single gaming session.
In a letter to Bohr, Einstein once summed up his objections
to the Copenhagen Interpretation in these words, “God does not
play dice with the universe.” To which Bohr replied, “Don’t tell
God what to do, Albert.”
Which point of view is correct? There is no way of knowing.
But in either case the impact on Foundationalism is devastating.
Foundationalism promised that objective observation could reveal
universal truths that the rational human mind could know without
doubt. The discoveries of quantum physics have revealed that the
premise on which the promise was made was not true. There is no
such thing as an objective observer.
This insight has led scientists—as well as most philosophers
and theologians—to abandon talk of discovering “universal truths.”
In fact, scientists seldom use the word truth at all, preferring instead
the term verisimilitude (lit., “a quality similar to the truth”) to describe
the relative probability that their observations of a particular
phenomenon accurately represent reality. In other words, to say
something has “a high degree of verisimilitude” is to say it is a
“close approximation of truth.” And, in what is equally relevant
to our discussion of the Foundationalism paradigm, the larger
the community of researchers investigating any phenomenon,
the higher the degree of verisimilitude, because each investigator
comes at the problem with slightly different perspective. These
are concepts that the church would do well to appropriate.
40
PA R A D O X Y
Pat c h in g t h e Cr ac k s an d P lu ggin g t h e Holes
These inconvenient facts created problems for paradigm
proponents on both sides of the liberal-conservative divide. If
the paradigm has become your reality, what do you do when the
cracks become too noticeable to ignore? If you can’t abandon the
dominant paradigm (or maybe even recognize that you are in one)
in favor of a more complete and encompassing one, what are your
choices? There seem to be three:
1.Ê/ÊÌ iÊ,>«>ÀÌÃt Rally around the purist position with
increasing defensiveness and increasingly elaborate
rationalizations.
2.Ê «ÀÃiÊ>`Ê`>«ÌtÊAdopt compromises that soften
the position or attempt to prop up confidence in it by
means other than facts.
3.Ê Ài>ÌiÊ>ʺ/ i»t Focus all of your attention on what seem
to you to be the greater inconsistencies (and the “unlikeablilities”) of the other side.
Today you will find all of these coping strategies employed to
varying degrees by both sides. When faced with contradictions
between scriptural texts, conservatives may defend their positions
on the authority of Scripture by producing detailed rationalizations
to harmonize varying accounts. Failing that, they may reluctantly
allow that one or both of the texts are speaking metaphorically and
claim that when Scripture is speaking metaphorically, it is inerrant
in its metaphorical sense. When faced with clear differences in
the spiritual experiences and goals of various faith traditions,
liberals may defend the position of universality by insisting that
such universality lies at a deeper or more symbolic level. Faced
with scriptural texts containing accounts of miraculous events that
rational minds find hard to swallow, they may reduce their feelings
of doubt by employing text criticism to exclude those events from
R E A L I T Y A I N ’ T W H AT I T U S E D T O B E
41
consideration and by accepting as true only those accounts that
can be attributed to natural causes.
W hat Re mains W he n Fo und at io nalis m Fad e s ?
The promise of the Enlightenment paradigm of Foundationalism was the hope that unity could be achieved through certainty
of the truth based on rational human observation. With the fall of
Foundationalism, that promise was betrayed and that hope proved
hollow. So what remains? What can we hold on to? If we cannot
achieve unity through what we believe, what hope is there for
unity?
Simply put, when certainty of truth fails as a foundation of
Christian community, our hope for unity is in faith. But as we had
to do with our concept of love, we must similarly move beyond
the kind of faith we are used to. God is removing from minds our
misplaced assumptions that our minds could know all the facts and
that knowing these facts, even with certainty, could set us free.
And in the place of these assumptions God is encouraging in us a
faith that is beyond belief, grounded instead in a relationship of
loving with the One who is the Truth.
In retrospect, it should have been clear from the start that
Foundationalism could never have delivered on its promise. To
assume that the finite human rationality can fully understand the
infinite is both a scientific impossibility and a scriptural-theological
error. Even if it could have delivered that certainty (and to the
extent that we pretended that it could), it would have meant
the death of faith, at least the kind of faith Christians profess
to believe: “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of
things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). What is more, if we were to
equate faith with the work of our minds, then that would eliminate
42
PA R A D O X Y
the possibility of grace, making it no longer a free “gift of God,”
but rather a something of our “own doing” (Ephesians 2:8).
N o One Has a Lock o n t he Tr u t h
In different ways, both sides of the theological divide based
their approaches to faith on the assumption that human rationality
can identify universal principles and eliminate doubt. If that
presumption turns out to be presumptuous, it hardly matters how
you go about trying to achieve those goals. Whether you seek
ultimate truth externally (through the propositions of Scriptures
you presume to be inerrant) or internally (through the deep spiritual
experiences you presume to be universal), whatever you end up
with HAS to be a little wrong. The best we can humanly hope to
achieve is verisimilitude (a close approximation of the truth).
If we have to settle for verisimilitude, then we need to learn
how to increase it. Science has shown us that the most effective
way is to triangulate in on the truth by increasing the number of
observers, so that each brings a different angle of observation and
their biases cancel each other out. If we in the church accept this
approach, then we will have to admit that we need those people
who have different theological points of view from our own.
When we engage each other’s differences with open minds, we
become better and better at triangulating in on a closer and closer
approximation of what truths there are to be known.
Our friends in the Jewish tradition have always understood
this principle of verisimilitude and long ago developed a way
of studying the Scriptures that brought together many points
of view to enhance their biblical understanding. This method,
called Midrash, assumes that by placing texts against texts and
interpretations against interpretations, without assuming that
R E A L I T Y A I N ’ T W H AT I T U S E D T O B E
43
one must be right and the others wrong, we develop broader,
deeper, and clearer understanding of the fullness of what God is
communicating to us through the Scriptures (but of which none
of us fully receive, hear, or comprehend).36
It’s time we stopped trying to build the unity of the church on
a foundation of what WE BELIEVE, and instead started assuming
our unity because of our RELATIONSHIP with the one we
believe in—or more importantly because of the one who loves
and believes in us. After all, Jesus did not say, The doctrines I will teach
you are the way, the truth, and the life. What he said was that HE was
the Way, the Truth, and the Life (cf. John 14:6). If unity cannot be
achieved based on WHAT we believe, the only thing left is WHO
we believe in.
It’s very important what we believe. God is the source of all
truth, and we should bend our minds toward understanding that
truth and forming our lives around it. But since we now know all of
us must be a little wrong (though we don’t know exactly where),
we should both seek—and speak—the truth with humility and
with a mind that is at least a little open to what truth “the other”
might help us to find. Whatever truth we do know—to the extent
that we truly comprehend it—we understand only through the
grace of God. So we should “speak the truth in love,” (Ephesians
4:15a) with “all humility and gentleness” (Ephesians 4:2).
●
For no one can lay any foundation
other than the one that has been laid;
that foundation is Jesus Christ.
Paul Called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus
(1 Corinthians 3:11)
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
Exodus 33:18–23
Moses said, “Show me your glory, I pray.” And
[God] said, “I will make all my goodness pass
before you, and will proclaim before you the
name, ‘The Lord,’ ’’ [Heb. YHVH (with no vowel
points, making it unpronounceable)]. . . . “But,”
he said, “you cannot see my face; for no one
shall see me and live. . . . See, there is a place by
me where you shall stand on the rock; and while
my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the
rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I
have passed by; then I will take away my hand,
and you shall see my back; but my face shall not
be seen.”
God tells Moses his name, which is not humanly pronounceable, and allows Moses to see only a small part of God’s
glory, because no human being can see God’s “face” and live.
To what extent can finite human reason comprehend ultimate
reality? How confident can we be in our certainties about
God?
John 14:5–6
Thomas said to [Jesus], “Lord, we do not know
where you are going. How can we know the
R E A L I T Y A I N ’ T W H AT I T U S E D T O B E
45
way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and
the truth, and the life. . . .”
What does it mean for a person to be the Way, the Truth, and
the Life? How do your answers to this question inform and
influence the way you understand truth? The way you live
out your faith? The way you relate to Christ?
Matthew 18:20
Jesus said, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”
What is the significance of Jesus promising to be present
AMONG two or more gathered in his name, as opposed to
being present WITHIN an individual believer?
●
Questions to Consider
1 In what areas of your spiritual life do you feel the need for certainty? How does that need for certainty express itself? When
deciding what is true, to what do you tend to give the most weight:
Scripture, tradition, reason, prayer, other?
2 How does your need for certainty interfere with your faith?
3 Given that the best we can hope for is verisimilitude (a close approximation of truth), how might interacting with someone whose point
of view is different from ours help us to gain a more complete understanding of reality?
C H A P T E R
4
Hanging by a hread:
Christianity as Religion
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uh n] –noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning
the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp.
when considered as the creation of a superhuman
agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and
ritual observances, and often containing a moral code
governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific
fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed
upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion;
the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to
a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of
religions.37
So far we have examined
two of the three paradigms
that I claimed were part of the paradigm shifts that we’re
currently experiencing. We have looked at Christendom and
Foundationalism. What’s next?
While it may seem odd to define the Christian religion as a
paradigm, it does fit all the requirements. Remember the definition
of paradigm? “A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices
that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community
that shares them.” Is it not strikingly similar to the definition of
religion?
Most people think of a religion primarily as a set of beliefs
about God and the meanings of life and reality. Only secondarily
PA R A D O X Y
48
is it a set of practices, rituals, devotional activities, and rules of
life. We often use this set of beliefs and practices as a way to
distinguish our religious group from another religious group.
Similarly, over most of the church’s existence, Christian orthodoxy
has been defined as subscribing to a broad set of beliefs and
rejecting others (this despite the fact that the word “orthodoxy”
literally means “right praise,” not “right beliefs”) and Christians
have used the acceptance of those beliefs and practices as a way
to separate those that belong from those who don’t. We have used
this concept of orthodoxy not only externally—to distinguish
ourselves from other religions—but also internally—to create
distinctions between us.
But it wasn’t always this way. Christianity as we have come
to know it, as an organized religion, didn’t exist at the time of
its founder. In fact, it would be technically incorrect to call Jesus
Christ the founder of Christianity, because as far as biblical
scholarship can ascertain, Jesus neither started nor intended to
start a new religion. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus say to his
disciples, “Go forth and start a new religion and name it after me.”
He was born a Jew. He grew up in a Jewish family. He taught as a
rabbi. He was executed for being a Jewish king (even though he
never claimed to be one). His body was collected by a sympathetic
member of the Sanhedrin (the supreme court of Israel), who laid
the body inside a Jewish tomb located in a Jewish burial site.
●
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets;
I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.
Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 5:17)
HANGING BY A THREAD
49
Certainly he condemned the Jewish temple leaders—for not
living up to the spirit of the laws God gave to the Jewish people.
He argued against the Pharisees, but as one brought up in the
Pharisaic tradition. He healed Gentiles as well as Jews, but he did
not try to convert them to anything. He called people to be his
followers; he called them to be his friends and learn about him,
not to form a new religion (“learners” is the literal meaning of the
word “disciples”).
The apostle Paul planted churches all over the Mediterranean,
but never called any of them “Christian,” nor uttered the word
“Christianity” in any of his letters. In fact, the first use of the term
Christian (lit., “little Christs”) was as an insult to Gentile followers
of Christ. Jewish followers were called “Nazarenes,” a similar insult
(Acts 24:5). Most followers of Christ called themselves followers
of “the Way” (Acts 9:2). Only later, in a bold reversal, did followers
of Christ take on those derogatory terms as a point of pride, as
many oppressed groups have done in modern times (e.g., the
within-group use of the term “queer” by gays and lesbians, and the
“n-word” by African-Americans).
By and large, the writers of the New Testament viewed religion
as an irrelevant, obsolete category. Today the word “church” evokes
images of organized religion, yet this was not inherent in its New
Testament usage. Ecclesia, the Greek word translated as “church,”
literally means “the called out ones.” Similarly, we think the word
convert today as a proselyte (a person who has changed religions).
Yet when the Paul described new believers, he did not use the
Greek word for proselyte or words that carried that connotation.
Rather, he employed several different words to describe new
believers, the literal meanings of which were nonreligious terms
generally used in agriculture: “first fruit” (Greek: aparche–Romans
16:5) or “newly planted seed” (Greek: neophuton–1 Timothy 3:6).
50
PA R A D O X Y
The Primitive Church: Religion or Movem en t ?
The primitive church of the first century was anything but
organized. Not only was there no ordained leadership, there was
no agreement on how churches should be governed. Individual
churches and groupings of churches generally adopted leadership,
organizational, and liturgical structures that reflected the cultures
out of which they emerged. There was no Scripture other than the
Hebrew Scriptures, and even these were in flux, as the canonization
of Hebrew Scripture took place over several centuries and wouldn’t
be complete until at least the end of the second century. Nor was
there any tradition at this point except for those the early church
members brought with them from their faiths of origin. What did
exist was a diverse movement of people out of widely different
religious and cultural backgrounds centered on the person of the
risen Christ, and bound together and empowered by the Holy
Spirit. In effect, they were all asking themselves the same question:
“If Christ, then what?” What difference did the risen Christ make
in their individual lives, their corporate lives, and their lives lived
in the cultures in which they found themselves?
Despite all of this, somehow, somewhere along the way,
someone turned the popular movement that followed him into an
organized religion. In fact, some suggest that Christianity created
the paradigm of religion as we know it today: that Christianity
was the first faith to create a religion whose membership was
based primarily on agreement to a specific set of beliefs.38
U nity through S e curit y o f S e lf-Pr e s e r vat io n
In becoming a religion, the church leaders sought unity
in the security of organizational self-preservation. Who could
HANGING BY A THREAD
51
blame them, really? Today it is almost a cliché to say that “the
church is only one generation away from extinction,” but in the
early days, this was a clear and present danger. For decades the
church faced a growing tension between dynamism and stability,
between fluidity and structure, between Jesus movement and
Christian religion. It was a lot easier to exist as a dynamic, fluid,
Spirit-driven movement, because they expected Jesus Christ was
coming back in their lifetimes. When it became clear that they
were in for a much longer wait, other concerns began to creep
into their considerations. For example, how could they be sure
that this movement survived their own passing? How could they
preserve their own experience to pass down to their children’s
children?
There was a wolf outside the door: the Roman Empire
sought to destroy them. The Roman authorities believed that the
church was subversive to the social order, an antireligious and
anarchist movement. There were also threats from the inside from
those who sought to change the nature of their experience into
something unrecognizable. For example, adherents of Gnosticism
(a first-century religious ideology based on the concept of hidden
knowledge) wanted to change the movement into a kind of
mystery religion of hidden truths withheld from the masses and
known only to a select group of initiates.
Both of these external and internal threats that the nascent
church faced tended to push it away from a more fluid movement,
organized primarily around the relationship experienced with the
risen Christ, and more toward structure and rules that constitute
an organized religion. From the Empire’s point of view, the more
the church became organized and predictable, the less alien and
threatening it appeared, providing, of course, that it did not set
itself up in opposition to the Empire. Thus, the more the church
moved in this direction, the less persecution it was likely to face.
52
PA R A D O X Y
The internal threats were more subtle, but no less serious. The
kind of closed and secretive religious structure the Gnostics sought
to develop was rewarding for those initiated few who were “in the
know,” but it would be very unlike the kind of open community
of love the disciples had experienced in the risen Christ. The task
of defining what the authentic (i.e., orthodox) experience was and
was not also pushed the movement in the direction of religion.
Others can trace the transition of the church from movement
to religion better than I, but suffice it to say that most of the
organizational institutions that developed in the church (e.g.,
ordained ministry, the canon of Scripture, and the authorized
Tradition) were not demanded by Scripture, but evolved out of
the emerging needs of the church.39
A few years ago, at a training session for clergy at my former
seminary, we were asked to describe our personal theology of
church and ordination. As those around the circle of my small
group gave their answers, I listened and pondered, turning the
question over in my head. When it was my turn, I said, “A mistake
made holy.”
As far as I can tell, there is no clear biblical mandate for either
the church or the ordained ministry. It may well be that Christ
had something else in mind. However, I believe that God has
blessed this invention of ours, sent the Holy Spirit to the church
as Companion, and made the church the body of Christ.
We tend to make one of two mistakes when we think about
the history of the church. Either we place our traditions on a
pedestal of God-given perfection or near-perfection, or we tell
ourselves that if we could only sweep aside the traditions and
discover how the primitive church operated, we would find the
God-given perfection we seek. However, if we explore without
preconceptions the development of the early church, we find that
neither of these assumptions is true.
HANGING BY A THREAD
53
The early leaders had powerfully experienced Christ’s divinity
AND his undeniable humanity, but how would they express this
paradox in a way that made sense, and could be passed on to the
next generation? They had also experienced the unique power and
personality of the Holy Spirit. This presented them with yet another
holy paradox: how could the one God exist in three persons? They
had to find the words to describe and pass this paradox on, too.
But how could they even come close? As a seminary professor
once told me, “If you can describe the Trinity in a way people can
understand, you are probably speaking heresy.” Of course, he later
explained, that didn’t mean we shouldn’t try to speak about it, just
that we should practice a little humility when we do.
In this effort to describe the paradoxical nature of God, we
find the church yet again leaning toward the test of unity—what
all Christians everywhere believed—to define orthodoxy. In the
end, according to most scholars, the earliest formulations of this
kerygma (lit., key) boiled down to these basic statements: God
in Christ fulfills the Scripture; God became incarnate in Jesus
Christ; Christ was crucified; Christ was buried; Christ rose again;
Christ was exalted to the right hand of God; God gave us the gift
of the Holy Spirit; there will be a Day of Judgment; therefore,
repent.40
If this begins to sound familiar, it is because these statements
went on to become the basic building blocks of the Apostles’
Creed sometime in the second century, developed into the form of
the Nicene Creed by the fourth century, and were further refined
in the Chalcedonian Creed in the fifth century. If you read these
later documents carefully, you will find they map out the outside
boundaries of orthodoxy rather than specifically defining it.
The two core dogmas of our faith—the dual natures of Christ
and the triune nature of God, neither of which is developed in
Scripture—are primary examples:
54
PA R A D O X Y
UÊ / iÊ Õ>Ê >ÌÕÀiÃÊvÊ ÀÃÌ° The dogma of the nature of
Christ is that Jesus Christ is both fully human and fully
God, without confusion, change, division, or separation:
two natures (Greek: ousia) together in one person (Greek:
prosopon) and one essence/underlying reality (Greek:
hypostasis).
UÊ / iÊ/ÀÕiÊ >ÌÕÀiÊvÊ`°ÊThe dogma of the nature of
God is that God is a complex unity: three distinct persons
(or personalities) within one undivided Godhead.
These two dogmas are not “definitions.” Rather they each
describe a paradoxical state of existence. This is important. The
precise mechanism by which these states are achieved was left an
undefined and indefinable mystery. Perhaps it was precisely because
the church fathers knew they were dealing with an indefinable
mystery that they decided to “explain” these things in terms of
essential criteria rather than atomistic definitions.41 Perhaps this is
why another of my seminary professors once offered this tonguein-cheek operational definition of dogma: “This is as good as it’s
gonna get, so let’s stop arguing about it.”
S o, Whe re Is Religion Goin g?
Consider how often you’ve heard people say, “I’m not religious,
but I’m spiritual.” While it’s hard to say exactly when this idea first
originated, it seems to have come into widespread use in the midtwentieth century. With the advent of Alcoholics Anonymous, this
statement was used as a way its members described the spirituality
of their Twelve-Step recovery program. Since that time, its usage
has grown steadily until now it is used ubiquitously.
Clearly, something is going on. Some people are beginning
to turn away from the aspects of Christianity that they associate
HANGING BY A THREAD
55
with organized religion—officially sanctioned beliefs, approved
practices, rigid traditions—seeing them as irrelevant, unhelpful, or
even damaging to their spiritual journeys. Yet many of the same
people are appropriating some of those same beliefs, practices,
and traditions informally and outside the auspices of the organized
church. It is not unusual to hear unchurched or dechurched people
speaking about their belief in God’s grace, their relationship with
Christ, or their practice of centering prayer, monastic chant, or
walking the labyrinth. Despite turning away from the religion, to
which their families belonged, they don’t see themselves as less
spiritual. If anything, they see themselves as more so, because they
appropriated these things freely.42
Another sign that the current paradigm of Christianity is in
epoch-making flux is the growing Emerging Church Movement.
From across the denominational and nondenominational spectrum,
groups are forming that reject the current definition of what it
means to be church. They focus much less on the specific set of
beliefs and practices that defines them and focus more on what is
common to Christians across the theological spectrum and on the
strengths that various Christian traditions might have to offer.
This creative, cross-cutting way of exploring what it means
to be church has given rise to the popular term “Generous
Orthodoxy.” Interestingly, this was first coined by theologian
Hans Frei in the 1980s to describe why he, an ordained Baptist
minister, was drawn to the Anglican/Episcopal tradition that he
eventually adopted. As Frei later put it:
Split as we are, not so much into denominations as
into schools of thought, [what] we need [is] a kind
of generous orthodoxy that would have in it an
element of liberalism—a voice such as the Christian
Century—and an element of evangelicalism—the
56
PA R A D O X Y
voice of Christianity Today. I don’t know if there is
a voice between those two, as a matter of fact. If
there is, I would like to pursue it.”43
Ironically, while the term was originally coined by an Anglican
in the 1980s, it was popularized by an evangelical in the late 1990s.
Brian McLaren, then pastor of Cedar Ridge Church in Maryland,
would use it to describe a way of approaching orthodoxy within
evangelical Christianity that would become the Emerging Church
Movement.
Only recently have mainline denominations such as the
Episcopal Church begun to warm up to the Emerging Church
and its vision. Meanwhile, the boundaries of denominations have
begun to blur. Rents are appearing in the fabric of the church over
schools of thought about the nature of church that cut across
denominational boundaries.44
There is a dawning realization of the distinction between
the organization that is called the church and the living organism that is
the church. An organization that is called the church is a collection
of individuals who cooperate within an agreed-upon structure to
conduct business that achieves a common goal. The organism that
is the church is a living thing with a vision built into it by God
that constantly adapts its actions and its organization to bring
that vision to life in each new generation. Organisms must have
organization to survive, yet a particular organizational structure
cannot ensure the survival of the organism. Ironically, to the extent
the organization called the church insists upon having certainty of
its own self-preservation, it drains away the vitality of the organism
that is the church. As religion falters, we are forced to let go of
the certainty of self-preservation, and in its place to turn to more
essential things that unite us. Just as we were required to shift
our understanding of the love that remains when Christendom fell
HANGING BY A THREAD
57
and the faith that remains when Foundationalism falls, so we must
adapt our understanding of the hope that remains when religion
ceases to make the most sense in our spiritual lives. What God
is turning us toward is not a hope for a particular outcome, but a
confidence that God will bring about the future that God wants.
Moses at the burning bush was faced with the paradox of the
bush that burned yet was not consumed. He realized with Godgiven clarity that he was standing on holy ground. Like Moses, we
must wrestle with a new reality that defies complete understanding,
and yet strive to understand it as well as we can so that we might
teach it, preach it, and pass it on. Faith in the twenty-first century
must adopt a paradoxical stance of both confidence and humility.
The following are some thoughts about where this would
leave us.
UÊ w`iÌÊ vÊ Ã«À>ÌÊ ÞiÌÊ Ãi«ÌV>Ê vÊ «iÀviVÌÊ Õ`iÀstanding.
UÊ «Ài i`}Ê Ì >ÌÊ Ì iÊ i>ÀÌÊ vÊ ÀÌ `ÝÞÊ ÃÊ ÛiÊ vÊ
Christ.
UÊ *iÀViÛ}ÊÌ >ÌÊÌ iÊ«ÕÀ«ÃiÊvÊÀÌ `ÝÞÊÃÊÕÌÞÊÊÌ iÊ
essentials.
We begin to appreciate that the church’s creedal statements
of orthodoxy function more effectively as descriptions of the
boundary criteria for our understanding of God than they do as
any precise definition of God’s nature. In fact, we have learned
that it was the attempts of early church leaders to be too precise in
their descriptions of the nature of God that got them into trouble.
We should therefore be humble in our use of orthodoxy—using it
as a tool to unify rather than as a weapon to exclude people.
Indeed, what each of us thinks of as orthodoxy has at least as
much to say about what we believe than what God holds to be
essential truth. The more intuitively true something seems to us,
the more likely we are to believe it to be universal truth. And it
58
PA R A D O X Y
might be, but it could just as easily be merely a projection of our
own comfortable assumptions. The longer our church has held
something to be true, the more we are likely to believe that it must
be eternal truth. And it might be, but it might simply be a belief
that seemed reasonable at a certain time or that seemed to have
universal application within a specific cultural situation.
Think of it this way: let’s draw three concentric circles—an
inner bulls-eye enclosed by a slightly larger circle, which itself is
enclosed by an even larger circle [see Figure 4.1].
In the innermost circle we’ll place those paradoxical statements
of belief by which we attempt to express—nay, hint at—the
ultimate nature of God, that is by nature ultimately inexpressible:
things such as the triune nature of God and the fully human–fully
divine nature of Jesus Christ. Let’s label this circle, “DOGMA.”
In the next circle we’ll place those beliefs we hold as logical
consequents (that is, second order beliefs) of our Dogma: concepts
such as grace and redemption, whether the Holy Spirit is sent to
us by God the Father AND God the Son, or just God the Father.
Let’s label this circle, “DOCTRINE.”
Finally, in the outermost circle we’ll place those things the
church has taught about the implication of these beliefs for how
we should live: things such as the church’s teachings on issues of
evangelism, war and peace, and human sexuality. So that we can
use it as an alliterative aid to memory, let’s label this last circle with
the Greek word for “teaching,” that is “DIDACHE.”
F IG URE 4 .1
CUR B ING OUR D OG MA
DIDACHE
( Teachi n g & Tr ad i ti on )
DOCTRINE
( T he Cr eed s)
DOGMA
( Pa r ad o x Cor e Do ctr i n es)
You might disagree with my determinations about what
things fall into which circle, but my point does not depend on
our agreeing on every placement. My point is that when we are
defining what makes a person an “orthodox” Christian, the farther
we move away from the bulls-eye, the more division and disunity
will result. So, what can keep it all together in the new future?
PA R A D O X Y
60
The Core of O r t h odoxy Is Par adox- y
We would do well to remember that the core doctrines of
our faith are ultimately indefinable paradoxes. What is a paradox?
Consider the dictionary definition. . . .
par·a·dox [par-uh-doks] –noun 1. a statement or
proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in
reality expresses a possible truth. 2. a self-contradictory
and false proposition. 3. any person, thing, or situation
exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature. 4. an
opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted
opinion.45
We are using the term in the sense of both the first definition
(“a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory . . . but
expresses . . . truth”) and the fourth (“an opinion or statement
contrary to commonly accepted opinion”). But, just as important,
we are also using it in the third sense (“any person . . . exhibiting an
apparently contradictory nature”) of Jesus Christ, who by his very
nature is both human and God, both finite and infinite. There is no
getting around the fact that the core of any Christian orthodoxy
is Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy—at the CORE—is paradoxical. This
being the case, we would do better to contemplate and explore
together the mysterious paradoxes that lie at the heart of our faith,
and to try to live as though we truly believe them, rather than use
them to sort people into “US” and “THEM.”
The early church’s view was much like an ancient Jewish
saying: “we do not seek to understand God so we might follow
God, but rather we follow that we might understand.” The early
church’s understandings of God were strongly shaped by their
HANGING BY A THREAD
61
worship of the risen Christ, their seeking and following of Christ’s
call, and their serving the world in Christ’s name.
Somehow, the early church was extremely diverse in many
ways yet very committed to its unity. An important criterion in
determining what was normative for the church was what held
it together, rather than what divided it. We should pay close
attention to whether our attempts to define what is normative
for the church produce unity or schism. We should be wary of
elevating to importance things that produce the latter. Unity, not
uniformity, should be the test of orthodoxy.
Albert Einstein is commonly thought to have suggested the
following functional definition of insanity: “doing the same thing
over and over again and expecting a different result.”46 If so, then
the reverse is also true: the first step in returning to sanity is to
stop doing what no longer works. From the gradual dissolution of
the above paradigms we take two important lessons about what
no longer works:
UÊ ÃiÀÛ>ÌÛiLiÀ>Ê yVÌÊÃÊ>Ê i>`Ê `°ÊConservative Christianity and liberal Christianity are modern
creations, deeply rooted in the paradigm of Foundationalism. Like two punch-drunk boxers locked in a clinch
after fourteen rounds, the only reason either remains
standing is the other’s embrace. It’s time to end the
fight.
UÊ 1ÌÞÊÃÊ ÌÊ1vÀÌÞ°ÊThe old paradigms of Christian
unity share an assumption that uniformity is a prerequisite
of unity. While the world certainly operates on this basis,
when it comes to the church (with apologies to George
Gershwin), “it ain’t necessarily so.” If anything, the more
the church has strived for uniformity, the more it has
splintered. What will it take to put unity in Christian
community? When we have sifted through the rubble of
62
PA R A D O X Y
the old paradigms, what will remain standing that we can
rely on as our source of unity?
Take away power and control as the binding force of
Christian community, and we are left with love: the love of Christ
experienced in common worship and fellowship.
Take away certainty as the foundation of Christian community,
and we are left with faith: faith in the incarnate person of Jesus
Christ.
Take away the security of organization as the primary
preservation principle of Christian community, and we are left
with hope: the hope of an organic, spiritual community that is yet
to emerge.
Faith, hope, and love . . . sound familiar? Christians have long
seen the wisdom of ordering their individual and interpersonal
lives by these three words from the apostle Paul (see 1 Corinthians.
13:13). The more the church breaks free from the grip of these old
ways of viewing the world, the freer the church will be to live into
these words in its corporate life.
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
Matthew 5:17–18
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the
law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish
but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and
earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke
of a letter, will pass from the law until all is
accomplished.”
If Jesus never intended to start a new religion, what does it
mean to follow Jesus Christ?
Luke 9:49–50
John answered, “Master, we saw someone casting
out demons in your name, and we tried to stop
him, because he does not follow with us.” But
Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him; for whoever
is not against you is for you.”
What are the implications of this text (and others like it) for
defining Christianity?
PA R A D O X Y
64
1 Corinthians 13:13
And now faith, hope, and love abide, these
three; and the greatest of these is love.
In what ways do faith, hope, and love order your life as an
individual believer? How would your church be different if it
ordered its life around these three attitudes/qualities?
●
Questions to Consider
1 In what ways is the structure of your church more like an organization? In what ways is it more like an organism? In what ways
can the structure be either a strength or a potential weakness?
2 Write on ten sticky notes the ten most important beliefs of your
faith. Now stick them to one of three sheets of newsprint labeled
Dogma (the church’s core, mostly paradoxical beliefs), Doctrine
(the church’s creeds), and Didache (the church’s traditions and
teaching).
3 Discuss why you placed your sticky notes where you did. Attempt
to come to a consensus about the placements. Discuss the implications for yourselves, your congregation, and your denomination.
C H A P T E R
5
O God, Our Help
in Ages Past:
Christianities hat
Might Have Been
This chapter is entitled “Christianities That Might Have Been”
because in it we will be exploring three unique expressions of
Christianity that once flourished but no longer exist. These are:
UÊ / iÊiÜÃ Ê ÀÃÌ>Ê>`ÊiÌiÊ ÀÃÌ>Ê*>Õi®ÊÛiments of the first century through the fourth century.
UÊ / iÊÀ>`V>Ê>ÃÌVÊÛiiÌÊi`ÊLÞÊ>ÀÌÊvÊ/ÕÀÃÊvÊ
the fourth century.
UÊ / iÊ iÌVÊ ÀÃÌ>Ê ÛiiÌÊ vÊ Ì iÊ vÕÀÌ Ê ViÌÕÀÞÊ
through the eighth century.
I call these “movements” because they tended to be areligious
or transreligious in nature. They did not define themselves as
distinct denominations. They had little interest in “converting”
people from membership in other religious groups to their own.
Their focus was on knowing, following, and sharing the love of
the person of Jesus Christ.
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
67
There’s an organic connection between these movements.
The Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian movements were not
only aware of each other, but interacted with and supported each
other—like two branches of a single tree. Two centuries later,
Martin of Tours’s radical monastic communities would draw much
of their inspiration from these first-century communities. Celtic
Christians drew inspiration from them as well. There are other
movements worthy of study as examples of what might have been
in the history of the church, but this chapter is not intended as a
comprehensive history, but rather is an offering of a few historical
vignettes, in the hope that we might draw inspiration from them.
Above all, I love these three examples for the ways that they
sparked massive expansions of faith in Christ. They spread the
love of Christ like it was an infectious agent.
I believe that these Christianities that might have been can
offer us some important insights to identify the outlines of what
the new paradigm of church might be. If we can understand how
they maintained unity in the midst of their diversity, and how they
sustained the vitality of community that seemed to attract people
into their body of believers, then maybe we can apply those
understandings to the task of being church in our own day. Not
to imitate them—which would be impossible because of the many
differences between them—but to learn from them.
Pe t er, Pa u l, an d Jam es an d Fe llowsh ips of Gr ac e
Whatever else you might say about the primitive church,
monolithic it was not. Just as there were “many Judaisms” in the
first century, it would be accurate to say that there were “many
Christianities” as well.47 In the earliest church, as various national,
cultural, and religious groups came face-to-face with Jesus
PA R A D O X Y
68
Christ through the spread of the gospel, each was transformed.
Transformed, not obliterated. The forms of Christian practice that
sprung from these intersections with Christ maintained many of
the characteristics of the spiritual practices of the groups from
which they sprung.48 Those, such as the apostle Paul, who came
out of the Pharisaic movement retained many of their spiritual
practices and ways of thought. Paul’s biblical interpretation had a
distinctly Midrashic character.49 He never renounced his Judaism,
and in almost every town he visited, he worshiped in the synagogue
as well as with the Christian assembly there.
Early Christianity followed this same pattern of diversity as
it spread among the Gentiles. For example, Paul’s letters to the
churches in Galatia, Ephesus, and Rome show many differences
in style and substance that could well be attributed to their preChristian cultural and religious differences. It would not be until
the time of Constantine that this diversity of expression began to
be strongly suppressed in favor of uniformity. Even then, Christian
diversity could be found springing up on the fringes of the Empire,
among the converted barbarians in Gaul and Celtic Britain.
●
Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship;
it moved to Greece and became a philosophy;
it moved to Italy and became an institution;
it moved to Europe and became a culture;
it came to America and became an enterprise.50
Sam Pascoe American clergyman and scholar
Ironically, the contemporary institutional church seemed to
view these movements’ out-of-control spreading of the gospel and
their classless diversity as a threat. In each case, the institution
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
69
sought to reign in the movement, suppressing both its diversity
and independence.
Suppression took many forms. The various communities that
made up the Jewish part of the first-century Jesus movement were
branded as heretical and were excommunicated from the larger
church. The Pauline congregations that made up the Gentile part
of the movement were eventually absorbed into the emerging
organized church. And while Paul’s radical notion of salvation
through God’s grace alone became officially acknowledged as
doctrine, in practice the church tended more toward canonical
legalism.51
While the Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian movements
of the primitive church might seem very different on the outside,
on the inside they shared much in common. Both saw themselves
as parts of a movement centered on the person of Jesus Christ.
At its beginning the church was a Jewish Christian phenomenon:
all of its members were Jews. The controversy dealt with by the
first church council at Jerusalem was whether a person could
become a follower of Jesus without first effectively converting
to Judaism (i.e., without observing the ceremonial law). This
indicates that the majority opinion in the earliest church was
that Jewish Christianity was the norm and an exception was
being made for Gentile Christians. The apostles were generally
supportive of Jewish Christianity, as they were themselves Jewish
Christians. Jewish Christianity was the conservative practice in
the earliest church. Paul’s idea—that the Gentiles not be required
to observe the ceremonial law—was a liberal, if not radical,
concept. However, the apostles evidently found Paul’s arguments
persuasive and agreed that the requirements of the law would
not be laid upon Gentile Christians (see Acts 15:4–30). The
Jerusalem Decree represented a compromise that went deeper
than merely dividing up the evangelistic work between Paul and
70
PA R A D O X Y
the “pillar apostles.” The agreement not only committed the
Jewish Christian church in Jerusalem to respect Paul’s law-free
mission to the Gentiles, it also committed Paul and his Gentile
churches to respect the right of the Jewish Christian church to
observe the ceremonial law.52
T H E N A Z A R EN E J E W I S H C HRISTIA N MOVEM E NT
Because of its eventual suppression by the institutional church
and the destruction of its documents, our knowledge of the Jewish
Christianity is limited. But even through the documents of its
persecutors, we can piece together enough evidence for some
useful conclusions. We know that the Jewish Christian church
had its birth in Jerusalem on the day of the Jewish feast of Shavuot
(that was also known as Pentecost), within months of the death
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, somewhere between 26 and 36 CE.
We know that among its founders and early leaders were Peter and
James, the brother of Jesus. We know that it was diverse, including
Jews from a wide variety of religious origins (from Pharisees to
Sadducees to Essenes to proselytes), socioeconomic levels (from
fishermen to members of the Sanhedrin), and national origins
(from Judea to Egypt, and from Mesopotamia to Rome).
We know that Jewish Christianity was a thriving, fast-growing
faith movement—adding over 3,000 people on its first day alone
(see Acts 2:1–41)—in large part because it adapted well to the
diversity within Judaism at the time. These early Christians were
active in sharing the gospel with their Jewish brethren in the
synagogues, though they seemed more interested in telling the
story of Christ and introducing people to Christ than in trying
to convert them in the sense of changing religions. They seemed
just as happy worshiping in synagogues with non-Christian Jews
as they did in worshiping in Christian-only groups. They also
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
71
appeared open and hospitable to non-Christian Jews and even to
Gentiles participating in their community life.
We also now know that their later excommunication by the
larger church notwithstanding, the Nazarene movement was as
orthodox in its beliefs as it was possible to be in that time. The
early Christians accepted the entirety of the Scriptures, both the
Old and New Testaments, though they did appear to be partial
to the Gospel of Matthew, because of its strong allusions to the
Hebrew Scriptures. They acknowledged that God was the Creator
of all things and that Jesus was the Son of God. They believed in
the Holy Spirit. They believed in the resurrection of the dead, as
well as Jesus’ death and resurrection. Their focus was on the life
of Jesus Christ and on living and worshiping like him, that is, in
a Jewish manner. So while they did follow the Jewish ceremonial
law, they did not believe it was essential for salvation. Rather, their
motivation for following the law was to be imitators of Christ.
They recognized the authority of the apostle Paul and his mission
to the Gentiles, as well as the authority of the greater church, of
which they considered themselves a part.
●
And let us consider how to provoke one another to love and good
deeds, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some,
but encouraging one another.
The Letter to the Hebrews (10:24–25)
We know that the Nazarene community continued to grow
rapidly until the Roman siege of Jerusalem, around 70 CE, at which
time the community escaped en mass to an area of Pella near the
Decapolis, east of the Sea of Galilee, having been warned by a
revelation of Jesus (see Luke 21:20–22). Unfortunately, their
72
PA R A D O X Y
departure from the Jerusalem area severely limited their contact
with the larger church. By the time the Nazarene community
attempted to return to the Jerusalem area around 129 CE, they found
there a mostly Gentile Christian community that was unfamiliar
and somewhat suspicious of Jewish Christian practices. After
several years of attempting to integrate with the Gentile Christian
community there, the Nazarenes abandoned Jerusalem and
resettled in Pella for good. Continued isolation from the Gentile
Christian community, along with rising levels of anti-Semitism in
the larger church, led to increasing misunderstanding of Jewish
Christian practices, especially their practice of observing Easter
on the same day as the Jewish Passover. This eventually led to
their excommunication at the Council of Nicaea at the insistence
of the Emperor Constantine, who stated that it was the church’s
duty to have “nothing in common with the murderers of our Lord
. . . nothing in common with the Jews.”53 Officially branded as
heretics and cut off from the rest of the church, the Nazarene
movement died out by the end of the fourth century.54
T H E PAU L I NE G E N T I L E C HRIS TIAN MOVEM E NT
Unlike the Nazarenes, the problem we have with the Pauline
Gentile Christian movement is not that we know too little, but
that we think we know more than we do. The name of the apostle
Paul is ubiquitous in Christianity. At the time of the birth of the
church on that first Pentecost, Paul (then known as Saul) was
a young man, a Roman citizen born in Tarsus, a Jew educated
in the religious traditions of the Pharisees. Offended by this
upstart movement that had sprung up around this failed messiah,
Jesus of Nazareth (who himself had likely grown up within the
same Pharisaic tradition), Paul began his adult years as an avid
opponent of the Nazarene Jewish Christian movement. But as a
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
73
result of some mysterious revelation by Jesus in the wilderness, he
was transformed from one of its chief antagonists into its foremost
apostle. In an ironic twist, this former Pharisee was chosen by
God to bring Christ to the Gentile citizens of the Roman Empire.
Soon after he returned from his “Road to Damascus” experience,
he petitioned and won approval from the leadership of the
nascent—and then almost entirely Jewish Christian—church in
Jerusalem to allow Gentiles to become followers of Christ without
first converting to Judaism, and with this approval was born his
Gentile Christian movement. Over the next decade or so, Paul
planted and nurtured a dozen or more vibrant and rapidly growing
church communities around the predominantly Gentile, northern
Mediterranean. These communities would continue to grow and
expand after his death until eventually, the Gentiles would far
surpass in numbers the Jewish Christians in the church.
Over the two to three decades of Paul’s ministry, as an
integral part of the process of planting and guiding Gentile
Christian communities, he carried out an intense correspondence
with them, most of which was helping them to figure out what
it meant to be communities centered on Christ. A half-dozen
to a dozen of these letters (depending on whose opinion you
ask) would become canonized as Holy Scripture—what we now
call the New Testament. Within these letters he set forth the
words of institution for Holy Communion—“This is my body
that is [broken] for you. . . . This cup is the new covenant in
my blood. . . . ” (1 Corinthians 11:23–26)—and he articulated
the theological principle of salvation through faith in God’s
grace extended to us through the death and resurrection of
Jesus Christ—not to mention offering much practical advice
about the communal life of faith. I think it is ironic that many
view Paul as the founder of Christianity as we know it today.
Because while his concept of radical grace occupies a revered
PA R A D O X Y
74
place—a pedestal at the very center of Christian doctrine—it has
seldom been taken down from its pedestal and put into practice
in the church’s communal life. So rather than seeing Paul as
the founder of the Christian religion, I think of him as a catalyst
for a Christianity that might have been, had the church not
misunderstood and misapplied his teachings.
●
And regard the patience of our Lord as salvation.
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the
wisdom given him,
speaking of this as he does in all his letters.
There are some things in them hard to understand,
which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own distruction,
as they do the other scriptures.
Peter An apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ
(2 Peter 3:15–16)
Much of what we think we know about Paul doesn’t hold
up under scrutiny. As one of my seminary professors once put it,
“Paul got a bad rap.” For example, Paul is often perceived as being
antagonistic toward Judaism and toward followers of Christ who
observed Jewish ceremonial law. But a closer look at his writings
shows that his attitude toward Judaism and Jewish Christianity
was more open than popularly believed. He never described
himself as a convert from Judaism or an ex-Jew, nor does he use
the language of conversion to describe his experience of coming to
faith (see Galatians 1:15ff.). Instead, he seems to regard the issue
of conversion (in the sense of changing religions) as irrelevant,
seeing faith in Christ as the spiritual equivalent of the faith of
Abraham, rather than a religion of Christianity as a successor to
the religion of Judaism (see Romans 4:1ff.).55 He was willing to
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
75
observe the ceremonial law in his dealings with Jews in order to
win them to Christ (see 1 Corinthians 9:19ff.). And he was willing
to require that Gentile converts observe basic Jewish ethics (see
Acts 15:5–21).56 He did not object to Jewish Christians following
the ceremonial law, as long as they did not make the case that it
was necessary for salvation, as did the so-called “Judaizers.”57 With
reference to Judaism as a whole, it is clear from Paul’s letter to
the Romans that he does not believe that his Jewish brothers and
sisters who have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah are lost to God.
After much agonized wrestling with the issue, he realizes that he
must learn to live with the paradox that while the name of Jesus
is the only name by which people are saved, God’s promises of
salvation to the Jewish people cannot be broken. So he resolved to
continue to try to persuade them, but to leave their ultimate fate
to God (see Romans 9–11).
Paul is generally viewed as being authoritarian in his oversight
of the churches he founded, handing out and rigidly enforcing rules
for individual and community conduct. Yet a closer reading of his
letters reveals a more flexible leadership style: advice and counsel
about the implications of the love of Christ and the grace of God
as it applies to the circumstances of each community. For example,
in Ephesians he appears to be encouraging the community to
strive for a greater and more charismatic experience of the Holy
Spirit. But in his letters to the Corinthians, he seems to try to
turn the thermostat down on such experiences. In his first letter
to the Corinthian church, he advises the community there to put
a person outside the community for sexual immorality, but in the
second letter he advises them that they have taken this corrective
measure too far, and that now that he has repented they should
welcome him back. Space does not allow an exhaustive review, but
such examples abound in Paul’s letters, if you don’t come at them
with the preconception that Paul is trying to enforce rigid rules.
76
PA R A D O X Y
In every case, in every community, he seems to ask the question,
“If Christ, then what?” In other words, if the love of Christ and the
grace of God are true and transformative, then how ought this to
be acted out in the life of this community and in the situation at
hand. Paul is not the authoritarian rule-giver we often believe him
to be. He was not about uniformity, but rather seemed to revel
in raucous diversity within his communities as obvious evidence
that it could only be the Holy Spirit making such community
happen. In fact, the one thing absolutely consistent across all of
Paul’s correspondence was his desire that he, and his communities,
“know nothing . . . except Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (1
Corinthians 2:2).
We know that the communities Paul founded—and their
humble, radical, grace-centered approach to community in
Christ—survived Paul’s death at the hands at the Romans. What
we don’t know is for how long. We know that the more organized
the church became, the less this approach was followed. As early
as the second century—as evidenced by the three so-called
Pastoral Epistles—we begin to see a much greater emphasis on
uniformity and a more authoritarian approach to life in Christian
community. This emphasis and approach would continue to
expand in the fourth century as the church began what would
ultimately become a near-merger with the Empire, and as more
and more canon law developed over time. While the church
would continue to acknowledge the concept of radical grace as
foundational to the way of Christ, with Paul as its greatest apostle,
it would increasingly operate as though Christian community was
based on obedience to church law.58
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
77
Mar tin of Tours and S e r van t L e ad e rs hip
Now, let’s fast-forward a few centuries and pause to consider
the second movement of a Christianity that might have been.
Martin of Tours is remembered in the church as bishop, confessor,
and theologian. Born around 316 CE, in what is now known as
the Balkans, he lived to the ripe old age of eighty-five and died
at the turn of the fifth century. The majority of what we know
about Martin and his movement comes from one source, The Life
of St. Martin, written by his contemporary and admirer, Sepulpitus
Severus. Independent of this biography, we also know that his
work among the people of the region of Gaul resulted in one of
the most rapid expansions of the church since its birth—so prolific
that some have called it “The Great Barbarian Conversion.”59
It is said that Martin became interested in Christianity in his
early teens, attending meetings, asking questions, and eventually
inquiring about baptism. His interests in and activities among the
still-persecuted Christians caused his parents—who practiced
the worship of the Roman pantheon—much embarrassment. It
especially rankled Martin’s father, who was a high-ranking military
officer and expected Martin to follow in his footsteps. Apparently
the Roman military agreed and used their legal authority to
involuntarily enroll the sons of Roman officers into the officer
corps upon the elder’s retirement or death to force Martin into
military service. So in his late teens, with great reservations, he
bowed to the pressure and joined up.
Martin was not your typical Roman officer. He was reticent to
wield his sword, cared for the poorer and lower class foot soldiers,
and was always attentive to the beggars who followed the army
from camp to camp. It is said that on one occasion, on the way into
camp he attempted to give his officer’s cloak to a freezing beggar
at the gates. When told by his superior that without a cloak he
78
PA R A D O X Y
would be considered “out of uniform,” he cut his cloak in two and
gave one-half to the beggar. Eventually, Martin came to believe
he could serve in the military no longer, in large part because he
strongly wished to be baptized and it was illegal for Christians to
serve in the Roman military.
The story of how Martin bargained with the Emperor to
release him from military service is remarkable. When the Emperor
refused to release him, fearing that would set a bad example, Martin
proposed a deal. The Emperor’s army was currently engaged
with a barbarian army on the outskirts of Rome. Martin would
walk out to face the enemy army alone, without armor or sword,
carrying only a cross. If he was killed, the matter was settled in
the Emperor’s favor, but if he came back alive, the Emperor would
allow him to retire. The Emperor thought it a safe bet, but he
was wrong. Not only did the barbarians allow him to live, but his
faith struck such fear into them that later the same day, they sued
for peace. Martin retired and was baptized by Bishop Hilary of
Poitiers, who became his mentor.
Hilary saw such promise in Martin that he soon wanted to
ordain him. At first Martin declined, but eventually he agreed to
be ordained to the lowest possible position in the church at the
time: that of exorcist. Then he took up a semihermitic lifestyle in
a cave by a stream outside the nearby city of Tours. People came
to him from far and wide to seek release from their demons. He
did not actively seek to convert anyone, yet people were drawn
to him by his strong faith, simple lifestyle, and his confidence in
the power of the Holy Spirit. Before long, a growing community
of hermits and holy men gathered around his hermitage, and
it eventually became a monastery. When the current Bishop of
Tours died, the people of Tours turned to Martin, and asked him
to consent to become their bishop. He declined. Eventually, the
people resorted to a subterfuge, asking him to come into town
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
79
to pray for the healing of a sick person. As he entered the town,
they grabbed him and carried him into the cathedral, and refused
to let him out unless he consented. Finally, he agreed, on two
conditions: (1) when not required at the cathedral, he would live
a simple life at his monastery, and (2) when he was required at the
cathedral, he would not sit enthroned on the bishop’s seat, but on
a simple wooden stool.
As bishop, he established several dozens of churches across
the part of Gaul that is now central France. He led as a servant. He
visited all of his congregations annually, always traveling on foot
or by donkey. Many people sought him out for training for the
priesthood, and he was well loved among the priests that served
under him, not to mention the people his priests led.
On the other hand, he was not very popular among the
ecclesiastical and secular powers. His humble lifestyle and
egalitarian style leadership aroused the ire of those bishops who
chose a more elevated lifestyle and practiced a more authoritarian
leadership. In addition, he frequently intervened on behalf of
those whom the ecclesiastical authorities were investigating for
heresy, and strongly opposed the execution of those convicted of
heresy.
The vibrant movement started by Martin would survive his
death, but only for a few generations. The hierarchy of the church
tolerated Martin and his movement while he was alive because
of his popularity with the people and priests who followed him.
But once he died, they appointed in Martin’s place bishops less
likely to rock the boat of ecclesiastical and secular authority. Then
they began a waiting game. As the priests trained and ordained
by Martin retired or died, they were replaced with priests more
to their liking. Eventually, the vibrant, egalitarian communities
established by Martin were reabsorbed into the more familiar
structure of authority.
80
PA R A D O X Y
Of course, the monastic communities founded by Martin
were not the first monastic communities, nor the last. Martin drew
heavily on the teachings of the Desert Fathers and Mothers in
founding his own orders.60 Nor were Martin’s communities the
only monastic movement of the Dark Ages—but one of many
vibrant variations on the monastic theme. Other movements,
such as the Benedictines and the Franciscans, were engaged in
transformational community life throughout the continent as
well. There were a variety of movements over the course of a
millennium that brought renewed vigor and practice to Christians
and Christian faith. As many have said before me, it was primarily
monasticism that kept the faith alive in what we call the Middle
Ages. What would today’s faith look like in terms of how we
handle issues of authority if the model of St. Martin had become
the norm rather than the exception?
Ce ltic Christians and R adic al Hospit alit y
This brings us to the third of these three movements. It is
impossible to give a precise date of origin or to name a founder
for what we call Celtic Christianity, since both date and origin are
shrouded by the mists of time. But we can make some educated
guesses.
Most likely the followers of Christ first visited the British Isles
not long after the death of Christ and the missionary journeys
of the apostle Paul. Some scholars believe that the church Paul
founded in Galatia was composed largely of members of one of
the many Celtic tribal groups that moved across the Near East and
Europe. The Romans called them the Gauls, from which comes
the term Gallic (and also Galacia). The scholars propose that these
Christianized Celts from the area around Galatia migrated along
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
81
the trade routes first to Gaul in southern France, then to the area
now known as Galicia in Spain, and then on to the Celtic areas of
Britain: Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.
But we can’t really speak of a Celtic Christian “movement”
until the third century, when Celtic members of Martin of Tours’s
communities in Gaul brought word of his movement to their
cousins in the Isles. They were inspired by the egalitarian and
communal nature of his movement. Even more, they were inspired
by the spiritual power inherent in it. Martin and his followers
dispensed with much of the ancillary authority structures, and
doctrines that supported these institutions, and focused on living
as though the core supernatural mysteries of the spiritual body
of Christ were true (there is a great difference between believing
things and living as though they are true). The Celts had always
been a hot-blooded and warlike people, but now they could don
the “armor of God” and fight the greatest battles of all, against “the
cosmic powers of . . . darkness” and “the spiritual forces of evil”
(Ephesians 6:11–13).
So broad-based was this movement that it is impossible to
name a single founder or leader at any point in time. The Celtic
Christian movement generated a veritable “pantheon” of heroes, far
too numerous to list here (a number of writers have tried however,
and their works are well worth reading).61 A few notables come to
mind: Patrick, who brought the faith to Ireland; Columba, who
brought it to Scotland; David, who brought it to Wales; Aidan,
who brought it to the Scottish Borders area on the east coast of
England. There was much in common among the communities
they founded.
UÊ Ê «iÊ >ÃÌVð Celtic monastic communities involved lay and clergy, nobility and common people. Many
involved both men and women. Participants could take permanent vows or temporary ones. The communities were
82
PA R A D O X Y
not cloistered but open to the communities near where
they were located. People from the local community participated in monastic community, and vice versa.
UÊ Êi}>Ì>À>]Ê iÀ>ÀV V>ÊÃÌÀÕVÌÕÀi°ÊCeltic communities were organized based on calling and gifts rather than
hierarchy of position. For example, bishops were chosen
because they were gifted in the raising up, training, and
supporting of priests. Everyone in the community, including bishops, was under the guidance of an abbot or abbess.
Interestingly, all of the mixed-sex monastic communities
were headed by abbesses. These monastic overseers were
nonauthoritarian—more like what we know as spiritual
directors today. Most important in the Celtic monastic
movement was one’s relationship with an “anam cara” or
“soul friend,” a person with whom one partnered in order
to receive (and give) unconditional truthful insight and
unconditional love.
UÊ >Ì Ê ÜÌ Ê «ÜiÀ°Ê Celtic communities were focused on
helping people “live as though they believed.”
UÊ iÜà «ÊiÛ>}iðÊUnlike the evangelistic approach
of the Roman Church (start by sharing doctrine and make
assent to that doctrine the door to full fellowship), the
Celtic movement switched the order. Full fellowship was
offered from the very beginning. This pulled their visitors
deep into the life and love of the community. Sooner or
later these visitors would realize that they were no longer
visitors but had become a part of the worshiping community and by experience had come to believe in the
love of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. Asking
to be baptized became the way of “making it official,” as
it were.
●
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
83
Hail guest, we ask not what thou art;
If friend, we greet thee, hand and heart;
If stranger, such no longer be;
If foe, our love shall conquer thee.
An ancient Celtic welcome
(found over the door of an old inn in Wales)
Celtic Christians had much more success in bringing Christian
faith to Ireland than did the official Roman evangelistic mission.
The success of that effort, led by Augustine of Canterbury, was
limited mainly to the more populous urban areas around the few
major cities in the south of England—those that had been settled
by the Romans. The vast majority of those who came to faith in
the Isles did so through the lively but unauthorized efforts of the
members of the more organic Celtic communities.
So, what happened to the movement? In the end, things
came to a head with the official Roman delegation. Ostensibly,
the arguments seemed to have been over tangential matters, such
as the tonsure (Roman clergy shaved off the crown of their head
on a horizontal plane, while Celtic clergy shaved theirs vertically
by removing all of the hair in front), the dating of Easter (Celtic
Christians preferred to celebrate Easter on the fourteenth of
Nissan, like Jesus would have, while Rome insisted on separating
the dating of Easter from the Jewish calendar), and the role of
women in authority. But the underlying reasons seemed to be about
control and authority. Celtic Christians were threatened with
excommunication if they did not come into line. This conflict was
finally settled at the Council of Whitby, where Celtics basically
agreed to submit in all areas to Roman practices rather than split
the church. Ironically, the “compromise” was negotiated by Hilda
84
PA R A D O X Y
of Whitby, the abbess of the mixed-sex monastic community
of the Celtic tradition that had hosted the Roman and Celtic
Christian delegations. But the Celtic spirit was too strong to be
entirely subsumed and lived on in the churches of the British Isles
for centuries. I have noticed a wee bit of that spirit in my own
Anglican/Episcopal tradition: especially in its love of mystery
and paradox and in its appreciation for the unifying influence of
common worship of the living God
Common Th r eads
So what are the common threads that connect these
movements? What enabled and empowered these communities
to be so diverse and yet so committed? What enabled them to
spread the gospel so contagiously? What can they teach us about
alternative ways of “being church”?
O R I E N TAT I O N TO C H R I ST
One of the most important commonalities of the movements
was their orientation to Christ. Their corporate lives and the
individual lives of their members were focused on the person of
Christ and the experience of relationship with person of Christ.
All of these movements, one way or another, asked the
question, “If Christ, then what?” If Christ is real and the relationship
offered by Christ is real, then what difference does that make in
our individual and corporate lives? Yet each movement had its
own unique way of asking that question. If I was so bold as to put
words in their mouths, it might be something like this:
UÊ >â>ÀiiÊ iÜÃ Ê ÀÃÌ>Ê VÕÌiÃÊ >Ãi`\Ê ºvÊ iÃÕýÊ
incarnation and his way of life among us are significant,
how should we then live?”
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
85
UÊ *>ÕiÊ iÌiÊ
ÀÃÌ>ÃÊ VÕÌiÃÊ >Ãi`\Ê ºvÊ Ì iÊ
grace of Christ is true, what effect should that have in our
individual and corporate lives?”
UÊ >ÀÌiÊ ÀÃÌ>Ê ÕÌiÃÊ >Ãi`\Ê ºvÊ Ì iÊ «ÜiÀÊ vÊ
Christ is true, how should it manifest itself among us?”
UÊ iÌVÊ ÀÃÌ>Ê ÕÌiÃÊ >Ãi`\Ê ºvÊ ÀÃ̽ÃÊ ÛiÊ ÃÊ
true, how will that love make itself known through us?”
O R I E N TATI O N TO O RT H OD OXY
The orientation of these movements toward orthodoxy was,
in many ways, similar to their orientation toward Christ. Rather
than making acceptance into the body of Christ dependent on
adherence to a broad range of beliefs, they tended to be careful
about what they raised to doctrinal significance. They tended to
focus on a few core dogmas—those unverifiable yet quintessential
mysteries of Christian faith: things such as the trinitarian nature
of God, the human-divine natures of Christ, and the indwelling of
the Holy Spirit in fallen human hearts.
●
Orthodoxy—or right opinion—is, at best,
but a very slender part of religion,
if it can be allowed to be any part of it at all.
Though right tempers cannot subsist without right opinions,
yet right opinions may subsist without right tempers.
There may be a right opinion of God
without either love or one right temper toward Him.
Satan is a proof of this.62
John Wesley Anglican minister and Christian theologian, 1703–91
T A B L E
5 . 1
C H R I S T I A N I T I E S
T H A T
M I G H T
H A V E
CHARACTERISTIC
JEWISH
CHRISTIANITY
PAULINE
CHRISTIANITY
Dates
30–400 CE
40–500 CE
Founder(s)
Peter, James
Paul
Favorite Evangelist
Matthew
Luke?
Inspiration
Life of Christ
Vision of Christ
Orientation to
Christ
Christ-Centered
(Imitation of Christ)
Christ-Centered
(Grace of Christ)
Orientation to
Unity & Diversity
Agape Relationship
(Over Doctrine)
Struggled w/diversity but
understood as sign of
Holy Spirit
Open to the marginal and
the marginalized
Agape Relationship
(Over Doctrine)
Diversity tolerated as sign
of Holy Spirit
Open to the marginal and
the marginalized
Orientation to
Orthodoxy
Core Dogmas
Living “As If”
Love of Paradox & Mystery
Core Dogmas
Living “As If”
Love of Paradox & Mystery
Orientation to
Evangelism
Nonproselytizing
Hospitality
Love changes hearts
Nonproselytizing
Hospitality
Love changes hearts
Orientation to
Scripture
Gospels first
Story over doctrine
Story transforms
Gospels first
Story over doctrine
Story transforms
Orientation to
Religion
Areligious
Transreligious
Areligious
Transreligious
Orientation to
Organization
Low Hierarchy
Call/Gift Centered
Low Hierarchy
Call/Gift Centered
Orientation to
Culture
Acultural
Culture-Adaptable
Acultural
Culture-Adaptable
B E E N :
A
COMPARISON
MARTINE
CHRISTIANITY
CELTIC
CHRISTIANITY
300–400 CE
300–700 CE
Martin of Tours
Unknown
Mark?
John
Desert Spirituality
Desert Spirituality
Martine Spirituality
Christ-Centered
(Power of Christ)
Christ-Centered
(Love of Christ)
Agape Relationship
(Over Doctrine)
Diversity tolerated as sign
of Holy Spirit
Sought the marginal and
the marginalized
Agape Relationship
(Over Doctrine)
Diversity celebrated as
sign of Holy Spirit
Sought the marginal and
the marginalized
Core Dogmas
Living “As If”
Love of Paradox & Mystery
Core Dogmas
Living “As If”
Love of Paradox & Mystery
Nonproselytizing
Hospitality
Love changes hearts
Nonproselytizing
Hospitality
Love changes hearts
Gospels first
Story over doctrine
Story transforms
Gospels first
Story over doctrine
Story transforms
Intrareligious
Intrareligious
Low Hierarchy
Call/Gift Centered
Low Hierarchy
Call/Gift Centered
Acultural
Culture-Adaptable
Acultural
Culture-Adaptable
88
PA R A D O X Y
These were not theological concepts to them, but were
windows opening into a greater reality—one that they were unable
to fully comprehend. They reveled in these profound paradoxes
as evidence of that greater reality. They asked themselves what
difference it would make if these things were true, and then they
lived as if they were.
O R I E N TAT I O N TO U NI TY AN D D IVERS ITY
The source of unity of these movements was not uniformity
of doctrine or practice. Rather, they found unity in the love of
Christ they experienced when they gathered for worship and
fellowship, and their trust that this love could hold them together
in community despite the many differences that should have torn
their communities apart. The effects of this understanding of
unity is aptly summed up in the apostle Paul’s assertion that in
Christ, “[t]here is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave
or free, there is no longer male and female, for all of you are one
in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). These communities experienced
that Christ’s love was powerful enough to overcome the categories
that naturally divide them. Even their adversaries had to admit
that something unusual was at work among them, and that this
unnatural diversity lent credence to their claims that in Christ
God was doing something new among them.
This is not to say that such diversity was always easily or
consistently practiced. Clearly, the earliest Jewish Christians
struggled with the idea that one could become a follower of Christ
without first becoming a Jew (see Acts 10:1–48). Yet it is equally
clear that they came to understand that such diversity was not
only permissible, but was a sign of the Holy Spirit at work (see
Acts 15:1–35). Likewise, Paul’s earliest communities struggled
with diversity of religious background, class, ethnicity, and gender
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
89
but similarly understood it to be a sign of the Holy Spirit at work
(see 1 Corinthians 11:17–22). Nevertheless, by the time of Martin
of Tours and the Celtic Christian movements, such diversity came
to be the agreed-upon norm rather than merely understood or
tolerated.
●
And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,
may have power, together with all the saints,
to grasp how wide and long and high and deep
is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses
knowledge—that you may be filled to the measure of all the
fullness of God.
Paul Prisoner for Christ Jesus
(Ephesians 3:17–19, NIV)
This isn’t to say that doctrine and practice were unimportant
to these communities. On the contrary, they seemed to believe
that it mattered a great deal what one believed and how that belief
affected one’s life of faith and one’s real-world behavior. They
appeared to argue about such things frequently and with fervor.
It’s just that they recognized the potential divisiveness of doctrine
and believed that the fact that they were brothers and sisters
united by Christ’s love was a much more important consideration
and a stronger binding force (see Ephesians 4:14–16).
O R I E N TATI O N TO H I E R A RC HY
Rigid hierarchy was antithetical to these movements, in
large part because it would hinder the fluid adaptability that was
essential to their rapid growth and spread. They generally observed
90
PA R A D O X Y
and respected the traditional orders of ministry—deacon, priest,
and bishop—but they tended to view them functionally, rather
that hierarchically. And they tended to select those who would
hold those orders according to how God had gifted them for that
particular role: those who lived to serve, they chose for deacons;
those who had gifts of preaching, teaching, and pastoring, they
chose as priests; and those who rejoiced in identifying, mentoring,
and encouraging people into those leadership positions in the
church they chose as bishops.
Paul, for example, considers himself an apostle because of the
gifts and the calling given to him by his Lord, Jesus Christ. But he
seldom, if ever, insisted upon special treatment according to his
“rank.” Instead he provided for himself so that no one could claim
any special attachment or privilege from him (see 1 Corinthians
1:11–14, 2:1–5, 9:1–15). Even when pleading for the freedom of
a friend who was the slave of another friend, he refused to “pull
rank” (see Philemon 1–25).
Similarly, among the Martine and Celtic Christian
communities, there was role clarity without a hierarchy of power
and control based on those roles. Martin agreed to the role of
bishop, but not the trappings. There have been various moments
in ecclesiastical history when other leaders did likewise—taking
steps to separate themselves from the power, influence, and money
of their offices—in order to focus specifically on the spiritual
matters at hand. Some of these experiments failed (Pope Celestine
V in the late thirteenth century, for example); and some of them
succeeded (such as Peter Damian and Francis of Assisi). In the
Celtic Christian communities, most bishops voluntarily placed
themselves under the spiritual authority of an abbot or abbess.
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
91
O R I E N TATI O N TO E VAN G E LISM
It may seem paradoxical that while these movements were
primarily responsible for evangelizing much of the European
continent and the British Isles, they were nonproselytizing in
their approach to sharing the gospel. It sounds paradoxical to us,
because we have attached our own cultural connotation to the
term evangelism.
●
Preach the Gospel at all times.
When necessary, use words.63
Francis of Assisi Deacon, preacher, and founder of the Order of Friars
Minor, 1181/1182–1226
While we tend to think of an evangelist as one who converts
people to Christianity, the literal translation of the Greek word
for evangelist is “a bringer of good news.” Meanwhile, the Greek
word for proselytizing (“making converts to a different religion”)
and proselyte (“a new convert to a religion”) are never used of
followers of Christ in the New Testament. The two terms used
by the Pauline Christians for new followers of Christ had nothing
to do with being converted in the sense of changing religions,
but rather literally “newly planted seeds” (Greek: neophuton—1
Timothy 3:6) or “first fruits” of a harvest (Greek: aparche—Romans
16:5). The Celtic Christians did not see themselves as making
converts, at least not in the sense of changing religion or even
in the sense of requiring agreement to a set of doctrines before
admitting a person to the community. For example, St. Patrick was
known to refer to “Jesus, my druid.” Rather than making proselytes,
their main focus was on making new “anam cara” (heart friends).
They loved Jesus, they loved the Good News, and they loved to
92
PA R A D O X Y
tell—and live—the story. They loved to live the love. That was
how they evangelized.
Con c lu sion
The reason these “Christianities that might have been” are
worthy of our attention is not because they were perfect: They
were no more perfect than the institutional church whose roots
they shared. They had their biases. They made their fair share of
mistakes. They fought amongst themselves (as brothers and sisters
so often do). Yet they are helpful to our exploration.
These movements illustrate for us the tension in which the
church has always existed: between maintaining the inspiration
of its first love and organizing itself for long-term survival. At the
very least, they can be for us a kind of cautionary tale. One way
or another, all of these movements within the church ultimately
lost their arguments with the institutional church about how to be
church. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that none of
them won. Like water against a mountain made of stone, it may
be forced underground for a time—perhaps even for a very long
time. But water always leaves it mark on stone, wearing it down,
sometimes over millennia. It finds a way to force its way back to
the surface through the smallest of openings. So in a very real
way, we could say these movements are all springs from the same
subterranean source, always there, ready to be tapped—ready for
us to bring balance to the life of the church in time of need.
Equally as important is the possibility that studying them
might help us to see our church paradigms for what they are:
fallible human constructs that we have created to describe a
divine reality. Recognizing our paradigms for the constructs they
are is the first step toward breaking out of them. Studying these
O G O D , O U R H E L P I N A G E S PA S T
93
movements can also begin to move us in the direction of what
the new paradigm of church might be. Not that we should try to
replicate any of these movements in our own day. That would be
a mistake. Yet the pictures they offer us of other ways of being
church can open our eyes and our minds and our hearts to the
possibilities of a new way.
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
Philippians 3:10
I want to know Christ and the power of his
resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings
by becoming like him in his death.
Galatians 3:28
There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no
longer slave or free, there is no longer male
and female; for all of you are one in Christ
Jesus.
Galatians 5:6
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision
nor uncircumcision* counts for anything;
the only thing that counts is faith working
through love.
Select one of the above three passages and answer this
question: if this were the single most important and defining
characteristic of Christian community, what difference would
it make?
*The terms “circumcision” and “uncircumcision” refer not to
physical characteristics but to two different approaches to
Christian community.
●
Questions to Consider
1 One advantage of studying these movements is to open our eyes to
the extent to which our present doctrines, theology, and practices
are culturally conditioned. Using what you have learned from
this chapter, identify one or more of your own church’s teachings
or practices that seem to be a product of the culture in which it
developed. Discuss.
2 What can we learn from these movements? What is the appropriate
balance between the church as movement or organism and the
church as institution/organization?
3 If relationship with Christ (that is, being loved by Christ) were
the single most important aspect of Christian community, and all
other aspects were secondary, how would Christian community be
different?
P A R T
I I
A Church for the Future
C H A P T E R
6
he Shape of
hings to Come:
Promising Principles
for a New Way
of Church
So, now comes the hard part.
This will be a challenging journey for all of us, no matter
which “side” of the church we call home. My conservative friends
will find this journey difficult, because they will have trouble laying
down their need to defend God’s truth. My liberal friends will
find this journey difficult, because they believe their “progressive”
ideas are the new paradigm. To my conservative friends I say, if
it’s God’s truth, you don’t need to defend it, because nothing can
prevail against it. To my liberal friends I say, don’t get cocky,
because a little self-critical introspection may reveal that what
you call new paradigm is just old paradigm with a progressive
twist. My conservative friends may be uncomfortable at the table,
because they tend to want their truths served up literally, while
my liberal friends may be just as uncomfortable, because they
prefer to take their truths metaphorically. But much of what we
100
PA R A D O X Y
will find on our menu as we explore the prospective paradigm will
contain ingredients that are both literal and metaphorical at the
same time.
We will have to become more comfortable with the discomfort
of paradox—engaging the tension between truths that to us seem
irreconcilable—while recognizing that to God, reconciling the
irreconcilable is all in a day’s work (if that long). This is why I have
taken to calling our potential new paradigm “Paradoxy.”
My own congregation has been exploring some of these
nascent concepts: a way of Christian community based on faith,
hope, and love. From the beginning we have felt called to be a
place in which people from across the theological spectrum could
find a common ground upon which they could firmly stand as a
community. Indeed, we have in our community members who, in
terms of their theology, run the gamut from those who gamely
call themselves near-fundamentalists to those who would label
themselves radically liberal. Yet we have found a way to live
together as brothers and sisters in Christ, feeling free to argue and
“fight” like brothers and sisters are wont to do, at the same time
recognizing our indissoluble connection. Throughout this chapter
and the next, I will draw from the experiences of my community
as illustrative—though admittedly provisional and imperfect—
examples of the principles and strategies of Paradoxy.
If we are to have any success with our exploration, we will
have to be open-minded yet rigorous, confident yet self-critical,
creative yet provisional. We will have to be open to the possibility
that we all might be a little wrong, that our adversaries may be a
little right, and that there will likely be surprises out there for all
of us. We will need to open our hearts and minds to a newer and
more expansive reality, and to what our friend C.S. Lewis called
a “deeper magic.” So let’s “enter the wardrobe”64 and see what we
find on the other side.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
101
The O n e Fou n dat ion
●
I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Jesus of Nazareth (John 14:6)
Here is where I think we need to start. “Who do you say that
I am?” Jesus once asked Peter, who had just finished telling Jesus
who everyone else said he was. It seems to me that this is one of
the most crucial questions Jesus asks those of us who would be
his disciples. It also seems to me that if we are to accept the name
“Christian,” the answer we give to that question, and what it says
about our relationship to Christ, is one of the most crucial answers
we can give.
“I am the way, the truth, and the life.” When I read these and
other “I am” statements of Jesus, I am reminded of the words of C.S.
Lewis, who once observed that Jesus frequently made statements
about himself that left us very little wiggle room. If anyone made
the kind of claims Jesus made, we would have to conclude that he
was either a megalomaniac or a total loon, on the order of someone
who said, “I am a poached egg.” Or . . . we would have to conclude
that he was the incarnation of God.65 Jesus did not claim to teach
us the way, he claimed to BE The Way. Jesus did not claim to
teach the truth, he claimed to BE The Truth. Jesus did not claim
to show us how to live life, he claimed to BE The Life.
If we take Jesus’ claim at face value by acknowledging Jesus
Christ as the incarnation of Way and Truth and Life and ourselves
as “little Christs,” then these twin acknowledgments cannot help
but have enormous consequences for understanding ourselves,
Christ, God, and reality itself. Because if these things are true,
then the life of faith is all about relationship: relationship with
102
PA R A D O X Y
Christ, relationship with the body of Christ. If the apostle Paul is
correct about our being the “body of Christ” (Romans 12:5), then
what we are talking about is an organic relationship, a sharing
at the genetic level. In this deep connection Christ becomes our
genetic “switch,” activating dormant genes as necessary for us to
take up our unique function in his body, connecting all of us as
part of an organism bigger than ourselves and inclusive of each
other, and helping us to learn that in the body of Christ there is no
“junk DNA.” If these things are true, then the English priest and
hymnist was communicating to us a deep reality when he wrote,
“The church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord.”66 At the
same time, as Anglican theologian Richard Hooker put it, the sole
criterion for applying the term Christian to persons or churches is
their acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as Lord.
For a people named after Christ, we have been remarkably
creative at avoiding the implications of his life’s story. One might
think that his followers would want to virtually live in the Gospels,
immersing themselves in Christ’s life, appropriating his story, and
making it their own, living into and incarnating (lit., “putting meat
on the bones of”) it. But we are so tempted to turn our attention
elsewhere: to searching the New Testament epistles or the books
of the law in the Hebrew Scriptures for rules and formulas by
which to live our lives, or to limiting our time in the Gospels to
sifting Jesus’ teachings for their ethical implications so that we
might make more ethical choices. Could it be that the reason we
are tempted to shy away from the Gospels is because at some level
we know that studying them is a dangerous activity—dangerous
because we meet Jesus Christ there, who is part and parcel of the
Living God?
Early in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, book one of
The Chronicles of Narnia, Mr. and Mrs. Beaver, two of the talking
animals who are the subjects of Aslan, the Christ figure of the
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
103
story, offer their opinions as to the lion’s nature. Mrs. Beaver says
that no normal person can stand before Aslan “without their knees
knocking.” And when Mrs. Beaver is asked if Aslan is “quite safe,”
Mr. Beaver retorts “Course he’s not safe . . . he’s good.”67
It really is not safe to spend too much time immersed in the
Gospels, because those who encounter Jesus Christ there do not
leave untested or unchallenged—not even their theology is off
limits. There is no question that the Gospels present a Savior and
his teachings that are more often mysterious, and occasionally,
seemingly contradictory. But paradoxy is part and parcel of
our faith in the future. We can embrace it in the Gospels, and
elsewhere. This process of anamnesis (lit., “remembering ourselves
into the story”) is exactly what we must do if we are to consider
ourselves “one body” with Christ and the incarnation of Christ’s
body in the world. We will come to study the Scriptures in the
same sacramental way that we think of Communion, or in the way
that Jews think of Pesach (Passover): an act that transcends time
and space and connects us with those events and thus transforms
us.
One way we have done this in my congregation is through
an educational process that some have called maieutic (“midwife”)
education.68 Maieutic education seeks to experientially connect us
with the Scriptures by helping us discover shared themes between
us (or as one author put it, “living our story through God’s story”).69
This might involve a single passage or an entire book. For example,
if the text at hand were the feeding of the five thousand, the group
would read through the text together, then set the actual text aside
and recreate the story from memory, putting themselves in the
place of the disciples and imagining how they would have felt at
various places in the story.
On one retreat, we had just finished the Gospel according
to Mark and were beginning our recreation. There was a
104
PA R A D O X Y
lively discussion over the next hour as we reconstructed the
entire Gospel from memory through the eyes of the disciples.
Afterward, a participant confided in me that she had misgivings
at the beginning of the exercise that had been overcome by the
end. “At the beginning, I thought this was just so much ‘warm and
fuzzy bull****’,” she said “but that changed as we went through the
exercise. All my life I have resented the fact that God had never
allowed me to experience grace. But now I know that it was not
God refusing to share, but me unwilling to accept it.” Others have
shared similar experiences of long-held assumptions challenged,
attitudes changed, and prejudices overcome. It has been quite
gratifying to witness such transformation.
W H AT D IF F E R E N C E D O E S IT M A KE ?
Not too long ago, one of my most conservative parishioners—
in the midst of a moment of insight—put it this way: “I guess if
I’m going to call myself a fundamentalist, I have to start by being
fundamentalist about Jesus.” When I asked her what being a
“fundamentalist about Jesus” meant to her, she put it this way,
“Jesus told us ‘The first and greatest commandment is this: love
the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul and all thy
mind and all thy strength. And the second is like unto it: Love
thy neighbor as thyself.’ He also told us to love one another as he
loved us. Isn’t everything else in the Scripture a commentary on
this and therefore of secondary importance?”
No sermon of mine could have said it better. If we view the
entirety of our spiritual lives—our understanding of Scripture,
doctrine, and tradition—through the lens of the love of Christ,
we find ourselves with a more common field of view. The rest of
Scripture can then serve as inspired commentary on how to view
that love and how to live into it.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
105
This way of looking at Scripture is nothing new. The letters
of Paul reveal that the apostle considered his own writings to
be a form of commentary. Each of Paul’s letters was one side—
Paul’s side—of an ongoing conversation with one of the infant
Christian communities he had founded. They are his answers to
questions, concerns, and problems raised by the members of these
communities. They contain his attempts to help these communities
interpret the implications of Christ’s love—as demonstrated by
his life, death, and resurrection—in their own unique contexts.
To Paul, a diversity of opinions in those early communities was
something to be championed, because the fact that a diverse group
of people could live together in love was evidence that the power
of the Holy Spirit was at work in them. Only the Holy Spirit was
capable of creating community out of components that the world
believed to be irreconcilably different.
In my congregation, this is certainly what we have discovered.
Our starting point has always been the acknowledgment that we
have Christ’s love for us in common. Viewing our relationships with
each other through that lens has allowed people of exceedingly
different theological persuasions, not just to tolerate each other, but
to learn to really love one another. Many Christian communities
maintain a careful coexistence between liberal and conservative
Christians by insisting that members keep their varying theological
positions under wraps. We come at it differently. Believing that if we
are to learn to love one another as Christ loves us, we need to be
transparent to each other: voicing our differences unapologetically
and acknowledging others’ differences nondefensively. Starting
from our common ground in Christ allows us to view the
differences between us as less important than the common ground
we share. Just as important, it gives us the confidence that the love
of the One who is our common ground is a more powerful binding
force that any dividing forces our differences might exert. We feel
106
PA R A D O X Y
less of a need to defend our positions from each other, because we
know we can leave them to Christ to sort out. As a colleague of
mine from Mississippi once said, “After I’ve said my piece, I can
leave it where Jesus flung it.”
I have been continually amazed at the vastly different people
this insight has brought together to live and move and have their
being together under the same roof. A disabled, theologically
liberal, openly gay parishioner working shoulder to shoulder with
a former CIA bureau chief, who once described himself as “to
the right of Attila the Hun.” Or a self-proclaimed fundamentalist
and her extremely liberal husband worshiping together in the
same church for the first time in more than thirty years. Several
years ago, we cosponsored with our diocese a “Common Ground
Dialogue on Human Sexuality.” The primary approach of the
dialogue was to start with the assumption that the participants
had Christ in common, and that this commonality was more
important than anything else. After a single day of dialogue, many
of the participants, from the most conservative to the most liberal,
acknowledged that they could no longer dismiss each other as
“not caring about the truth of Christ’s teachings” (a frequent
conservative complaint) or “not caring about the love expressed
in Christ’s way of life” (a frequent liberal complaint). In fact, so
common was this outcome that observers from advocacy groups
representing both sides of the conflict were overheard whispering
among themselves that “our people aren’t going to like this.”
If we can agree that the church’s one foundation is Jesus Christ
and recognize that all other issues are nonfoundational and of
secondary importance, we will have recognized that the common
ground on which we can stand together is much larger and firmer
than we had previously imagined.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
107
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
John 6:35
“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me
will never be hungry, and whoever believes in
me will never be thirsty.”
John 8:12
“I am the light of the world. Whoever follows
me will never walk in darkness but will have
the light of life.”
John 10:7, 9b
“I am the gate for the sheep. . . . Whoever
enters by me will be saved, and will come in
and go out and find pasture.”
John 10:11, 14–16
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd
lays down his life for the sheep. . . . I am the
good shepherd. I know my own and my own
know me, just as the Father knows me and I
know the Father. And I lay down my life for
the sheep. I have other sheep that do not belong
to this fold. I must bring them also, and they
will listen to my voice. So there will be one
flock, one shepherd.”
PA R A D O X Y
108
John 11:25–26a
“I am the resurrection and the life. Those who
believe in me, even though they die, will live,
and everyone who lives and believes in me
will never die.”
John 14:6-7a
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No
one comes to the Father except through me.
If you know me, you will know my Father
also.”
John 15:1, 5b
“I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower. . . . Those who abide in me and I in
them bear much fruit, because apart from me
you can do nothing.”
Recalling that “I AM” (Heb. YHVH) is the name for God
that God told Moses, consider each of the above “I AM”
statements of Jesus as a lens through which to view both
Jesus Christ and the rest of Scripture. Which of these lenses
feel most inviting to you? Which feel most challenging?
Which feel both inviting and challenging? What tensions
do you experience as you consider these things? What are
the implications?
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
109
●
A Question to Consider
Consider any controversial issue in your church. How might your individual
approach to the issue shift if you started with the assumption that both sides
shared an organic, living connection with Christ that could not be severed?
How would the interpersonal process shift if both sides started with that
assumption?
Law of Love over Love of Law
●
“This is my commandment,
that you love one another as I have loved you.”
Jesus of Nazareth (John 15:12)
In this new paradigm of ours, the next principle of how to be
church is this: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments,”
Jesus said (John 14:15). Many choose to read this as an endorsement by Jesus of living life by following a broad set of biblical
rules or principles, or a commandment to model our way of life
upon Jesus’ way life. But a closer reading and more literal interpretation of this text reveals that Jesus was not being prescriptive
in either direction. Almost immediately he goes on to state the
reverse: “They who have my commandments and keep them are
those who love me” (John 14:21a). What this kind of construction
means is that rather than being prescriptive, Jesus was stating, as
he often did, the reality of how the kingdom of God works.
PA R A D O X Y
110
“Love God and do as you please” is how Augustine of Hippo
put it. Apparently, Martin Luther and John Calvin wished they
had said that, because both eventually did. Loving Christ and
keeping Christ’s commandments are inextricably connected. To
the extent you love Christ, to that same extent you will keep his
commandments. You can’t help it. You can’t have one without the
other. The reason for this lies in the nature of the love we are
talking about. This is not love as a warm and fuzzy feeling, but as
a physical fact: love “in the biblical sense,” if you will. The kind of
love we are talking about—God’s love—once accepted, makes us
one body with Christ. And if we are one body with Christ, then
if Christ moves in a certain direction, we cannot help but move in
the same direction. The only way to move in a different direction
from Christ is to break the connection.
●
Love is represented as the fulfilling of the law.
A creature’s perfection.
All other graces, all divine dispensations, contribute to this,
and are lost in it as in a heaven.
It expels the dross of our nature;
it overcomes sorrow;
it is the full joy of our Lord.70
Herman Hooker American author and Episcopal priest, 1804–1865
In giving the commandment “Love one another, as I have loved
you,” Jesus was not referring to a body of laws to be followed, but
rather to the fulfillment of God’s law through love: to love God
with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and your neighbor as
yourself (see Mark 12:28–31). As writer, Herman Hooker pointed
out in the above quotation, love is the very embodiment of the
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
111
kingdom of God. It is powerful. It creates and sustains Christian
community. It draws us into the life of God and transforms us,
drawing us into God’s realm and God’s realm into us.
W H AT D IF F E R E N C E D O E S IT M A KE ?
What would be the impact of giving greater priority to the law
of love? Just as it was in the Jesus movements of the early church,
the love of Christ lived out in community can be a powerful form
of evangelism that we can perform without proselytizing—that
is, without feeling like we have to talk people into changing
religions. Just as they were in the days of the early church, diverse
communities of Christ—communities that should not have
otherwise existed, people who should not have even liked each
other but were held together by a shared love—were a powerful
and attractive witness to the power of God’s Holy Spirit. The
Celtic Christians, for example, were extremely good at this. They
offered love and fellowship to all. People were drawn in by it, and
then, before they knew it, and much to their surprise, they found
that they had become believers.
I have seen this principle at work in our congregation.
Understanding that it is only Christ’s love that creates Christians
and community has helped my congregation to see evangelism
in a different light and, as a result of this different understanding,
feel less anxious about the topic. We are less anxious, because we
know we’re not the ones responsible for converting people. Yet not
having to worry about “closing the deal” has, paradoxically, made
us feel less awkward about describing our personal experiences of
the love of Christ, and even inviting people into the fellowship of
our church community. It has also made us more tolerant of people
with different theological opinions from our own. We realize that
our job is only to engage such people in relationships of love, or
PA R A D O X Y
112
as one of my fellow parishioners put it, “to live Christ’s love out
loud.” We’ve learned to accept that any relationship that involves
Christ is transformative to all involved. We have begun to learn to
expect that we may well experience Christ’s love through someone
very different from themselves, and that our own heart is as likely
to be “converted” as the other.
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
John 13:35
“By this everyone will know that you are my
disciples, if you have love for one another.”
What forces/issues/considerations support Christian communities being known primarily for “having love for one
another”? What forces/issues/considerations hold them back?
List them below:
Supporting Forces
Restraining Forces
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
113
●
Questions to Consider
1 If Jesus came to your church, what evidence would he see that you
“love one another”? What evidence would he see that you do not?
2 How is having love for one another made manifest? How is God
calling you and your congregation to love one another more
obviously?
E mbracing the Myste r y: L iving As I f We B elieved
●
If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation.
Paul An apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God
(2 Corinthians 5:17a)
We’ve already seen how the more a Christian community
strives for uniformity of belief, and the greater the number of
beliefs it requires to be held in common as the condition for
membership, the more likely it is that the community will suffer
schism. When the smallest matters of church teaching become
nonnegotiable, then the smallest disagreement on the smallest
issue will result in people going their separate ways.
This “splinterability” reaches its apex in all kinds of
denominations. It doesn’t seem to matter if a church is more
liberal or conservative. We are prone to this. And it doesn’t only
114
PA R A D O X Y
just happen over theological issues. It could just as easily be over
ethical/moral precepts, or even the paint color of the church, or
whether or not to purchase a new organ (or to even have one).
Some more liberal congregations have attempted to avoid this
splinterability by saying it really doesn’t matter what you believe,
since all religious experience is at its core universal anyway. But this
hardly seems a viable alternative, either practically, logically, or
theologically. Organizationally, it is near impossible to maintain a
community for long without some clarity of vision. Logically, it is
unlikely that vastly different belief structures and greatly divergent
spiritual goals arise from a universal source. And theologically, it’s
hard to argue that the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation
(i.e., the divine-human natures of Christ) have any equivalents in
other faiths. Christ is either unique, or he is not.
CU R B I N G OU R D OG MA
The late Christian rock guitarist and singer Larry Norman
frequently called upon his listeners to “curb” their dogma. In
fact, he often wore a T-shirt emblazoned with this phrase. At first
glance, it sounded like Norman was opposed to dogma. In fact,
he wasn’t, and neither am I. Consider the “dog”-ma metaphor. A
single dog, properly trained and controlled, is a wonderful animal.
A pack of dogs, wild, untamed, and out of control, can terrify a
neighborhood and injure a lot of people. So it is with dogma.
Properly understood and appropriately applied, and limited in
number, dogma can have a constructive impact on a Christian
community. But a pack of dogmas—too many teachings with the
status of dogma—can be very injurious to the cohesiveness of a
Christian community. The solution, then, lies in making sure we
are very careful about what teachings we raise to the status of
dogma, not doing so unless absolutely necessary.
●
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
115
No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried
back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three I think of him
as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I
am thinking escapes me.71
Gregory of Nazianzus Philosopher, theologian, and archbishop of
Constantinople, credited with creating the definitive doctrine of the Trinity,
c. 329–89/90
As I mentioned earlier, one of my seminary professors once said,
“The definition of a dogma is ‘let’s not talk about this anymore.’ ”
After he had thus gotten our attention, he went on to unpack
what he meant. By the time of the Council of Nicaea, the church
had been struggling for centuries to define certain ideas about
the nature and essence of God that were unique to Christianity:
inescapable implications of the incarnation of Jesus Christ. But
the more they wrestled with these concepts—the nature of Jesus
Christ and the complex nature of the Godhead—the more they
found themselves confronted with the mystery of divine paradoxes.
The church had experienced Jesus as undeniably human. Yet it
also had been confronted by the resurrected Christ as inescapably
divine. How could those two things be simultaneously true? The
church had experienced the Godhead as different “persons.” One
was a person they knew as the Creator of all things, whom they
had heard Jesus name as “Abba” (the Aramaic expression for what
a baby would call its father, i.e., “daddy”), whom they had come
to think of as God, the Father. They had also experienced God in
the person of Jesus Christ—begotten of God and human—who
had come to redeem them and reunite them with the Godhead—
whom they had come to think of as God, the Son. The third way
116
PA R A D O X Y
they had experienced the person of God was as the Spirit who
created, infused, and sustained the church, whom they had come
to think of as God, the Holy Spirit. Yet they knew, as Jesus did
and had expressed in his recitation of the Shema (“Hear, O Israel,
the Lord your God is ONE”), that there was not a pantheon of
gods, but one God. So how could God be both three persons and
one God?
The genius of the Council of Nicaea was not that those
gathered there had finally arrived at a formula that fully and
completely reconciled these seemingly irreconcilable concepts.
Rather, it was that they finally decided to stop talking about it
and fully embrace the mystery. Thus the formulas that emerged
from Nicaea defined the paradoxes inherent in the human-divine
natures of Jesus Christ and the trinitarian nature of the Godhead,
but did not define the essence of those natures. They called these
formulas “dogma,” since at some point you just had to stop asking
questions and fighting about them, and just live with them.
If we embrace the mystery of our faith together, we are better
prepared to enter into new paradigms of understanding. The
point is that the way we act in reality is powerfully influenced
by our paradigms. These paradigms almost always reflect the
unquestioningly accepted beliefs of the culture in which we live.
Malcolm Gladwell, in his book Outliers, describes how powerfully
these culturally inculcated paradigms can mitigate for or against
success. As a negative example, he relates one tragic story about
how a Columbian pilot’s culturally passive submission to hierarchy
likely led him to run out of fuel rather than question intimidating
air traffic controllers. As a positive example, he relates how the
meticulous work ethic developed over the centuries in the rice
farming cultures of Asia tended to provide the children of those
cultures with a diligence that “primes” them for greater success in
academic environments.72
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
117
In a similar way, if we immerse ourselves in the stories of
Scripture, and begin to imagine a different reality than the one
we have accepted, we can prime ourselves to live into that reality,
and by living into it, bring it about. Just as importantly, I have
found that the more we are able to live into the reality of our faith,
the more space we open up for others to live into that different
reality as well—without our having to say a word, without trying
to convert a soul.
●
The imagination is one of God’s greatest gifts. . . .
Not to conjure up false things and foolishly believe them to be
true,
but to take true things and make them vivid in the life of today.73
W.E. Sangster English Methodist clergyman and denominational leader,
1900–1960.
Research has shown that people are looking for an expression
of faith that is powerful and clear—authentic and inclusive.74 In
my congregation, I have found that people are more powerfully
drawn by the qualities of Christian community than they are by
broad doctrinal consensus or popular forms of liturgy—not that
truth is unimportant to them or that liturgy isn’t meaningful. On
the contrary, they find these things important and meaningful. But
they are deeply skeptical about externally imposed truth, preferring instead to recognize truth from prayerful discernment within
their relationship with Christ and with the people of Christ, and
engaging in dialogue with other believers about what they read in
Scripture. I have also found that this approach heals and reconciles those whom we have taken to calling the “de-churched.”
PA R A D O X Y
118
O U R WAY BA CK TO TH E FUTURE
I believe God is calling us back to basics: to pare back what
we elevate to dogmatic significance—back to the core and
paradoxical dogmas with which the church wrestled in its infancy
and finally acknowledged as indefinably true at the Council of
Nicaea. I believe that God is calling us to focus our imaginations
on living as though these mysteries were true. As it curbs its dogma
to the core paradoxical mysteries, the church offers a spiritual core
that truly stands for something, yet is not imposing or excluding.
In embracing these mysteries and concentrating our attention
on imagining ourselves into the divine reality they express, the
church, without pretending to fully understand them, can offer
the world a powerful way of tasting and seeing the goodness of
God.
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
Ephesians 4:14a
We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro
and blown about by every wind of doctrine. . . .
There are two ways of interpreting this text:
(a) Paul is warning against doctrines different than his
own.
(b) Paul is warning against an excessive focus on doctrine,
because it is a human attempt to describe divine reality, and
is therefore imperfect and subject to change.
What are the implications of these very different
interpretations?
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
119
●
Questions to Consider
1 What do you find attractive about the idea of curbing your dogma?
What about it makes you feel uneasy?
2 What attracts you to the idea of embracing the mystery and living
as though the core, paradoxical beliefs of Christianity were true?
What about it makes you feel uneasy?
3 What would be the impact of implementing these ideas in your life?
In the life of your faith community?
Fellowsh ip Fir st
●
The one thing truly worthwhile
is becoming God’s friend.75
Gregory of Nyssa Bishop and prominent
fourth-century theologian, c. 335–85/86
The principle we are talking about here is perhaps the ultimate
in curbing our dogma and embracing the mystery. To paraphrase the
apostle Paul: relationship with Christ equals new creation. When
people come into relationship with Christ, love starts re-creating
them.
120
PA R A D O X Y
The Jesus movements of the first several centuries showed us
how evangelism could be carried out with a set of assumptions
that abandons the need to control and that values fellowship
above everything else. These movements offered fellowship first,
knowing that the love of Christ, experienced in the midst of a
worshiping community, would soften individuals’ hearts, eventually converting (i.e., “turning”) their hearts in a new direction—to
a connection with Christ. Then, the church would offer baptism.
W H AT D IF F E R E N C E D O ES IT M A KE ?
It certainly made a difference in the early church. This
Friendship and Fellowship First approach, which was so deeply
ingrained into the early Jesus movements, resulted in some of the
most rapid expansions of the church in its entire history.
This can work in much the same way today. The National
Episcopal Cursillo movement is one example. In this movement
the approach to evangelization is friendship, and fellowship, based.
Graduates of Cursillo are encouraged to approach evangelism, not
by attempting to convert people, but by making friends with them.
Once you have made a friend, your job is to be a friend, simply
by loving as Christ first loved you, and by inviting your friend to
experience an immersion of love in a Christian community. In fact,
that would be a good way to describe this approach: evangelism
by immersion in Christ’s love, allowing friends to “taste and see
that the LORD is good. . . .” (Psalm 34:8a).
One of our members once jokingly called this the “Borg”
approach to newcomer incorporation. The Borg Collective was
one of the fictional alien races of the Star Trek franchise of the
television series and movies, a biological-mechanical, pseudorace, with a “hive mind” intent on incorporating the biological and
technological distinctiveness of all other races into its collective.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
121
This sci-fi aficionado and Trekker thought we were as persistent as
the Borg in our efforts to assimilate newcomers into our fellowship
but without the bothersome side effect of robbing them of their
individual personalities. It is an apt metaphor, because we assume
that when God sends a person into our midst, God has already
invited that person into our fellowship, already made that person a
part of us. Our job, then, is merely to act as though that were true.
Our job is simply to envelop that person with the same love with
which God has already enveloped us and them.
If evangelizing with love and acceptance sounds more difficult
than evangelizing with words, that’s because it is. It is easier to offer
a step-by-step formula for conversion. But while this approach is
not easy or safe, in the end, the fact that offering Christ’s love not
only transforms those who receive it, but also those who give it, is
what makes it so worthwhile.
This isn’t just another “technique.” If it were, it would be a
deviously manipulative one. The love and fellowship offered
have to be truly given as gifts, and not with the hidden agenda of
converting that person to Christianity. The gift we are giving is not
the institution of Christianity but the opportunity to experience
the love of Christ. One need not leave one’s religion to experience
the love of Christ. One need not cease being a Jew or a Muslim
(lit., “One who obeys God”) or a Buddhist. On the other hand,
one may choose to become a baptized follower of Jesus, and a
member of a Christian denomination. But the gift of the love of
Christ may not be made contingent on that decision.
Yet it has been our experience that many people do make that
decision to convert. Jews, Muslims, even Buddhists have made the
choice to become a member of our Christian community through
baptism. We accepted them for who they were and embraced
them with the love of Christ, exerting no pressure on them to
change. A young Buddhist man attended our worship services for
122
PA R A D O X Y
years, laughingly proclaiming himself to anyone who would listen
as the church’s “resident heathen.” On the serious side, he said the
reason he kept coming was because he “loved the questions we
raised but never had reason to question the love we offered.” He
felt love but no pressure. He felt free to ask questions about faith
and even express doubts. Even so, over time he became aware
that he was being drawn into relationship with Christ. It was a
slightly bittersweet day when he “ruined his reputation” as our
resident heathen by requesting that he be baptized. However, just
this year, as a result of her engagement to one of our members,
a young Buddhist woman has eagerly volunteered to take on his
historic “resident heathen” role in our community.
Does it always work this way? No. Are people uniformly drawn
in by the love of Christ? Of course not. Are we perfect examples
of how to pass on Christ’s love unconditionally? Far from it. To
be honest, sometimes we can only say that it is an aspirational
goal. Sometimes, even when we manage to get it more right than
wrong, some people find themselves unable to trust it. Sometimes,
people make the connection and understand the implication that
if they accept this kind of unconditional love, eventually they will
feel obligated to pass it on, and don’t yet feel ready for that. Even
so, the more we are able to remove the conditions we are tempted
to place on our sharing of Christ’s love, the more we experience
people finding themselves drawn into it.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
123
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
John 15:7–12
“If you abide in me, and my words abide in
you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be
done for you. My Father is glorified by this,
that you bear much fruit and become my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so I have
loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my
commandments, you will abide in my love,
just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. I have said these
things to you so that my joy may be in you,
and that your joy may be complete. ‘This is
my commandment, that you love one another
as I have loved you.’ ”
What is the difference between believing (as in doctrine
about Christ) and abiding (as in being in relationship with
Christ)? What difference would this distinction make in your
faith journey? In the life of your congregation?
●
Questions to Consider
1 What is the difference between believing without proof and trusting
without reservation?
PA R A D O X Y
124
2 How do belief and trust influence each other in your faith journey?
How does belief move you forward on your journey? How does
faith move you forward on your journey?
O rganism ove r O r gan iz at ion
●
There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit.
There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord.
Paul Called to be an apostle
(1 Corinthians 12:4–5, NIV)
F.G. “Moe” Cavin, a member of the board of trustees of United
Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, once said at a graduation ceremony,
“The first problem with ‘organized religion’ is that it’s too
organized.” He got a good laugh from the gathered seminarians,
but there is truth in his words. Whenever at least “two or three
are gathered” anywhere, organization becomes an issue. Human
beings need some sort of organizational structure to get along
with each other and to get things done, but there is a balance
to be maintained. Even highly disciplined organizations such as
the military realize that organizational rigidity can be a dangerous
thing and that a certain level of adaptability is desirable for the
survival of the organization and its members.
One would think that organizational flexibility would be
especially desirable for an organization such as the church,
particularly since it claims to owe its birth and its continued
existence to God’s Holy Spirit. Yet judging by the old joke that
the last seven words of the church will be “But we’ve always done
it that way,” organizational rigidity is a long-standing problem.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
125
Indeed churches with low levels of organizational structure and
hierarchical authority, such as the Society of Friends (Quakers),
tend to be the exception that proves the rule.
The structure of organizational authority may take many
forms. It might be a global, highly centralized, multicongregation
authority structure, such as the Roman Catholic or Orthodox
Churches. It might be a single-congregation, nondenominational
community church. Or it may be somewhere in between. Some
denominations, such as Episcopal, Lutheran, and similar churches,
have a moderately centralized, multicongregational authority
structure that shares governance with its member congregations.
Other, more congregationalist denominations, such as the
various varieties of Baptist polities, have a strictly localized
authority structure but share centralized ministry networks
(e.g., coordination of missionaries) and resource structures (e.g.,
seminaries). Churches with nonhierarchical organization and
leadership are few and far between. But it hasn’t always been that
way.
Certainly, Jesus’ style of leadership (“But I am among you as
one who serves” Luke 22:27b.) was counterhierarchical, as was
the way of leadership he taught his disciples (“the greatest among
you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who
serves” Luke 22:26b). This way of leadership was carried on by
Paul and handed down explicitly by Paul to the communities he
founded. Paul taught his communities that they should be less like
organizations and more like organisms. He compared a Christian
community to the human body, in which diverse parts with
different abilities and functions came together to form a complete
organism. If a Christian community was indeed an organism and
not simply an organization composed of distinct individuals, then
each individual member was essential to the completeness of the
whole. Individuals would know that they were selected by God
126
PA R A D O X Y
to be a part of the organism that God was creating and growing.
The individual members of the community would know that God
had placed them into the community to play a unique role in the
life of the community, and they and the community could discern
the nature of their intended role by the unique gifts God had
bestowed upon them.
Such alternative approaches to organization and leadership
have never been dominant in the church—nor have they
maintained an unbroken visible presence over the centuries since
the communities of the apostle Paul. Homeostasis is a hard thing
to overcome. Yet, as we have seen in those approaches we have
reviewed, every so often, like a fresh spring emerging from an
underground aquifer, they find a way to bubble to the surface. And
when they do, even if they don’t manage a sustained existence, the
result is usually the revitalization of the church.
W H AT D IF F E R E N C E D O E S IT M A KE ?
You may think that where I am heading with this is to
suggest that moving into a new paradigm of church will require
the wholesale dismantling of the organizational and authority
structures of the church in favor of a single counterhierarchical
model. I am not. I’m still an Episcopal priest. Rather, I am
suggesting that we wear these structures more lightly, living in
the tension that comes from our acknowledgment that, as I stated
earlier, they are “a mistake blessed by God”—a human creation
that God did not require us to adopt, but through which God has
clearly worked. If we acknowledge that this tension is a healthy
one, we can not only tolerate the vital forces that have bubbled up
through these recurring Jesus movements, but welcome them as a
blessing and not resist them as a threat.
How might this work?
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
127
O RGA N I Z ATI O N A S O RGA N ISM
First, we need to take seriously Paul’s vision of the organic
nature of Christian community (1 Corinthians 12). Christian
community is not an organizational structure in which people
occupy various fixed and static roles; it is a living organism. It
grows, adapts to its environment, reproduces, thinks, moves
toward goals, and has a vision and a calling. All too often Christian
communities become “God’s Frozen People,” organizing and
acting in certain ways because they’ve “always done it this way.”
While these ways of acting and organizing may not be inherently
bad—in fact, they may be good—if we are frozen into them, we
are not free to respond in a living way to the call of the living God.
All congregations, be they liberal or conservative, can fall into this
trap. All have their implicit default settings. But thinking of our
Christian communities as living organisms can help us allow them
to be more open to God’s call and more flexible in organizing to
meet their call within the contexts they find themselves.
GI F T S OF TH E M E MB E R S A S GUIDA NC E FROM GOD
How does an organic Christian community discern its vision
and its calling? By viewing the gifts of each of the people God
brings into the community as a message from God: a piece of the
puzzle about what God is calling the congregation to be and to do.
By sifting through the aggregation of the gifts that God has sent, a
church can begin to discern the call God is extending to her. For
example, if God is sending to a particular congregation a lot of
new people with gifts suited to a ministry that doesn’t currently
exist there, maybe that is God’s way of telling that congregation
to start a new ministry that does suit their gifts. Or if God is not
sending a particular congregation enough new people to replace
the people stepping down from a particular ministry, maybe that
128
PA R A D O X Y
is God’s way of telling that congregation that the time has come
to discontinue that ministry, no matter how long that ministry
has been identified with that congregation. And if God is sending
a particular congregation lots of new people whose ideas and
attitudes challenge those of current members, maybe it is God’s
way of telling the current members that they need a change of
heart.
L E A D E R S H IP B A S E D O N GIFT S
All congregations, be they conservative or liberal, carry in their
DNA unspoken assumptions that certain ministry roles are better
or more spiritual than others. Within more conservative Christian
communities, these preferences may lean in the direction of roles
such as evangelist, preacher, and teacher. In more liberal Christian
communities, these preferences may lean in the direction of social
justice. These are false hierarchies. No one role in the church is
inherently better than any other. If fact, a role that would be good
for one person might be bad for another, because the good in the
doing only comes from doing it in response to the call of Christ.
It is very easy for congregations to fall into the temptation of
assuming that the needs of their churches—that is, the holes in
their churches’ organizational charts—are God’s messages to them
about the roles that parishioners, and particularly newcomers, are
called to fill. But the reality is more likely to be the opposite. The
gifts and callings of the parishioners should determine where they
fit in the organization. And if their gifts and callings don’t match
with the needs of the church organization, it may well be the
organizational structure that God wants to change.76
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
129
L E A D I N G BY VI S I O N
Finally, we need to lead by vision rather than by power or
authority. If we accept our Christian communities as living
organisms, and believe that every member has a role to play in
moving the community toward the mission and goals that God
has given it, then we have no need to lead through power and
authority. Rather, we will be able to lead more effectively by
painting for the community a clear picture, a vision, of what God
is calling us to. The clearer the vision, the more the community
will move toward it.
What we are talking about is servant leaders engaging their
congregations in discernment about what God is calling their
congregations to be and to do: helping to “birth” a congregational
vision and bring it to life. We are talking about leaders painting a
picture in clear terms that can be taken into the imagination of the
members. Once congregational members have taken the vision in,
their imaginations will encourage them to move toward it, both
consciously and unconsciously.
●
God has not called me to be successful, God has called me to be
faithful.77
Teresa of Calcutta 1910–1997
130
PA R A D O X Y
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
1 Corinthians 12:22–25, NIV
On the contrary, those parts of the body that
seem to be weaker are indispensable, and the
parts that we think are less honorable we treat
with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, while
our presentable parts need no special treatment.
But God has combined the members of the body
and has given greater honor to the parts that
lacked it, so that there should be no division in
the body, but that its parts should have equal
concern for each other.
How is your Christian community living into the spirit of
this Scripture?
●
Questions to Consider
1 What principles and considerations have guided your congregation’s
organization? Which, if any, of these principles and considerations
would you consider the primary organizational principle?
2 If the gifts and callings of the members of your congregation were
elevated to be its primary organizational principle, how might that
change your organization?
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
131
3 What is your congregation’s vision? How did it emerge? How does
it influence your congregation’s direction?
Commu n it ies wit h ou t B ou n dar ies
●
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth,
will draw all people to myself.
Jesus of Nazareth (John 12:32)
I grew up in West Texas before the civil rights marches of the
1960s. In my home town of Lubbock, many of the restaurants and
stores displayed signs in the windows that read, “We reserve the
right to refuse service.” It seldom said precisely to whom they would
deny service, but we all knew to whom the sign referred: any person
of color. The sad thing was, even restaurant and store owners who
would have called themselves Christians posted the signs.
The church has long struggled with such a question: who is in
and who is out? This question surfaces in many guises. Who is a
Christian and who is not? With whom do we share our fellowship?
With whom do we share Communion?
This last version of the question is painfully ironic, because it
turns the very sacrament that Jesus gave to unite us into a source
of division. It is a sad historical fact that the primary cause of many
denominational schisms has been theological differences over the
definition of this sacramental act. This is doubly ironic, since all
denominations agree that it is ultimately a mystery. It continues
to cause bruised feelings on the part of many followers of Christ,
132
PA R A D O X Y
who visit other churches and are refused Communion because
of theological differences between their denomination and the
one they are visiting. Even well-meaning ecumenical events can
be painful, as it was in the planning of a recent ecumenical Ash
Wednesday service that my congregation was hosting. It was
almost derailed at the eleventh hour by a disagreement over
Communion. One of the participating clergy said he would have
to stay away, and advise his congregation to do the same, if we
offered both the imposition of ashes and Communion. After some
high-stakes theo-canonical negotiations, we managed to keep all
parties happy by breaking our Episcopal Ash Wednesday liturgy
into two back-to-back services separated by the “passing of the
peace,” so that it became “officially” an ecumenical Imposition of
Ashes service follow by an Episcopal service of Holy Communion
to which members of other denominations were invited, but their
clergy were free not to assist in leading. It is a shame (literally)
that the very act that should be the church’s greatest symbol of
unity, the sharing of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ,
in whom we are made “one body” (see 1 Corinthians 10:17), is so
often turned into the occasion of such division by the very church
that is called the body of Christ.
Sadly, even within denominations there can be division over
this sacrament. In my own denomination, some advocate for
closed communion, limiting it only to baptized members, while
others advocate for open communion, making it available to all
worshipers.
Yet comparing these practices to those of Jesus, we see an
approach that is 180 degrees different. When the Pharisees
complained to Jesus that he shared his table with sinners—tax
collectors, prostitutes, and all manner of unclean people—his
answer was fairly plain: “I have come not to save the ‘righteous’ but
sinners.” The quotation marks around the righteous are my doing,
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
133
because I think if Jesus were familiar with the modern gesture, he
would have been making “air quotes” when he said it. There is
no record of Jesus turning >Þi away from his table ever. So it
would seem to be wise for the body of Christ to exercise a similar
approach.
●
If then God gave them [the Gentiles] the same gift that he gave
us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I
could hinder God?
Peter An apostle of Jesus Christ
(Acts 11:17)
Indeed, from the very beginning, the church has been
aware—often reluctantly so—of the tendency of the Holy Spirit
to work wherever he willed, even beyond the boundaries of the
church as they were assumed by its leaders at the time. Certainly
the apostle found this to be true when in a vision he argued with
God about whether he should baptize Gentiles, who up until that
point the church leadership believed had to become Jewish first
before being baptized. Similarly, the early church acknowledged
as being valid—albeit irregular—baptism done in the name the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, even if it was performed by
a nonbeliever.
●
We can set no limits to the agency of the Redeemer to redeem. 78
Clement of Alexandria Christian theologian and head
of the catechetical of Alexandria, c. 150–c. 215
134
PA R A D O X Y
Many of the early church fathers and mothers agreed that it is
not for us to decide who is in God’s kingdom and who is out. The
snag that we often run into is one of basic logic. Because we know
that the church is inextricably bound to the Holy Spirit, we assume
that the Holy Spirit must be similarly bound to the church. But we
must acknowledge that the church does not control the workings
of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is free to work outside of what
we consider to be the boundaries of church.
W H AT D I F F E R E N C E D O E S IT M A KE ?
It isn’t our job to determine people’s worthiness to receive
Communion. After all, in God’s eyes no one is any more worthy
to receive Communion that anyone else. If it were anyone’s job
to make those kinds of decisions, it would be Jesus’. Yet Jesus
consistently refused to make such decisions—instead he welcomed
everyone. Maybe it’s time for us to ask ourselves, “What DID Jesus
do?” and do the same ourselves—welcoming everyone.
In my own congregation, we have taken a position on this issue
that we hope is both radically welcoming and yet provides clarity
about our theological understanding of Christian community. We
call ourselves “A Place to Belong. A Place to Become.” These two
phrases represent what we understand to be our two core callings.
“A place to belong” represents our core understanding that as a
community we are called to love unconditionally. We believe that
the only sufficient basis for Christian community is Christ’s love
for us. Because Christ first offered us the grace of unconditional
love and acceptance, and unconditional adoption into the family
of God, we are called to accept and love whomever God brings
without condition and welcome them into our family in the same
way. “A place to become” represents our core understanding that
we are called as a community to speak truth unconditionally.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
135
Because part of the grace that God offers us is the truth about
ourselves—to see ourselves as God sees us, both as we are and
what God knows we are meant to be—we are called to offer
the same grace to everyone that God sends to us. As imperfect
creatures we see only imperfectly, and so we say what we see with
humility and ask only the same in return.
This is not always an easy balance to maintain. There are
people in our congregation who are conservative politically and
those who are liberal. That in itself would not be unusual in a
congregation, but what is unusual in ours is that our people don’t
change the subject when politics comes up. In the run-up to the
recent Iraq war, when many congregations were avoiding the
topic for fear of division among their members, we held a series of
discussions in which, after talking through how to speak our truth
in love, people on both sides of the issue shared their thoughts and
feelings about the impending invasion. There were disagreements
and strong emotions expressed, but we were able to agree on two
things: (1) war is always an evil, never a good, and (2) we need
to pray for all involved in the conflict: our leaders and theirs, our
soldiers and theirs, our civilians and theirs. Other examples from
the life of our congregation include:
UÊ / iÀiÊ>ÀiÊLÌ Ê«ÌV>ÞÊLiÀ>Ê>`ÊVÃiÀÛ>ÌÛiÊiLiÀÃÊ
on our leadership board. They recently came together to
petition the U.S. government for the release of five Muslim
Uyghurs who had been found to be noncombatants but
were still being held captive at the Guantanamo Bay
detention center. When that petition was denied, our
leaders worked with a local Muslim congregation to hold
a fundraising dinner to obtain the release of prisoners
from the Albanian refugee camp where they had been
abandoned. One of our conservative leaders said, “This is
not about politics. This is about justice.”
136
PA R A D O X Y
UÊ Ê vÀiÀÊ Ê vwViÀ]Ê Ãiv`iÃVÀLi`Ê >ÃÊ ºÌÊ Ì iÊ À} ÌÊ vÊ
Genghis Khan,” and an openly homosexual man, retired
on disability, recently learned to accept, and then respect,
and then to love, each other in Christ.
UÊ Ê ÕÃL>`Ê>`ÊÜvi]Êà iÊÃiv`iÃVÀLi`Ê>ÃÊ>ʺi>ÀÊvÕ`>mentalist” and he, jokingly, as “sort of U.C.C. (Unitarians
Considering Christ),” who for the first time in their lives
have found a church in which they can coexist openly.
Of course, not every occasion for putting this principle into
practice has turned out so positively for us. On the matter of gay
people in the church, at least one person I know has left over the
issue. Even so, she seemed to struggle over the question. On the
one hand, she understood our position that Christ’s love alone is
a sufficient basis for Christian community—and she even agreed
with it . . . in principle. But on the other hand, she could not
help feeling uncomfortable in a congregation that permitted gay
people to serve in positions of authority, and that was part of a
denomination that even ordained them. Even so, as painful as it
is to have any parishioner leave, at least our approach made it
possible for her to leave without animosity and for her to clearly
communicate the reason for her leaving, both of which are
healthy.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
137
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
John 12:32
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will
draw all people to myself.
Consider the implications of Jesus’ use of the word “all.”
●
Questions to Consider
1 What rules or traditions create distinctions between insiders and
outsiders in your congregation? In your denomination? What
beliefs or attitudes?
2 What would have to change in order to eliminate the distinctions
between insiders and outsiders in your denomination? In your
congregation? In your own life?
3 If this change happens, what would you appreciate about it? What
about it would be hard for you?
C H A P T E R
7
A New Middle Way?
Characteristics of an
Incarnational Orthodoxy—
a.k.a. Paradoxy
●
How wonderful that we have met with a paradox.
Now we have some hope of making progress.79
Niels Bohr Danish physicist, quantum theorist,
Nobel Prize for Physics, 1885–1962
If a new paradigm is beginning to rise from the ashes of the
old ones, it might be called a New Middle Way: a path on which
conservative and liberal Christians can find common ground. This
path takes us beyond the dying argument between liberal and
conservative theology: it is a path that provides the space for God
to turn us all toward a new way of being church. Moving into this
nascent paradigm will call on us to be both bold and provisional at
the same time. Bold, in striking out creatively in the areas of faith
that God is calling us to re-vision. Provisional, in understanding
that even as God is calling us into a new way of church, we can
only see the contours of that paradigm “through a glass darkly.”
●
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
139
Grant that we may maintain that middle way,
not as a compromise for the sake of peace,
but as a comprehension for the sake of truth.80
An Anglican Prayer
I am talking about prayerfully seeking from God a renewed
vision of what God is calling the church to be—a new way to sing
the songs of God in the foreign landscape into which all of us are
now entering. When I use the term provisional, I am not suggesting
acting tentatively, but realizing that God may yet have to further
clarify our vision, and that God may well use people with visions
seemingly opposed to ours to accomplish that clarification.
The irony of a new paradigm is that when it arrives, it is never
exactly what those fighting against it feared, nor exactly what
those fighting for it hoped for. As we investigate the implications
of this New Middle Way, I hope to explore in each case what this
radical middle might look like compared to its conservative and
liberal companions. I hope to explore in each case where there
might exist common ground on which all Christians might stand.
I hope to do so while giving both sides of the theological spectrum
due respect for the perspective they bring to the discussion.
De fining Te rms: Thre e Or t h odoxies
I’d like to begin by suggesting that the term “orthodox” has lost
its clarity of meaning. It has been appropriated by various groups
who use the term to mean different things. The general public tends
to think of “orthodoxy” as the generally accepted or approved way
of thinking or acting. Eastern Christians use it as a term to refer to
PA R A D O X Y
140
any member church of the branch of churches of which they are
a part. Conservative Christians tend to use it to describe a broad
spectrum of doctrines that they consider to be the traditionally
accepted views of the church, and to describe those who share
their particular constellation of doctrines and teachings. This may
vary widely from group to group. Liberal Christians generally shy
away from using the term at all to describe themselves, yet the
vast majority believe their theology to be within the borders of
the Nicene Creed—certainly not heretical. As Hooker pointed
out, everyone thinks their theology is the right theology:
●
Everywhere through all generations and ages of the
Christian world,
no church ever perceived the Word of God to be against it.81
Richard Hooker Anglican priest and theologian, 1554–1600
The literal meaning of orthodoxy is actually “right praise.”
Another way of expressing it might be “appropriate praise in
response to God.” The conservative concept of orthodoxy is
more like right doctrine (or correct beliefs). The liberal concept of
orthodoxy is more like right action.
So before we begin our exploration of a radical middle way of
being church, we are going to have to define our terms. In keeping
with Hooker’s observation, we would be advised to keep our terms
neutral. We’ll label each of them as a different type of orthodoxy,
giving each a name that reflects its approach to orthodoxy. And for
the purpose of easy discussion, we’ll give each of them a shorter
nickname.
UÊ / iÊ VÃiÀÛ>ÌÛiÊ Ü>ÞÊ ÜiÊ ÜÊ V>Ê Doctrinal-Propositional
Orthodoxy or "ÀÌ «ÀÝÞ.
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
141
UÊ / iÊ LiÀ>Ê Ü>ÞÊ ÜiÊ ÜÊV>Ê Ethical-Practical Orthodoxy or
"ÀÌ «À>ÝÞ.
UÊÊ / iÊ iiÀ}}Ê ``iÊ Ü>ÞÊ ÜiÊ ÜÊ V>Ê IncarnationalRelational Orthodoxy or *>À>`ÝÞ.
Orthoproxy stands for “right doctrine” (ortho meaning “right”
and prox being shorthand for “propositional doctrines”), reflecting
the fact that for most on the conservative side of the church
orthodoxy means holding the correct doctrinal propositions.
Orthoproxy tends to remain committed to the Enlightenment
paradigm of Foundationalism (i.e., that it is possible for human
reason to comprehend universal truths), accepting the conservative
assumption that universal truth is external and propositional.
Therefore, there can only be one ultimate truth and that truth
may only be found in Christianity.
Orthopraxy roughly means “right practice” (ortho meaning
“right” and prax being shorthand for “practice”), reflecting the
fact that for most on the liberal side of the church, orthodoxy
means living out a way of life consistent with the teachings of
Jesus. Orthopraxy also remains committed to the paradigm of
Foundationalism, but it accepts the liberal assumption that universal
truth is internal and experiential. Therefore, at the deepest level
all religions must access the same universal truth, and Christianity
is perhaps the most unique and fullest expression of that truth.
Paradoxy comes from the Greek word paradoxos. Unpacking
the word paradoxos will take a little more doing. Para can mean
both “next to” and “in relation to.” Doxos, of course, literally means
“praise” but also “awe” or “celebration.” A near-literal translation
of paradoxos would be “things that, placed in relationship to each
other, inspire awe and praise.” Paradoxy, then, represents an
approach to orthodoxy that comes closer to the literal meaning
142
PA R A D O X Y
of the word than either the conservative or liberal approach. It
means embracing and celebrating relationship with Jesus Christ,
realizing and accepting that the incarnate Truth will always be
greater than we can understand or imagine. It is centered on being
in right relationship with Christ and celebrating, embracing, and
living into the power of the paradoxical reality of the Incarnation
and all its implications.
Paradoxy understands that the paradigm of Foundationalism
is fatally flawed. A statement widely attributed to physicist Niels
Bohr observed that, while the opposite of a true statement is a
false statement, the opposite of a profound truth may well be
another profound truth.” In other words, universal truth exists,
but fallen human reason is incapable of fully comprehending it
(see John 1:10), and thus incapable of devising any organization
or system that can fully contain it. Therefore no religion, not
even Christianity, has full and complete access to it. The only
connection fallen humanity has to the full and complete truth
is Jesus Christ. Christ does not contain truth—Christ IS Truth.
Therefore, even through Christ fallen humanity cannot attain
full and complete understanding. What it can do is be in living
relationship with the Truth.
This does not mean that Paradoxy does not value Christianity
as a religion. On the contrary, it values it highly. To the extent that
Christianity seeks to be a way of living relationship with Christ,
it comes as close as any religion can to understanding truth.
But Paradoxy recognizes that even Christianity, as a religion, is
capable of both error and sin, and that Christianity, as a religion,
is secondary to Christ.
I apologize in advance for describing Paradoxy in the
present tense, in the same manner as I describe Orthoproxy and
Orthopraxy. This is only because describing it in some sort of
conditional tense would not only be too great a challenge to
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
143
write, but an even greater challenge to read and understand. So I
would ask you to bear in mind that my descriptions of Paradoxy
are not intended to represent a completely developed theology.
Nor are any of the descriptions that follow intended to be
exhaustive. Rather, my intent is to lay down a series of markers
for the comparison of what I believe may be the nascent paradigm
of Paradoxy to the familiar conservative and liberal forms that are
currently in conflict.
I would also ask you to keep in mind that the differences I
describe are not intended to be categorical or mutually exclusive.
My purpose is to highlight the differences, not to describe their
many areas of agreement, though I may occasionally do so when
such agreement might seem surprising or counterintuitive. What I
want to do is view these differences as different sides of the same
path: the right side, the left side, and a new middle way that is
radical (as going to the roots), and paradoxically holding elements
of both sides in tension.
Finally, while I have tried to evaluate all three points of
view objectively and dispassionately, complete objectivity is not
something any human is capable of achieving, especially when
discussing one’s own ideas. In comparing these three approaches,
I have, in each of the following sections, discussed them in the
same order: first Orthoproxy (Propositional Orthodoxy), then
Orthopraxy (Ethical Orthodoxy), then Paradoxy (Incarnational
Orthodoxy). I have done this not to imply relative merit (e.g.,
good, better, best), but only for the sake of clarity. It is not my
intent to ascribe ill intent to those who would identify themselves
as either theological conservatives or theological liberals. Nor do
I wish to imply that either is inherently lacking or that either is
inherently better than the other. Both have strengths and both
have weaknesses. It is my wish only to identify those strengths
and weakness (and I assume others will return the favor). I owe
144
PA R A D O X Y
much of what I am and much of what I understand to both
conservative and liberal Christians. I owe my appreciation for
the significance of doctrine to conservative Christianity. I owe
my understanding that doctrine is necessary but not nourishing
to liberal Christianity. I would not be a follower of Jesus Christ
today were it not for a very conservative Christian friend who
took an interest in me and challenged me—as a person of Jewish
origin—to engage the Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament,
if only to try to prove him wrong. So I apologize in advance if I
give any offense to either liberal or conservative Christians. The
old cliché is nonetheless true: you only hurt the ones you love.
The Thre e Ds: Dogma , D o c t rine , and D idac h e
Another way of comparing these three ways of being church
is to examine how each relates to what I have called the Three Ds:
Dogma, Doctrine, and Didache.
Orthoproxy does so through assent to a broad spectrum of
specifically defined doctrines. Orthoproxy tends to seek broad
agreement on a wide number of carefully defined and explicitly
described doctrines and teachings. A strength of this approach
is clarity of belief. Orthoproxy folks tend to clearly know and
articulate their views, and members of Orthoproxy churches know
what they have to believe in order to be safely within the bounds
of the acceptable. However, a great weakness of Orthoproxy
is its tendency to splinter easily over small deviations in their
understanding of these doctrines and teachings. Also, an excessive
focus on head understanding can impair heart understanding, also
making argument and division likely. As it was once expressed
mathematically to the church in Corinth by a certain apostle:
●
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
145
All Knowledge x No Love = Nothing
Paul Apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God
(see 1 Corinthians 13:2)
Orthopraxy approaches the three Ds via what I would call
commitment to a narrow spectrum of broadly defined teachings.
Orthopraxy relies less on doctrinal agreement and much more on
common commitment in acting out the love of Christ and practicing Christ’s teachings and way of life. Its strengths and weaknesses
are the reverse of those of Orthoproxy. Orthopraxy’s stronger
emphasis on the heart generally results in greater tolerance and
less tendency to splinter. However, Orthopraxy’s weaker emphasis
on the head sometimes means that greater tolerance comes at the
cost of theological clarity. As one formerly very liberal colleague
of mine once said, “Sometimes theological liberalism can be a
pretty weak soup.” Sometimes it can seem like there’s “not much
there there.” Again, we might quote Paul:
●
Did you receive the Spirit
by doing the works of the law
. . . or by believing what you heard?
Paul An apostle sent neither by human commission nor by
human authorities
(Galatians 3:2c)
Lastly, Paradoxy approaches the three Ds by way of embracing
a narrow spectrum of paradoxically defined dogmas. The way of
Paradoxy threads a middle path between the clarity of Orthoproxy
146
PA R A D O X Y
and the acceptance of Orthopraxy. A distinguishing feature of
Paradoxy is its focus on upholding, celebrating, embracing, and
living into the reality and power of the incarnation of God in
Jesus Christ, and into the core, paradoxical dogmas of Christian
faith that are its necessary implications. Paradoxy allows greater
clarity as to what we hold in common without the overdefinition
that can result in increased intolerance and increased likelihood
of splintering.
Cr eedal or Con fession al?
Another useful comparison of these three approaches to
Christian community is whether they tend to be creedal or
confessional in their understanding of faith and belief. What does
it mean to be creedal or confessional? The simplest distinction—
perhaps even an oversimplification—that we could make
between creedal and confessional churches would be to say that
“creedal” denominations tend to place more emphasis on what
the church corporately believes and teaches, while “confessional”
denominations tend to place more emphasis on what the individual
member believes and confesses. Creedal is more communal in
understanding, while confessional is more individual. Again,
this is not an entirely black and white distinction but more of a
continuum.
Churches favoring Orthoproxy tend to be more individually confessional in their approach to orthodoxy, requiring each
individual to personally believe and confess a set of theological
propositions. Broadly speaking, evangelical Protestant denominations tend to favor this sort of confessional life. Of course, the
amount of consistent emphasis on what the individual believes and
the specificity and strictness of the interpretation of each point
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
147
of belief as confessed can vary between and even within confessional denominations. Missouri Synod Lutherans, for example,
are usually more strictly confessional than those belonging to the
Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA), especially as
the latter has moved toward full communion with the Episcopal
Church (clearly creedal in its approach), even as some breakaway Episcopal splinter groups become more confessional. The
strengths and weakness of the individually confessional approach
would tend to be the opposite of the communally creedal
approach.
A strength of the individually confessional approach comes
with the clarity with which individuals come to terms with what
they believe and why. The confessional approach encourages its
members to clarify what they believe. One weakness implied in
this strength is that the more extensive and strict the confessional
formula, the more times the church will likely splinter. The Buddhist
turned Episcopalian that I mentioned earlier happened to have
been born into a fairly strict variety of individually confessional
church. He assures me that a “no-questions asked” confessional
approach can be just as oppressive as any authoritarian communal
creed.
Churches favoring Orthopraxy tend to be more communally
creedal in their approach to orthodoxy. In Orthopraxy, the sense
of embracing orthodoxy lies in the community’s affirmation of
the church’s communal belief—for example, as described in the
Nicene Creed: “We believe in God, the Father, the Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth. . . . “In reciting the Nicene Creed,
they are saying, “This is what we, the ‘one, holy, catholic, and
apostolic church,’ corporately believe.” Examples of traditions
whose official approach to orthodoxy are strongly communally
creedal would be the Anglican/Episcopal communion of churches,
the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern churches.
148
PA R A D O X Y
A strength of the communally creedal approach would be
its high capacity for withstanding schism. Its emphasis on what
the church believes over what the individual believes allows
individuals to nuance their understandings of what they are giving
assent to when reciting the various beliefs. As a seminary professor
of mine once said, “Some days we believe some parts of the Nicene
Creed more than we do on other days.” Also, it gives validation to
the church’s mission of teaching. A weakness of the communally
creedal approach would be that if too much focus is placed on
what the church believes over what the individual believes, the
individual might never have to come to terms with any of it.
On the other hand, if a communally creedal congregation were
to become authoritarian, enforcing a creed could become just as
oppressive as enforcing a confession.
The approach of Paradoxy would be creedal and confessional
in communion. Paradoxy would uphold the creeds as the ultimate
expression of orthodoxy. The reason why Paradoxy would
unreservedly accept the creeds is not because they completely
and accurately define the reality of God, but because they provide
the most beautiful expression of that infinite reality that finite
humanity has yet been able to produce. Paradoxy would also call
itself confessional. It understands the importance of clarifying
and expressing individual belief. Yet at the same time Paradoxy
would not insist on uniformity of those beliefs among individuals.
Rather, since it understands the core realities of the Christian faith
to be paradoxical, it would insist on bringing varying conceptions
of those realities into dialogue with each other, so that in the
tension between them we might achieve increasing verisimilitude.
In fact, Paradoxy believes that, like Jacob wrestling with the angel
(Genesis 32:24), it is precisely by struggling with our various creeds
and confessions—and with each other’s various understandings of
them—that our individual and communal understandings of the
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
149
paradoxical realities that the creeds and confessions represent are
made more complete. Paradoxy recognizes that God’s nature is
paradoxical: containing seemingly opposing realities that must
both be true, but that cannot be humanly resolved.
Paradoxy would also acknowledge that there are movements
within communally creedal traditions that would like to make
their denomination more individually confessional, as well as
movements within that work in the other direction. Examples of
those from mainline traditions who would like to become more
individually confessional include: the Convocation of Anglicans
in North America (which broke away from The Episcopal Church
to affiliate with the Anglican Church of Nigeria), the Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod (which split from the Evangelical
Lutheran Church of America), and others. The former are the many
Orthodox-hyphen groups within mainline liberal denominations:
Orthodox Anglican, Orthodox Lutheran, etc. The generous
orthodoxy and emerging church movements, which emerged
from the conservative and evangelical side of the churches, are
an example of the latter. These groups are often controversial or
conflictual within their own denomination or tradition, sometimes
becoming breakaway movements, sometimes attempting to reform
their own denomination from the inside.
W hat Is Tr u t h ?
Closely related to a spiritual community’s approach to
orthodoxy is how it answers the age-old question asked by Pontius
Pilate: “What is Truth?”
On either side of Paradoxy lie seemingly very different
understandings of truth. Yet both are the logical products of the
same Foundationalism paradigm within which the church has been
150
PA R A D O X Y
enmeshed since the Renaissance: a paradigm that assumes that
the human mind, rationally applied, can apprehend indisputable
foundational truths.
Orthoproxy’s approach is a direct descendent of the outside-in
approach first proposed by John Locke, which we examined earlier
in this book. Orthoproxy tends to understand the nature of truth
as propositional, indisputable, and exclusive. What Orthoproxy
wants to know is, “What doctrinal truths can we teach about Jesus
Christ?” A great strength of Orthoproxy is its passion for truth,
and its desire for clarity of belief. A weakness of Orthoproxy can
be the rigidity to which it can hold on to particular beliefs, even
in the face of contrary experience, which can ultimately be a form
of denial and a form of idolatry.
On the other hand, Orthopraxy’s approach is a direct descendent of the in-outside approach first proposed by René Descartes,
which we also discussed earlier. Orthopraxy tends to understand
the nature of truth as universal in that the deepest human experiences are understood to be universal in nature. What Orthopraxy
wants to know is, “What experiential truths are inherent in Jesus’
life and teachings?” The strengths of the Orthopraxy approach
are its passion for universality: a universality that translates into
a predisposition toward inclusion, and the weight that it gives to
learning and living into teachings of Jesus and to following Jesus’
example. As is often the case, Orthopraxy’s weaknesses are often
the flip side of its strengths. For example, once you make the
assumption that the deepest meanings of all spiritual experience
are universal, it is a small step to assuming that what you come to
understand to be the deeper meaning MUST be the same as theirs
(a kind of spiritual chauvinism). And Orthopraxy’s preference
for practice over doctrine can make it all too easy for individual
believers not to think about the implications of what they believe
or even to think that it doesn’t matter what they believe.
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
151
Paradoxy’s approach to understanding truth might be called
relational. In other words, if, as Jesus said, “I am the truth,” then
truth is to be found in relationship with him. What is more, truth
is to be found in communal relationship with Christ. This is, as we
learned earlier, similar to the quantum understanding of reality—
expressed in the Heisenberg Principle and the so-called Observer
Effect—and its approach to improving the understanding of reality
is the way of verisimilitude.82
ORTHOPROXY
PARADOXY
ORTHOPRAXY
The Truth
ABOUT
Jesus Christ
The Truth
IS
Jesus Christ
The Truth
OF
Jesus Christ
Paradoxy explores a middle way, keeping in tension the
passionate thirst for ultimate truth expressed by Orthoproxy
and the compassionate desire for universality expressed truth
by Orthopraxy. It does so by recognizing that there is ultimate
and undeniable truth that humanity needs to know, which fallen
humanity cannot fully comprehend, and which only by being in
spiritual community with people who don’t fully agree with us can
we hope to approach it.
U nde rstanding of Chri s t ian Co mmu nit y
Another important difference between these three ways of
being church is what they understand to be the theological basis
for Christian community. What do they understand to be the
grounds for their formation and continued existence? What do
they believe holds them together?
152
PA R A D O X Y
Both Orthoproxy and Orthopraxy view Christian community
as bound together by some form of uniformity. The difference is
upon what that uniformity is based. Orthoproxy sees community
as bound by a uniformity of belief. Its primary emphasis is on
believing what is right and on conformity to what are held to be
the church’s traditional teachings. Orthopraxy sees community
as bound by a uniformity of purpose or ethical agreement. Its
emphasis is more on doing what is right than believing what is
right, and its focus is on our love for each other as an expression
of Christ’s love for us. There are strengths to both of these ways,
but because they are based on uniformity, neither of them is
sufficient.
The emerging understanding of community in Paradoxy is
radically simple. Christian community is bound together by the
power of Christ’s love as experienced in the community’s common
worship. What makes one a Christian is ultimately the affirmation
of a relationship with Christ. That is what we have in common.
The only force capable of uniting Christians in community is the
love of Christ. Not our love for Christ or our love for each other as
the body of Christ: our love is neither strong enough nor constant
enough. The only force powerful and unwavering enough to
bind together fallen, incompatible human beings in community
is Christ’s omnipotent and unconditional love. As a community
begins to live into this understanding, it becomes more open
to the differences inherent in diversity as real differences, and it
welcomes the struggle that engaging these differences entails as a
path to a more healthy way of being community.
The focus of Paradoxy is not on achieving conformity—of
any kind. Rather, the focus is on each of us being transformed by
mystery and God, so that, as Paul put it, we might become icons
of Christ so that people might look into each of us and see the
image of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18). To quote Paul, the focus is
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
153
on being conformed to God by the renewing of our minds. The
distinctiveness of this characteristic is a little more difficult to
explain, because to some degree all Christian traditions recognize
the power and the mystery of God. What makes Paradoxy distinct
is the extent to which its sense of Christian community is centered
on these things. The dogmas lying at the heart of Christianity
are still the heart and soul of Christian community. They are, as
Flannery O’Connor observed, instruments for penetrating reality.83
And they are, as Gregory of Nazianzus said, designed to draw us
into an experience of the awe-filled mystery of the reality of the
nature of God.84
U n der st an din g of Con flic t
A faith community’s understanding of the nature of orthodoxy,
truth, and the theological basis for Christian community has a
direct influence on its understanding of the nature of conflict.
This in turn determines the community’s approach to dealing with
conflict.
Orthoproxy understands truth as propositional and categorical. Because of this, if conflict arises, the assumption is that one
side must be right and the other wrong; that one side must have
committed a wrong against the other; or that both sides have
transgressed against the teachings of the church. Because of the
categorical nature of truth, no compromise with the transgressor
seems possible.
Orthopraxy understands religious truth as inner experience
and at the deepest level all religious truth is equivalent. Because of
this, if conflict arises, it is assumed that the conflict is a sign that
one or both sides hasn’t yet learned to see the ways in which their
positions reflect an underlying universal experience. Of course,
154
PA R A D O X Y
human nature being what it is, each side often feels that it’s the
“other” that has failed. In Orthopraxy, conflict is to be avoided if
possible, and if it cannot be avoided it must be defused through
compromise.
Paradoxy recognizes that while ultimate truth exists with God,
infinite reality cannot be fully understood. Because of this, conflict
is the inevitable and natural result of authentic relationships with
Christ and among the members of Christ’s body. As a result,
Paradoxy does not shy away from real differences. Rather it
requires that each of us confidently offer the truth that we know,
with humility, knowing that bumping into people with different
understandings than our own could expand our understanding.
U n der st an din g of Con ver sion
Another difference among these three approaches to
Orthodoxy lies in the way they understand the conversion
experience. You might think that there is only one biblically
correct way to define conversion. At first glance it might seem
that way, since the same English root word is used for the word
conversion and for related words such as the noun convert (as in “a
new convert”) and the verb to convert (as in “to convert to a different
religion” or “to convert another person to a new religion”). But
in the original Greek, different words with different roots are
used in different contexts and carry different connotations.
The differences between the way Orthoproxy and Orthopraxy
think about conversion relate closely to the connotations of the
different words.
Perhaps closest to the way Orthoproxy understands conversion are the connotations of the biblical words proselute and epistropheo.
Proselute (Acts 6:5,13:43) means what it sounds like: in its noun form
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
155
it means “proselyte” or “a person who has adopted a new religion,”
and in its verb form it can mean “to adopt a new religion” or “to proselytize,” that is, to encourage someone to adopt one’s own religion.
Closely related to this is the connotation of the word epistropheo (lit., a
turning), used in the Acts of the Apostles (15:3) to describe the mass
conversion of Gentiles from idol worship to the worship of the one
God. Similarly, Orthoproxy tends to view the conversion experience
as a change of religions (turning away from whatever you believed
before and swearing allegiance to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior). In
other words, conversion starts from the outside and leads to a change
on the inside: a change that then results in outward commitment.
Meanwhile, Orthopraxy’s view of conversion is in some ways
similar to and in some ways very different from Orthoproxy’s.
Closest to the way Orthoproxy understands conversion are the
connotations of the biblical words metanoeo and epistrephe. If epistrepho
sounds similar to epistrophe, it’s because the two words share a
common root. Epistrephe (Acts 26:20) literally means “to turn” and
when it is used in terms of a faith experience, it often follows the
word metanoeo (Acts 26:20), which literally means “to change one’s
mind (or heart)” and is often translated as “to repent.” The sequence,
then, is a change of heart followed by a change in direction or
action. In like manner, Orthopraxy tends to view conversion as
an inward change of heart that leads to outer life changes. While
both Orthoproxy and Orthopraxy involve a turning, Orthopraxy’s
movement—in contrast to Orthoproxy—is from the inside out.
Because of its understanding of the process as an internal one,
Orthopraxy resists engaging in evangelism activities for fear of
interfering with the internal freedom of the individual. There is a
joke about my own denomination that probably would apply to
many others in this regard: “The Episcopal idea of evangelism is
like putting an aquarium next to the ocean and hoping for fish to
jump in.”
156
PA R A D O X Y
Paradoxy’s understanding of the process of conversion builds
on the writings of the apostle Paul. In doing so, it navigates a
course between the outside-in understanding and the inside-out
one, incorporating aspects of both. For example, it would appear
that Paul saw the process of conversion neither as an exclusively
outward change of behavior or lifestyle, nor as an exclusively inward
change of heart or mind. Rather, the word he uses to describe it
(metamorphoo—Romans 12:2; 2 Corinthians 3:18) comes from the
same root as the term metamorphosis, implying a transformation of
the whole person that worked both ways at once, and is the same
word the gospel writers used to describe the transfiguration of
Jesus (Matthew 17:2; Mark 9:2). In fact, it would be safe to say
that Paul did not think of the process of coming to faith in Christ
as an individual conversion, but as a process of transformation,
moving the individual, the community, and ultimately the world,
toward completion and wholeness. In Paul’s letters to the church
in Corinth, he said: “If anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation:
everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!”
(2 Corinthians 5:17, italics are the author’s). And of his role in the
process, he said: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the
growth” (1 Corinthians 3:6).
Paradoxy views the process of coming to faith in much the
same way: as a process of transformation that takes place within
the context of community. By living their lives in the love of
Christ and by sharing the stories of their lives, the members of the
community plant seeds of Christ’s love in these people, knowing
that the seeds don’t belong to them but were only given to them
to share, and letting go of their control of the seeds they have
planted. Over time the members of the community, by those
same lives lived in love, water the seeds, knowing that it is not
their job to control the way the seeds grow, and leaving that to
God. Meanwhile, God is working through those seeds not only
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
157
to transform each individual believer into a unique member of the
body of Christ, but also to transform the body of Christ itself into
a more complete reflection of Christ, and to transform the world
more and more into the shape of the kingdom of God.
●
Make a friend, be a friend, bring a friend to Christ.85
A slogan from Cursillo
An international multidenominational renewal movement
A pproach to Relevan c e
( Re maining At t r ac t ive t o t h e People of a
Ch an gin g Cu lt u r e)
From its very inception, the church has struggled with the
issue of relevance. We have always existed as a subset of the larger
human society: a living society with a constantly evolving popular
culture. Thus, the question has always been: “As the culture
changes, and people’s interests and attention change with it, what
do we do to keep them interested and involved, so that they
might ultimately find a relationship with Jesus Christ?” A related
question with which the church has struggled is: “How does the
church maintain its influence on people within the culture?” This
question, bequeathed to the church by its Constantinian heritage
of Christendom, is based on the assumption that by maintaining
influence on the culture, we can influence what interests the
people within the culture, predisposing them to consider what the
church has to offer.
158
●
PA R A D O X Y
Come, follow me . . . and I will send you out to fish for people.
Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 4:19, TNIV)
Using Jesus’ analogy of evangelism as catching fish, the
question becomes: “If the fishes’ tastes change, how do we fishers
adapt our bait?” When Orthoproxy churches and Orthopraxy
churches ask this question, they come up with very different
answers, the reason being that they have very different ideas as
to what part of what they offer is the bait (the part that can be
adapted to the fishes’ changing tastes) and what part is the hook
(the part that pretty much has to be swallowed whole).
For Orthoproxy churches, the hook—the part that is held
constant regardless of cultural changes—is comprised of the
church’s doctrines and teachings. These are what they hold
to be foundational: the key to relationship with Jesus Christ.
Understandably, Orthoproxy churches are loath to adapt these
truths to the culture. Some are wary of modernizing even the
language by which the teachings are expressed. But they are more
willing to adapt the manner in which they express their worship
to be consistent with popular musical expressions. They are
often quick to adapt popular musical styles (e.g., praise bands),
entertainment mediums (e.g., big screen video), and business
methods (e.g., PowerPoint sermon presentations). For Orthoproxy
churches, teaching is the hook that the fish must swallow whole,
while worship is the bait to attract the fish to the hook.
For Orthopraxy churches, worship is the hook, since it is in
worship that their foundational truths are experienced, and it is the
application of these truths in life that are the key to deepening one’s
relationship to Christ. As a result, Orthopraxy churches tend to
be keen to maintain the uniformity and continuity of their forms
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
159
of worship, and so are more resistant to adapting them to popular
cultural norms. What Orthopraxy churches use as the bait—that
which can be adapted to changing cultural tastes—are the language
in which the church’s teachings are expressed and, to the extent
that they reflect a particular culture, the teachings themselves.
For example, I am aware of one congregation that tried to achieve
this by going to great effort to develop alternate, modern English
definitions of theological concepts (sin, savior, faith, grace, etc.).
Paradoxy offers a different kind of fishing. For Paradoxy
churches, worship and teaching are secondary to relationship with
Jesus Christ. The analogy of bait and hook fails here. Authentic
relationship cannot be called the bait because it does not need to
be adapted to suit the changing interests of people in the culture.
It cannot be called the hook because it does not need to be baited
to make it attractive. The correct analogy is the very water in
which the fish live and move and have their being. This may sound
abstract and intangible, but it is really quite simple in practice:
it simply means accepting people as they are and encouraging
them to express who they are. It requires that church leadership
model these qualities both individually and communicates them
corporately. In my congregation, as I mentioned, we adopted the
credo “A Place to Belong, A Place to Become” to remind ourselves
of our commitment to this principle. People have a need for
acceptance as part of a community. Too often, the acceptance
they are offered in church must be purchased at the cost of their
authenticity, as they encounter subtle messages about how they
must conform. Church should be about taking off masks rather
than putting them on. Most people already have to wear too many
masks in the rest of their lives without also having to wear one at
church. The opportunity to engage in authentic relationship is a
powerful draw, because it meets a deep human need.
PA R A D O X Y
160
L e ade rship, Disciple s hip , and t he Ro le o f t he L e ad e r
These different understandings of what it means to be church
also have an impact on issues of leadership and discipleship within
a community.
The goal of leadership in Orthoproxy is to keep the people
of the community doctrinally unified—that is, following the
community’s understanding of orthodoxy in belief and practice.
The goal of discipleship is obedience to God, specifically, obedience
to the Lordship of Christ through obedience to the leaders of the
community. The role of the leader is to provide direction by exercising
authority. Or as one pastor put it:
●
My role is to make sure all the people in the boat
are rowing in the right direction.86
Anonymous Clergyperson
view your role as a pastor?”
In response to the question: “How do you
The goal of leadership in Orthopraxy is to influence the people
of the community to live their lives in love according to the
example of Jesus Christ. The goal of discipleship is service: serving
Christ in those around them, both in the community of faith and
in the community in which they live. The role of the leader, then, is
to provide direction by exerting influence. Or as a different pastor
put it:
●
My role is to point out opportunities for ministry
and encourage people to engage in them.87
Anonymous Clergyperson In response to the question: “How do you
view your role as a pastor?”
A N E W M I D D L E WAY
161
For Paradoxy, the goal of leadership is to call the people of the
community to ongoing discernment about what God is calling
them to do, both as individuals and as a spiritual community. The
goal of discipleship is to follow Christ’s call: the gathered community
listening for what God is calling it to do with the gifts God
has given it, and stepping into that call. This is, in effect, an
ongoing visioning process, grounded in mutual discernment by
the leadership in connection with the community, based in part
on the constellation of spiritual gifts God has brought into the
community. The role of the leader in Paradoxy is a cyclical pattern of
invitation to discernment, facilitation and visioning, articulating
the emerging vision, then reminding the community of (and
occasionally questioning the community about) the vision as it
emerges. Or as a different pastor (me) put it:
●
My role is to articulate the vision of the community
and to help people discern what Christ is calling them to do
to make that vision a reality.88
Nonanonymous Clergyperson
you view your role as a pastor?”
In response to the question: “How do
While the above discussion of leadership has been framed—
for the sake of clarity—in terms of the role of the ordained leader,
the lay leadership in a congregation plays similar roles in each of
the three approaches.
162
PA R A D O X Y
Teac h in g, Pr eac h in g, an d Lit u r gy
How a spiritual community approaches orthodoxy, and
how it understands the nature of truth has a direct impact on
the goals and methods of teaching, preaching, and liturgy. They
affect how the leadership of the community approaches biblical
exegesis. And when the job of unpacking the Scripture is done, it
affects how the teacher, preacher, or liturgist interprets Scripture
to the community in education, sermons, and worship. So let’s
look at how these three approaches would unpack a biblical text.
What are they seeking from the text? What questions do they
bring to it?
Orthoproxy comes to a biblical text seeking the answers it
believes God has placed there. The kinds of questions that are
asked are deductive in nature: What principles does this particular
biblical text teach us about (doctrine, issue, problem, behavior,
etc.)? How can we apply these biblical principles in our lives?
Orthopraxy comes to the biblical text seeking its deepest and
most universal meaning. The questions it brings to the text are
more inductive in nature. What are the issues I am facing in my
life? In what way is this text relevant to those issues?
Paradoxy’s approach to biblical exegesis is different from
either of its companions. It does not so much bring questions to
the text as allow the questions to arise as the reader “inhabits”
the text—imagining him or herself into the story and imagining
the story into her or himself. The questions that then arise are
interactive in nature: “What is God asking me to ask the text?” and
“What is God asking me through the text?”
●
Biblical Reflection
and Group Discussion
John 16:12–13, THE MESSAGE
“I still have many things to tell you, but
you cannot handle them now. But when the
Friend comes, the Spirit of the Truth, he will
take you by the hand and guide you into all
the truth there is. He won’t draw attention
to himself, but will make sense out of what is
about to happen and, indeed, out of all that I
have done and said.”
Might Christ have something to say to your church that he
has not already said? In what ways can the Spirit of Truth
be your friend as you explore the difficult or unfamiliar?
●
Questions to Consider
1 Review the summary table on the following page, and then complete
the Church Paradigm Inventory that follows. Discuss its implications for you, your church, your denomination, and the church at
large.
2 Choose an item from the inventory on which you would like to
see your church change from where it currently is. Consider what
might have to change for your church to move in that direction.
Discuss this with the rest of the group.
T A B L E
7 . 1
K E Y D I F F E R E N C E S I N T H E O L O G Y, E C C L E S I 0 L O G Y,
CHARACTERISTIC
View of Religion
PROPOSITIONAL ORTHODOXY
(ORTHOPROXY)
Ultimate Truth is found in one religion
Christianity is THE WAY to that Truth
Approach to Orthodoxy
Assent to broad spectrum of doctrine
Kerygma/didache given equal weight
Individually confessional
Truth is propositional and exclusive
(The Truth ABOUT Jesus Christ)
Theological Basis
for Christian Community
Approach to Conflict
Doctrinal agreement/uniformity of belief
Conformity to church’s teachings
Conflict is evidence of dysfunction
One side must be wrong
Compromise is discouraged
Resolve by conversion or exclusion
Understanding of Conversion
Proseleo/aparche (externally encouraged
change of allegiance)
Relationship of Conversion to
Community (Koinonia)
Evangelism Approach
First proseleo/aparche
Then koinonia (full fellowship)
Conversional/proselytizing (inviting to
convert to Christianity or “orthodoxy”)
Making converts
Evangelist’s Role
Tell the story
Require a “yes/no” decision.
Approach to Relevance
Ecumenical Stance
Leadership Approach
Discipleship Approach
Role of the Leader
Exegetical Approach
Worship is bait; teaching is hook
Opportunity to defend/convert
Keeping people doctrinally unified
Obedience
Authority
Seeking answers from the text
What does the Bible say about ______?
What does it tell me to do?
Biblical Emphasis
Dominant Mode of Preaching/
Teaching
Pastoral Epistles (to learn the doctrines)
Deductive (outside-in)
- Identify Scriptural principles.
- How do these principles apply
to our lives?
A N D M I S S I O N A L S T R AT E GY
INCARNATIONAL ORTHODOXY
(PARADOXY)
ETHICAL ORTHODOXY
(ORTHOPRAXY)
Religion is irrelevant
Deepest Truth is shared by all religions
Christ IS Way and Truth and Life
Christianity is THE BEST WAY to that Truth
Kerygmatic (core, paradoxical dogmas)
Ethical action
Kerygma over didache
Acting in love
Communally creedal
Communally creedal
Truth is relational and collective
Truth is universal and inclusive
(The Truth IS Jesus Christ)
(The Truth OF Jesus Christ)
Bound by Christ’s Love in common worship
Ethical agreement/uniformity of purpose
Being transformed by God’s power/mystery
Conformity to Jesus Christ’s ethic of love
Conflict is natural result of authenticity
Conflict is evidence of dysfunction
All of us are a little wrong
At the deepest level we all are the same
Resolve by prayerful engagement and open-
If possible, change the subject, but if not . . .
ness to transformation by Christ’s love
Metamorphoo (transformation brought about
by relationship with Christ)
Focus on agreement, ignore disagreement
Metanoeo (change of mind/direction)
Aversion to conversion, per se
First koinonia (full fellowship)
Koinonia offered w/out condition
Then fellowship catalyzes metamorphoo
Inner faith experience leads to metanoeo
Relational (inviting to relationship with
Conversational (inviting to conversation
Christ and the Body of Christ)
about the spiritual life)
Making (and being) disciples (lit., learners)
Making friends
Tell the story
Tell the story
Invite into community
Call to repentance from injustice
Neither bait nor hook; make friends with fish
Teaching is bait; worship is hook
Opportunity to engage in relationship
Opportunity to seek common ground
Keeping people engaged in discernment
Keeping people engaged in serving God
Call
Service
Visionary
Catalyst
In dialogue with the text (like Midrash)
Seeking the universal meaning of the text
What questions do I have of the text?
What questions do I have of the text?
What questions does it ask of me?
In what way is it relevant to my life?
Gospels (to tell the story)
Gospels (to learn from Jesus’ example)
Narrative/transformative (two-way)
Inductive (inside-out)
Identify common issues: salvation story/us.
- Identify our deepest needs.
What is God calling us to be/become?
- How do Bible/church teachings meet
them?
C H A P T E R
8
Paradigm Pathways:
Which Reality Is Your
Church Living Into?
A Church Paradigm Inve n t o r y
I N STR U C T I O NS :
UÊ -Ìi«Ê £\ For each of the fourteen questions below, circle
the response that best describes your church. Give your
“first glance” response (do not think too long about any
question).
UÊ -Ìi«Ê Ó\ Transfer your answers to the scoring guide and
tally the number of answers in each column.
UÊ -Ìi«ÊÎ\ Respond to the Scripture reflection and discussion
questions at the end of chapter 7.
1
Which statement best describes your church’s view of religion?
a. Ultimate truth is found in one religion (Christianity is the
ÞÊÜ>Þ).
b. Deepest truth is shared by all religions (Christianity is
Ì iÊÞÊÜ>ÞÊvÀÊi).
c. Religion is irrelevant for following Christ (Christ is the
Ü>Þ]ÊÌ iÊÌÀÕÌ ]Ê>`ÊÌ iÊvi).
P A R A D I G M P AT H WAY S
167
2
Which statement best describes your church’s understanding of truth?
a. Truth is universal and inclusive.
b. Truth is relational and collective.
c. Truth is propositional and exclusive.
3
Which statement best describes your church’s approach to orthodoxy?
a. Orthodoxy is right opinion: of Christ, of God, of the church’s
traditional teachings.
b. Orthodoxy is right response: appropriate to the incarnation
of Christ.
c. Orthodoxy is right practice: of the love ethic of Christ.
4 Which statement best describes your church’s understanding of the
theological basis for Christian community?
a. Christian community is grounded on the experience of
Christ’s love in common worship and the experience of
mutual transformation brought about by that love.
b. Christian community is grounded on ethical agreement,
uniformity of purpose, and obedience/conformity to Jesus
Christ’s ethic of love.
c. Christian community is grounded on doctrinal agreement,
uniformity of belief, and obedience/conformity to the
church’s teachings
5
How does your church interpret the existence of conflict within a
congregation?
a. Conflict is the result of error (one side must be wrong).
b. Conflict is the result of human nature (we are all a little bit
wrong).
c. Conflict is the result of misperception (at the deepest level
we all are the same).
168
PA R A D O X Y
6 When conflict exists, how does your church respond to it?
a. Change the subject: downplay disagreement, focus on
areas of agreement, agree to disagree, exclude the conflict
from conversation.
b. Change the person (or the venue): correct the errant party
(or parties), if the person won’t change, exclude them from
fellowship.
c. Change the context: correct the interpretation of conflict,
explore areas of agreement and disagreement, exclude
exclusion as an option for resolution.
7
Which statement best describes your church’s understanding of
conversion?
a. Conversion is an internal change of heart and mind, that
catalyzes profound changes of the direction in the person’s life.
b. Conversion is a process of change that works from the
outside in and from the inside out transforming the whole
person.
c. Conversion is an externally encouraged commitment of
life and belief that catalyzes profound changes of heart
and mind.
8
Which statement best describes your church’s understanding of the
process of including newcomers?
a. First conversion, then fellowship.
b. First full fellowship, then fellowship catalyzes transformation.
c. Community offered with few conditions, then the inner
faith experience leads to the person’s change of heart.
P A R A D I G M P AT H WAY S
9
169
Which statement best describes your church’s approach to relevance?
a. Teaching is bait, worship is hook
b. Worship is bait, teaching is hook.
c. Neither worship nor teaching are bait or hook.
10 Which statement best describes your church’s ecumenical/interfaith
stance?
a. Ecumenical/interfaith relationships are an opportunity to
engage in relationship.
b. Ecumenical/interfaith relationships are an opportunity to
seek common ground.
c. Ecumenical/interfaith relationships are an opportunity to
defend orthodoxy.
11 Which statement best describes your church’s approach to leadership?
a. Leader as catalyst: engage people in serving God.
b. Leader as authority: keep people doctrinally unified.
c. Leader as midwife: engage people in discerning/following
a shared vision.
12 Which statement best describes your church’s understanding of the goal
of discipleship?
a. The goal of discipleship is learning to obey.
b. The goal of discipleship is learning to hear and obey one’s
unique call to serve.
c. The goal of discipleship is learning to serve.
13 Which statement best describes your church’s understanding of biblical
exegesis?
a. Seeking to search and be searched by the text.
b. Seeking the deeper, universal meaning of the text.
c. Seeking answers from the text.
170
PA R A D O X Y
14 What statement best describes the questions your church brings to the
Scripture?
a. What issues are present both in the salvation story and
in us? What is God calling us to be/become through our
interaction with the salvation story?
b. What principles are established by the Scripture, as
understood by the church’s traditional teaching? And how
do these principles apply to life?
c. What are our deepest needs? How does our understanding
of the Scriptures help us to meet them?
P A R A D I G M P AT H WAY S
171
A CHURCH PARADIGM INVENTORY SCORING GUIDE
For each question, circle the same answer you circled
on the inventory.
2. Tally the numbers of answers circled in each column.
1.
QUESTIONS
1
1. Which statement best describes your church’s view
of religion?
2. Which statement best describes your church’s
understanding of truth?
3. Which statement best describes your church’s
approach to orthodoxy?
4. Which statement best describes your church’s
understanding of the theological basis for Christian
community?
5. How does your church interpret the existence of
conflict within a congregation?
6. When conflict exists, how does your church respond
to it?
7. Which statement best describes your church’s
understanding of conversion?
8. Which statement best describes your church’s
understanding of the process of including newcomers?
9. Which statement best describes your church’s
approach to relevance?
10. Which statement best describes your church’s
ecumenical/interfaith stance?
11. Which statement best describes your church’s
approach to leadership?
12. Which statement best describes your church’s
understanding of the goal of discipleship?
13. Which statement best describes your church’s
understanding of biblical exegesis?
14. Which statement best describes the questions your
church brings to the Scripture?
Tally the number of circles in each column and write
the total hereÆ
COLUMNS
2
3
a
c
b
c
b
a
a
b
c
c
a
b
a
b
c
b
c
a
c
b
a
a
b
c
b
c
a
c
a
b
b
c
a
a
b
c
c
a
b
b
a
c
172
PA R A D O X Y
1. Write your column 1 score here (this is your preference
for Orthoproxy): __________
2. Write your column 2 score here (this is your preference
for Paradoxy): __________
3. Write your column 3 score here (this is your preference
for Orthopraxy): __________
Record your insights below:
C O N C L U S I O N
Alpha and Omega—
Beginning and End
(and Beginning)
We ’ ve Come to the E nd o f a Vo yage o f Disc over y . . .
At the beginning of this book I invited you to join me on
an explorer’s journey. I bid you to leave behind the familiar and
comfortable shores of the ways we have always thought about the
nature of church—to venture out beyond the ways our various
denominations have thought about church for hundreds of years:
out beyond the ways the church has defined itself for thousands of
years—since shortly after its beginning: out beyond the certainty
of Foundationalism: out beyond the power of Christendom: out
beyond the safety of religion.
I A ppre ciate Your Tr u st . . .
If you have come this far with me, I really appreciate your
trust. Not so much that you trusted me, but that you trusted God’s
faithfulness enough to take the risk of going on a journey with
a guide who is not 100% sure that he knows where we will end
PA R A D O X Y
174
up, or even that his compass is 100% accurate. In fact, the only
thing he knew was that the old paradigms—the old ways of being
church—were not taking us there anymore.
●
The feeling remains that God is on the journey, too.89
St. Teresa of Avila Spanish mystic, Carmelite nun, and writer of the
Counter-Reformation, 1515–1582
A Journe y Wor th Tak in g . . .
We have been seeking out a new paradigm of church—a
new way of being church. We have been mapping out the rough
boundaries and contours of a New World of church. It has been
our hope on this journey that this hitherto undiscovered country
might be a place in which conservative and liberal and in-between
Christians can find common ground. A promised land in which
they can reside together in their common relationship to Christ,
without sacrificing the integrity of their respective beliefs. A
sanctuary place in which the battling factions of Christianity can
lay down their arms—or at least fight fair, with healthier rules of
engagement.
A Journe y that Is N ot O ver . . .
I wish I could assure you that we have reached our final
destination. But I think it is more likely that we have only reached
the coastline of this undiscovered country, and only begun to
chart its broad outlines. It will likely take many more journeys
CONCLUSION
175
over many more years by many more explorers before we begin
to gain some confidence in the accuracy of our maps. And we
will likely get our feet dirty and make a few wrong turns as we
press into the interior on foot to gain a more complete picture
of the terrain. Yet we have realized that a way does exist for us
to take—and survive—these journeys together: a radical middle
pathway that runs between conservative Christianity and liberal
Christianity: a way that balances elements of both in a paradoxical
tension: an incarnational orthodoxy, a paradoxical orthodoxy, or
Paradoxy. This book is not the last word . . . or even the one after
that.90 We have only begun to explore the practical implications of
this radical middle way as compared to its liberal and conservative
counterparts. There is much more to explore, much more common
ground to map. Yet even with these preliminary insights, we
have begun to understand that our conservative-liberal divide is
ultimately a false distinction.
We A re N ot A lon e . . .
We are not the only explorers on these seas. There are many
others out here who have left the old paradigms of church behind
to seek a new way of being church: Generous Orthodoxy,91 Radical
Orthodoxy,92 Paleo-Orthodoxy,93 Quantum Spirituality,94 Quantum
Theology,95 The Great Emergence,96 Emerging Church,97 Deep
Church,98 Fresh Expressions.99 All of these movements—and the
many individual Christian leaders and communities applying their
concepts—are expressions of a desire to explore the boundaries of
a new paradigm of Christian community.
PA R A D O X Y
176
A nd Pe rhaps Only the Langu age I s Truly New . . .
As I have presented the concepts outlined in this book to
various groups—conservative and liberal, clergy and lay, church
planters, redevelopers, and local church pastors—there is one
theme I hear repeated time and again. After they have had a
chance to hear, consider, and wrestle with ideas such as these,
these people speak of having for the first time a language to
express a deep yearning they have been feeling for a long time:
a deep desire for a unity that transcends our differences. Maybe
the basis for our unity is already there and we only need to find
the words that will allow us to think it. Maybe the way is already
there—deeply coded into the DNA of the church—and we are
not explorers after all but midwives, helping the church to bring
that new way to birth.
●
All the way to heaven is heaven.
For He said, “I am the way.”100
St. Catherine of Siena Christian Mystic, 1347–80
A F T E R W O R D
What are the prospects for success of Ken Howard’s panoramic
blueprint for the next future of Christianity?
Paradoxy is, after all, an optimistic plan for transcending present
divisions—terminal divisions in my experience—portraying a way
forward that majors on love and calls Christians back to basics.
But what are its prospects for success?
They are very good for the coming generation. This is because
Ken elevates the law of love over the love of law. He underscores
the core element in Christianity: God’s one-way love for sufferers
and sinners. This is Christianity’s core element, its defining
characteristic, if there is one. Jesus means welcome. Jesus means
grace. Jesus means forgiveness. Jesus means healing.
Jesus also means freedom. That was Ernst Kaesemann’s phrase
not so long ago, and I believe it holds. People aren’t looking for new
forms of imprisonment, new ways to inhabit better straitjackets.
Yes, there is probably always some hankering after submission—
our child nature’s longing to be told what to do. But deep down, and
for sure in the present day, people long for freedom. Christianity’s
initiative to absolve and therefore give primacy of place to people
in pain as well as offenders creates fellowships of freedom. We
really don’t want to return to the house of bondage, even if it looks
like we sometimes do.
Ken’s program has good prospects for success, and not just
because of its major in grace. It also understands that organism
has got to be set over organization. This is crucial. Institutional
Christianity carries a big black eye these days, whether you consider the abuse scandal in one large section of the worldwide church
or the aftermath of “culturewar” in another of its sections.
178
PA R A D O X Y
The war in this country between ideological liberals and
ideological conservatives came down to a no-win future. I think
of the English rock ‘n’ roller Nick Lowe, and his song, “I Live on a
Battlefield.” We have been living on a battlefield for a long time—
almost my whole ministry of thirty-five years. But it started earlier
than that.
I was reminded in Ken’s book of Emil Brunner’s The
Misunderstanding of the Church that was published in 1951. Brunner’s
argument, which no one was able to refute and which was therefore
quietly consigned to oblivion, runs parallel to Ken Howard’s:
Jesus had no intention of founding an institution. He was rather
intending a movement of invisibly led characters called out of pain
and personal distress by Jesus’ intangible but immanent message
of urgent love. We can hope that this new book will not suffer the
same fate of forgetfulness that buried Brunner’s somewhere deep in
the Marianas Trench.
There is another reason to be hopeful about Paradoxy: it
is a little like Good to Great, the 2001 book by Jim Collins about
successful companies. Collins argued that you create the job around
the person and his or her gifts, rather than trying to squeeze people
and their individual talents into a formal (and often arbitrary) “job
description.” You start, in other words, with a gifted person, and
work outward from there. The gifted person creates the job, in other
words, and its potentialities. Success proceeds from there. Collins
observed that successful businesses usually begin, and also grow,
from an individual and their gifts. Then the “spirit,” as it were,
creates and develops the direction of the business. He demonstrated
this proposition almost beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Ken Howard understands that Christian churches and people
need to develop in their own way, organically, as it were, without
a lot of inherited preconceptions about structure. Will Ken’s idea
be received? I don’t know. It never has been, historically, except in
AFTERWORD
179
the cyclical renewal movements that stir things up for awhile and
then become either domesticated or exhausted. Even so, Paradoxy
understands how living things sustain themselves. I believe Ken
is exactly right, even if his doctrine of natural and spontaneous
development is resisted by the structures he seeks to renew.
Let me offer one final afterthought about Ken Howard’s bold
book. It may not work with the former generation, the generation
just now passing, although most of whom are still alive. The
“liberals” of the “recent unpleasantness” seem pretty determined.
So appear the “conservatives” of the recent unpleasantness. In
his once famous novel By Love Possessed, James Gould Cozzens
invoked a basic principle of politics: never force people to define
their position in such a way that they cannot later compromise.
The culture-war position-taking that came out of ideological
conflict in the church—and religious conflict can be as raw as
it gets—became a drawing of lines that has not, so far, allowed
for much concession. The passionate desire for “clarity” that
possessed conservatives and liberals didn’t allow for a quiet, willing
demolition of walls between parties.
This means that Ken’s inspired program may not fully succeed
with recent veterans, left or right. But I believe it can and should
succeed with our children and grandchildren. In a way, it has to! If
Ken’s barrier-breaking program does not succeed with them, then,
in a way, Christianity itself may prove unable to be a future, at
least in the secular West.
Looking back on Ken’s Paradoxy, from the standpoint, say of
the year 2525, I hope it may be said then what T.S. Eliot said in
“East Coker” concerning the “next step” of chastened experience:
“Old men ought to be explorers.”
—The Very Rev. Dr. Paul Zahl
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
There are many people and institutions I would like to
acknowledge for their contributions to the task of making this
book a reality.
I want to thank the wardens and vestry of St. Nicholas
Episcopal Church for encouraging me to take quiet time away
from the busyness of a relatively new church plant, so that I might
write. I thank my former associate rector, Alison Quin, who covered
for me during two successive summer research sabbaticals. And I
am deeply grateful to the community of St. Nicholas Church for
being a living laboratory of Christian community for more than
a decade.
I am thoroughly indebted to the people who served at various
times on my book review and discussion workgroup—Bruce and
Marjorie Campbell, Susan Culbertson and Steve Wright, Carolyn
and Terry Deibel, Becki Hardie, Rhee Howard, David Maglott
and Charlotte Rogers, Ron and Rose Mahan, Janet Marshall,
Barbara Miles, and Lynette Telford—who labored with me over
five years to both develop the concept for the book and who
reviewed, discussed, and offered constructive criticism on chapter
after chapter. I am also thankful for the dozens of friends and
colleagues from various denominations and points across the
liberal-conservative theological spectrum who reviewed and
commented on online drafts.
I am grateful to Phyllis Tickle, Brian McLaren, and Paul Zahl
for their reassurance that the concepts in this book were worth
writing about, and who became my mentors, then my colleagues,
and then finally my friends. I am especially thankful to Brian for
his kind words in the foreword, to Paul for the gracious way in
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
181
which he composed the afterword, and to Phyllis for bringing my
manuscript to the attention of Paraclete Press. I am thankful that
the people of Paraclete Press were willing to take a chance on an
unpublished author in the midst of difficult economic times, and
I am especially grateful to Jon Sweeney, whose incisive editing
skills left my manuscript infinitely more readable than when he
found it, and to Ron Minor, whose superior copy editing skills
saved me from potentially embarrassing factual errors.
I offer my sincere appreciation to Tom Brackett, missioner
for church planting and redevelopment for the Episcopal Church,
and the participants of Plant My Church 2009, who endured my
first PowerPoint presentation on the concepts outlined in the
book; and to James Derkits, assistant rector, and the people of St.
Mark’s Church in Houston, Texas, for the opportunity to present
these concepts at their annual Epiphany lecture. Special thanks
to Robert Cornner, rector of Christ Church, Redondo Beach,
California, for pilot-testing draft chapters, biblical reflections,
and discussion questions from the book in the church’s Lent 2010
book study group.
I give thanks for the institutions that gave me firsthand access
to original manuscripts, content experts, and historical sites. These
included: St. George’s College, Jerusalem; the Diocesan Church
House at Glastonbury Abbey; and Westcott House College at
Cambridge University, who sponsored me as a Visiting Research
Scholar so that I might gain access to the ancient manuscripts at
the Cambridge University Library.
Finally, I save my most profound appreciation for those whose
attention not only enabled me to write a better book, but also
enabled me to become a better person: my friend Paul Lebel, who
introduced me to a relationship with Jesus Christ more than thirty
years ago, and my friend Steve Holloway, whose friendship helped
to deepen that relationship. John Jordon and Verna Dozier: dear
PA R A D O X Y
182
mentors from opposite sides of the conservative-liberal theological
continuum. My son, Jonathan, whose skeptical comments and
questions kept me honest. My daughter, Mary Beth, whose editing
and assistance on formatting and graphics were invaluable. And
most of all, my wife, Rhee, who read and commented on more
versions of the manuscript than anyone, and who put up with
thousands of hours when it must have seemed that I was giving
more face time to my laptop than to her, yet somehow managed
to encourage me to continue to write.
—Ken Howard
N O T E S
1. Kirk Hadaway and Penny Marler, “Growth and Decline
in the Mainline,” in Faith in America: Changes, Challenges, New
Directions, Charles H. Lippy, ed. (Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger
2006), 1–24.
2. Richard Hooker, Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, III.i.11;
V.1xvii.6; cf. Alison Quin, Hooker’s Understanding of the Authority
of Scripture as a Resource for Anglicans Today. (Washington, DC:
Episcopal Diocese of Washington, 2000).
3. This title has regularly been applied to the Presiding Bishop
on a number of conservative blogs, including: Stand Firm
in Faith (http://www.standfirminfaith.com), TitusOneNine
(http://www.kendallharmon.net), VirtueOnLine (http://www.
virtueonline.org), and others.
4. Hans Frei, “Response to ‘Narrative Theology’: An Evangelical
Appraisal” Trinity Journal 8 (Spring 1987): 21–24. Note: Frei
used the term generosity in the sense that it is often used in
the New Testament: as “charity” or “love.”
5. Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1996).
6. E.P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press, 1990), 323.
7. Brian McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional,
Evangelical, Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic,
Biblical, Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist,
Anabaptist/Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational,
Depressed-yet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished Christian (El Cahon,
CA: Zondervan, 2004), 28.
184
PA R A D O X Y
8. Larry Norman, on a T-shirt produced by his own record company (Soquel, CA: Phydeaux Records). Norman was a Christian
rocker who began performing in the early seventies.
9. Joseph Priestley, Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley. (London: J.
Johnson, 1806), 372.
10. The doctrine of adiaphora (lit., “things that do not matter”). Or, as it is expressed in this statement attributed to
Augustine: “In the essentials, unity; in nonessentials, freedom; in all things, love” (cf. 1 Corinthians 8).
11. paradigm. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved November 27, 2006 from
Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/
search?q=paradigm&r=66.
12. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
13. Ibid., 122.
14. Madison Peters, The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud (New York:
Baker and Taylor, 1900), 64.
15. Ronald Numbers, Galileo Goes to Jail—and Other Myths about
Science and Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2009), 68–78. Numbers points out that several of
the things the church is popularly believed to have done to
Galileo—such as imprisonment and torture—are myths.
16. Thomas Williams, Anselm: Basic Writings (Indianapolis, IN:
Hackett Publishing, 2007), 75.
17. Christendom. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved January 19, 2007 from
Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/
browse/christendom.
NOTES
185
18. Christendom. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. III. Retrieved January
19, 2007 from http://www.NewAdvent.org/cathen/03699b.
htm
19. Garrison Keillor, A Prairie Home Companion. National Public
Radio, WAMU, Washington, DC (date unknown).
20. Stanley Hauerwas and William Willimon, Resident Aliens: Life in
the Christian Colony (Nashville: Abingdon, 1989). The authors
associate the rise of Christendom/Constantinianism with the
Edict of Milan, by which Constantine legalized Christianity,
paving the way for its eventual recognition as the official
religion of the Empire.
21. One could take this line of reasoning too far, of course.
Tertullian eschewed the virtues of Imperial Roman culture
in at least one important respect, writing (in De idolatria,
19:1–3): “But now inquiry is made about this point, whether
a believer may turn himself unto military service, and
whether the military can be admitted unto the faith . . .
how will a Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even
in peace, without a sword, which the Lord has taken away?
. . . by disarming Peter [the Lord disarmed] every soldier.”
The Fathers of the Church. Retrieved July 15, 2010 from
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm
22. Hauerwas and Willimon (1989), The authors describe the
impact of Christendom on the relationship of church and
culture after Constantine; James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword:
The Church and the Jews: A History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
2001) describes the impact of Christendom on the relationship between the church and the Jews after Constantine;
Ken Howard, Jewish Christianity in the Early Church (Alexandria:
Virginia Theological Seminary, 1993) describes how the
186
PA R A D O X Y
church’s concept of itself shifted between its birth and the
time of Constantine.
23. Terrance Rynne, Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of NonViolence (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2008); André Trocmé,
Jesus and the Non-Violent Revolution. (Farmington, PA: Plough,
2007); Walter Wink, Jesus and Non-Violence: A Third Way
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003); Walter Wink, “Turning the
Other Cheek: What Did Jesus Really Mean?” Catholic New
Times (February 13, 2005).
24. Neil Elliott, “Revisiting Augustine and Just-War Theory,”
The Witness Magazine; cf. retrieved July 15, 2010 from http://
thewitness.org/article.php?id=275; St. Augustine. The City of
God. Chps 12, 13, 15, retrieved July 15, 2010 from website:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm.
25. Walter Wink, The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millenium
(New York: Random House, 1999), 42.
26. Sulpicius Severus, The Life of St. Martin, 4, quoted in H.H.
Scullard, Martin of Tours: Apostle of Gaul (London: Deansgate
and Ridgefield, 1890), 16.
27. George Hunter, The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity
Can Reach the West... Again (Nashville: Abingdon, 2000); cf.
David Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of
Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999).
28. Example: The forced expulsion from their land of the
Cherokee Nation, a predominantly Christian tribe, resulting
in the infamous Trail of Tears, more than decimated their
population.
29. Orson Scott Card, Past Watch: The Redemption of Christopher
Columbus (New York: Tor, 1995).
NOTES
187
30. Kirk Hadaway, Penny Marler, and Mark Chaves, “What
the Polls Don’t Show: A Closer Look at U.S. Church
Attendance,” American Sociological Review, 58, no. 6 (December
1993) 741–52; Peter Brierley, Pulling Out of the Nosedive: A
Contemporary Picture of Church Going—What the 2005 English
Church Census Reveals (London: Christian Research, 2006).
31. Foundationalism. (n.d.) Encyclopædia Britannica: Retrieved
from website July 19, 2010: http://www.britannica.com/eb/
checked/topic/1373315/foundationalism.
32. Stanley Grenz and John Frank, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping
Theology in a Post-Modern Context (Louisville, KY: Knox, 2001).
33. Quoted in Grenz and Franke, Beyond Foundationalism, 31. Note
also the Eurocentrism of this quote from Descartes, overlooking as it does the Great Schism between Eastern and
Western Christianity centuries earlier.
34. For a more complete discussion of the impact of quantum
physics on the understanding of reality, truth, religion, and
spirituality, the reader might consider the following sources:
Walter Anderson, Reality Isn’t What It Used to Be: Theatrical
Politics, Ready-to-Wear Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and
Other Wonders of the Post-Modern World (San Francisco: Harper
Collins, 1990); Walter Anderson, ed., The Truth about the
Truth: De-Confusing and Re-Constructing the Post-Modern World.
(New York: Putnam, 1995); Peter Hodgson, Theology and
Modern Physics (Hants, UK: Ashgate, 2006); Roger Penrose,
The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the
Laws of Physics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002);
Robert Russell, Theological Issues in Light of Physics and Cosmology
(Berkley: Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences,
1997); Ken Wilber, Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the
188
PA R A D O X Y
World’s Great Physicists (Boston: Shambhala, 2001); Richard
Wolfson, Einstein’s Relativity and the Quantum Revolution: Modern
Physics for Non-scientists (Chantilly, VA: Teaching Co., 2001).
35. S.I. Hiyakawa, Language in Thought and Action (New York:
Harcourt, 1991), 122.
36. Avi Weiss, “Black Fire on White Fire,” Hebrew Institute of
Riverdale (http://www.hir.org), September 28–29, 2002, /23
Tishrei 5763; cf. Betty Rojtman, Black Fire on White Fire: An
Essay on Jewish Hermeneutics, from Midrash to Kabbalah (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1998); Sandy Eisenberg
Sasso, God’s Echo: Exploring Scripture with Midrash (Brewster, MA:
Paraclete Press, 2007).
37. Religion. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Retrieved
March 15, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion.
38. Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006).
39. Everett Ferguson, Church History Volume One: From Christ to
Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural,
Intellectual, and Political Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2005); Jean Comby and Bruce Shelley, Church History in
Plain Language (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1996); Jean
Comby, How to Read Church History: Vol. 1: From the Beginnings
to the Fifteenth Century (New York: Crossroad, 1985); Justo
Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: Vol. 1: The Early Church to the
Reformation (New York: HarperOne, 1984).
40. E.R. Dodds, Humanism and Technique in Greek Studies: An Inaugural
Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford on 5 November 1936
(Broadbridge, UK: Clarendon Press, 1936).
NOTES
189
41. Ferguson, Church History Volume One; Comby and Shelley,
Church History in Plain Language; Comby, How to Read Church
History: Vol. 1; Gonzalez, Story of Christianity: Vol. 1.
42. David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, unChristian: What a New
Generation Really Thinks about Christianity . . . and Why It Matters
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007).
43. Hans Frei, Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays, ed. George
Hunsinger and William Placher (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993), 208.
44. For views of the Emerging Church movement from three different points of view, see McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy; Larry
Pettegrew, “Evangelicalism, Paradigms, and the Emerging
Church,” The Master’s Seminary Journal 17 (2006): 159–75; and
Phyllis Tickle, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing
and Why (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008). McLaren’s point of
view is that of a leader in the Emerging Church movement.
Pettegrew comes at the Emerging Church movement from
the standpoint of a skeptical traditional evangelical. Tickle,
an Episcopalian and a writer on church history, approaches
the phenomenon in historical context.
45. paradox (n.d.) Dictionary.com unabridged. Retrieved on
January 17, 2007 from website: http://dictionary.reference.
com/browse/paradox
46. This quote has been attributed variously to Albert Einstein,
Benjamin Franklin, Mark Twain, and an ancient Chinese
proverb. However, the earliest attribution is Rita May Brown,
Sudden Death (New York: Bantam Books, 1983), 68.
47. Ken Howard, Jewish Christianity, 18; Bart Ehrman, Lost
Christianities—The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).
190
PA R A D O X Y
48. Jean Danielou, The Development of Christian Doctrine Before
the Council of Nicea: Vol. I: The Theology of Jewish-Christianity
(Chicago: Regnery, 1964),10; cf. Acts 15:4–5 (“some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees...”).
49. Raymond Pritz, Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the
New Testament Period until its Disappearance in the Fourth Century.
Jerusalem, Israel: Magnes, 1988), 62.
50. Greg Russinger and Alex Field, eds., Practitioners: Voices within
the Emerging Church (Ventura, CA: Regal, 2005), 224.
51. Other cases fell somewhere in between. The personal popularity of Martin of Tours was such that the church merely
waited until he passed from the scene, and then moved to
appoint a new bishop who would bring his communities back
into stricter compliance. In the case of Celtic Christianity, at
the seventh-century Synod of Whitby the Roman and Celtic
branches negotiated a compromise that—at least on the
surface—brought Celtic church practices into compliance.
52. Craig Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews: Reassessing Division within the
Earliest Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 146–47.
53. Eusebius, vita Const. 3.18–20, quoted in Hefele, Vol. 1, and
323ff. C.J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Vol. 1,
to AD 325 (Edinburgh, UK: T.&T. Clark, 1871), 323ff.
54. For a more complete discussion of the history of Jewish
Christianity in the early church, the reader might consider
the following sources: Ken Howard, Jewish Christianity;
Robert Hann, “The Undivided Way: The Early Jewish
Christians as a Model for Ecumenical Encounter?” Journal of
Ecumenical Studies 14 (1977): 233–48; Matt Jackson-McCabe,
Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and
NOTES
191
Texts (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007); Gerd Ludemann,
Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity (Louisville, KY:
Westminster, 1996); Oskar Skarsaune and Reidar Hvalvik,
eds., Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 2007); Ekkehard Stegemann and Wolfgang
Stegemann, The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First
Century (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001).
55. Patrick J. Hartin, “Jewish Christianity: Focus on Antioch in
the First Century,” Scriptura 36 (1991): 38–50.
56. G.P. Carras, “Jewish Ethics and Gentile Converts: Remarks
on 1 Thes. 4:3–8,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed.
Raymond F. Collins and Norbert Baumert, (Ithaca, NY:
Leuven University Press, 1990), 306–15.
57. Roger Beckwith, “The Origin of the Festivals of Easter and
Whitsun,” Studia Liturgica 13 (1979): 7–8. Beckwith argues
that Paul allowed Jewish Christians to observe Jewish festivals privately.
58. For a more complete discussion of the history of Pauline
Christianity in the early church, the reader might consider
the following sources: Ken Howard, Jewish Christianity;
Richard Hays, ed., The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as
Interpreter of Israel’s Scripture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
2005); Ekkehard Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann, The
Jesus Movement; William Kaye and Anne Amos. Re-Reading
Paul: A Fresh Look at His Attitude to Torah and Judaism. Retrieved
July 10, 2010, from website Jewish-Christian Relations website: http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=789; Davina Lopez,
Apostle to the Conquered: Reimaging Paul’s Mission (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2008).
192
PA R A D O X Y
59. Richard Fletcher, The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to
Christianity (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999).
60. A good overview of the work of the Desert Fathers and Mothers
may be found in David Keller, Oasis of Wisdom: The Worlds of the
Desert Fathers and Mothers (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
2005).
61. Perhaps one of the broader and more inspiring of these books
is Restoring the Woven Cord; Strands of Celtic Christianity for the Church
Today by Michael Mitton (London: Darton, Longman and
Todd, 1995). Others include: Michelle Brown, How Christianity
Came to Britain (Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2006); Thomas Cahill,
How the Irish Saved Civilization (New York: Doubleday, 1995);
Brendan Lehane, Early Celtic Christianity (London: Continuum,
2005); Ray Simpson, Exploring Celtic Spirituality: Historic Roots for
Our Future (London: Hodder, 1995); Graydon Snyder, Irish Jesus,
Roman Jesus: The Formation of Early Irish Christianity (Harrisburg, PA:
Trinity, 2002).
62. Frank Whaling and Albert Outler, John and Charles Wesley:
Selected Prayers, Hymns, Journal Notes, Sermons, Letters, and Treatises
(Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1981), 8.
63. Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation, Preach the Gospel at
All Times—Use Words if Necessary. Retreived July 15, 2010 from
http://www.e4gr_more.org//EGRBOOK2006.pdf, (2006); cf.
James 2:14–17.
64. C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the
Wardrobe (New York: HarperCollins, 2005).
65. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: HarperOne, 2001),
52.
NOTES
193
66. Samuel Stone, “The Churches One Foundation.” In Hymnal
1982 According to the Use of the Episcopal Church. New
York: Church Publishing, 1985.
67. C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, 79–80.
68. William Dols, Awakening the Fire Within (St. Louis: Educational
Center, 1998); cf. Matthew Lippman, Thinking in Education
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
69. William Dols, The Bible Workbench: Living Our Story through God’s
Story (St. Louis: Educational Center, 2008); cf. Lippman,
Thinking in Education.
70. Herman Hooker, Uses of Adversity, and the Provisions of Consolation
(New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1850), 94.
71. Gregory of Nazianzus, On “Not Three Gods,” quoted
in Elizabeth Theokritoff and Mary Cunningham, The
Cambridge Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2009), 49.
72. Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers: The Story of Success (New York:
Little, Brown and Co., 2008), 185–89; 224–49.
73. W.E. Sangster, The Secret of Radiant Life (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1988), 171, 172, 192.
74. Kinneman and Lyons, unChristian, 17.
75. Gregory of Nyssa, The Life of Moses, quoted in Richard
Kieckhefe, Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from Byzantium to
Berkeley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 19.
76. Albert Clifton, Donald Liesveld, and Curt Winseman, Living
Your Strengths: Discover Your God-Given Talents and Inspire Your
Community (New York: Gallup, 2004). Our congregation has
found the Strengths Finder inventory a useful tool in making
194
PA R A D O X Y
the transition to a more gifts-driven organization and leadership structure.
77. Kathryn Spink, Mother Teresa: A Complete Authorized Biography
(New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1998), 245.
78. August Neander, Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas—Vol.
1. (Whitefish: MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2009), 254.
79. Ruth Moore, Niels Bohr: The Man, His Science, and the World They
Changed (New York: Knopf Publishers, 1966), 196.
80. Church Publishing, Lesser Feasts and Fasts (New York: Church
Publishing, 2006), 441.
81. Richard Hooker, The Works of Richard Hooker: Containing Eight
Books of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, and Several Other Treatises
(1839), quoted in William Kip, The Double Witness of the Church
(Charleston, SC: BibleLife, 2008), 83.
82. John Polkinghorne, Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and
Religion (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007), 3–4; cf.
John Polkinghorne, Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected
Kinship (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008).
83. Flannery O’Connor, Mystery and Manners, (New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 1969), 178.
84. Gregory of Nazianzus, on “Not Three Gods,” quoted in
Derek Vreeland, Shape Shifters: How God Changes the Human Heart:
A Trinitarian Vision of Spiritual Transformation (Derbyshire, UK:
Word and Spirit, 2008), 69.
85. Robert Wood, Day Four: The Pilgrims Continued Journey (Nashville:
Upper Room, 2004), 27.
86. Anonymous. A quote from a field supervisor of seminarians
at a supervisory training session at Virginia Theological
Seminary, Alexandria, VA.
NOTES
195
87. Anonymous. A quote from a field supervisor of seminarians
at a supervisory training session at Virginia Theological
Seminary, Alexandria, VA.
88. A quote at a supervisory training session at Virginia
Theological Seminary, Alexandria, VA.
89. Elizabeth Scalia, Caring for the Dying with the Help of Your Catholic
Faith (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2008), 11.
90. Brian McLaren, The Last Word and the Word after That: A Tale
of Faith, Doubt, and a New Kind of Christianity (Hoboken, NJ:
Jossey-Bass, 2008); N.T. Wright, The Last Word: Beyond the Bible
Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (New York:
HarperOne, 2008).
91. McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy.
92. John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward, eds.,
Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology (Florence, KY: Routledge,
1998); cf. James Smith and John Milbank, Introducing Radical
Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 2004); John Milbank and Catherine Pickstock, Truth in
Aquinas (Radical Orthodoxy) (London: Rutledge, 2001).
93. Kenneth Tanner and Christopher Hall, eds., Ancient and
Postmodern Christianity: Paleo-Orthodoxy in the 21st Century—Essays
in Honor of Thomas C. Oden (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity,
2002).
94. Leonard Sweet, Quantum Spirituality: A Postmodern Apologetic
(Dayton, OH: United Theological Seminary, 1991).
95. Diarmuid O’Murchu, Quantum Theology: Spiritual Implications of
the New Physics (New York: Crossroad, 2004).
96. Tickle, Great Emergence.
196
PA R A D O X Y
97. Emergent Village: A Node in the Web of the Emerging
Church, Minneapolis: http://www.emergentvillage.com/.
98. Jim Belcher, Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and
Traditional (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2009).
99. Fresh Expressions: Changing Church for a Changing World,
Warwick, UK: http://www.freshexpressions.org.uk/.
100.Mark Zwick and Louise Zwick, The Catholic Worker Movement:
Intellectual and Spiritual Origins (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press,
2005), 206.
S E L E C T
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Anderson, Walter. Reality Isn’t What It Used to Be: Theatrical Politics,
Ready-to-Wear Religion, Global Myths, Primitive Chic, and Other
Wonders of the Post-Modern World. San Francisco: Harper
Collins, 1990.
———, ed. The Truth about the Truth: De-Confusing and Re-Constructing
the Post-Modern World. New York: Putnam, 1995.
Beckwith, Roger T. “The Origin of the Festivals of Easter and
Whitsun,” Studia Liturgica 13 (1978): 7–8.
Belcher, Jim. Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and
Traditional. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 2009.
Boda, Mark, and Gordon Smith. Repentance in Christian Theology.
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2006.
Bosch, David. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of
Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1999.
Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity
(Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion). Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.
Brierley, Peter. Pulling Out of the Nosedive: A Contemporary Picture
of Churchgoing—What the 2005 English Church Census Reveals.
London: Christian Research, 2006.
Brown, Michelle. How Christianity Came to Britain. Oxford: Lion
Hudson, 2006.
Brown, Rita May. Sudden Death. New York: Bantam Books, 1983.
Cahill, Thomas. How the Irish Saved Civilization. New York:
Doubleday, 1995.
Card, Orson Scott. Pastwatch: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus.
New York: Tor, 1996.
Carras, G. P. “Jewish Ethics and Gentile Converts: Remarks on
1 Thes. 4:3-8,” in The Thessalonian Correspondence, Raymond
198
PA R A D O X Y
F. Collins and Norbert Baumert. Ithaca, NY: Leuven
University Press, 1990.
Carroll, James. Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews: A History.
New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2001.
Church Publishing. Book of Common Prayer. New York: Church
Publishing, 1979.
———. Hymnal 1982. New York: Church Publishing, 1985.
———. Lesser Feasts and Fasts. New York: Church Publishing, 2006.
Clifton, Albert, Donald Liesveld, and Curt Winseman. Living
Your Strengths: Discover Your God-Given Talents and Inspire Your
Community. New York: Gallup, 2004.
Cobb, John, Jr., and Paul Knitter. Transforming Christianity and the
World: A Way beyond Absolutism and Relativism. Maryknoll, NY:
Orbis, 1999.
Comby, Jean. How to Read Church History: Vol. 1: From the Beginnings
to the Fifteenth Century. New York: Crossroad, 1985.
Danielou, Jean. The Development of Christian Doctrine before the Council
of Nicea: Vol. I: The Theology of Jewish-Christianity. Chicago:
Regnery, 1964.
Dodds, E.R. Humanism and Technique in Greek Studies: An Inaugural
Lecture Delivered before the University of Oxford on 5 November 1936.
Broadbridge, UK: Clarendon Press, 1936.
Dols, William. Awakening the Fire Within. St. Louis: Educational
Center, 1998.
Donaldson, Christopher. Martin of Tours: The Shaping of Celtic
Christianity. Norwich, UK: SCM-Canterbury, 1997.
Ehrman, Bart. Lost Christianities—The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths
We Never Knew. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Elliott, Neil. “Revisiting Augustine and Just-War Theory.” The
Witness Magazine, June 30, 2004.
Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation. Preach the Gospel at All
Times—Use Words if Necessary. St. Louis, MO: Episcopalians
for Global Reconciliation, 2006.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
199
Ferguson, Everett. Church History Volume One: From Christ to PreReformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural,
Intellectual, and Political Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2005.
Fletcher, Richard. The Barbarian Conversion: From Paganism to
Christianity. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and
Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. Princeton, NJ: Yale University
Press, 1980.
———. “Response to ‘Narrative Theology’: An Evangelical
Appraisal.” Trinity Journal 8 (Spring 1987): 21–24.
———. Theology and Narrative: Selected Essays. Edited by George
Hunsinger and William Placher. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Gladwell, Malcolm. Outliers: The Story of Success. London: Little,
Brown and Company, 2008.
———. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference.
New York: Back Bay Books, 2002.
Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity: Vol. 1: The Early Church to
the Reformation. San Francisco: Harper, 1984.
Grenz, Stanley, and John Frank, Beyond Foundationalism: Shaping
Theology in a Post-Modern Context. Louisville, KY: Knox, 2001.
Hadaway, Kirk, and Penny Marler, “Growth and Decline in
the Mainline,” Charles H. Lippy, Faith in America: Changes,
Challenges, New Directions. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger, 2006.
Hadaway, Kirk, Penny Marler, and Mark Chaves. “What
the Polls Don’t Show: A Closer Look at U.S. Church
Attendance.” American Sociological Review 58:6 (December
1993): 741–52.
Hann, Robert. “The Undivided Way: The Early Jewish Christians
as a Model for Ecumenical Encounter?” Journal of Ecumenical
Studies 14 (1977): 233–48.
200
PA R A D O X Y
Hartin, Patrick J. “Jewish Christianity: Focus on Antioch in the
First Century,” Scriptura 36 (1991): 50.
Hauerwas, Stanley. A Better Hope: Resources for a Church Confronting
Capitalism, Democracy, and Postmodernity. Grand Rapids, MI:
Brazos, 2001.
———. Where Resident Aliens Live: Exercises for Christian Practice.
Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1996.
Hauerwas, Stanley, and William Willimon. Resident Aliens: Life in the
Christian Colony. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1989.
Hays, Richard, ed. The Conversion of the Imagination: Paul as Interpreter
of Israel’s Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
Heisenberg, Werner. Encounters with Einstein. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1989.
Hill, Craig. Hellenists and Hebrews: Reassessing Division within the Earliest
Church. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992.
Hiyakawa, S. I. Language in Thought and Action. New York:
Harcourt, 1991.
Hodgson, Peter. Theology and Modern Physics. Hants, UK: Ashgate,
2006.
Hooker, Herman. Uses of Adversity, and the Provision of Consolation.
New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1850.
Hooker, Richard. The Works of Richard Hooker: Containing Eight Books
of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, and Several Other Treatises (1839).
New York: Kessinger, 2009.
Howard, Ken. Jewish Christianity in the Early Church. Alexandria,
VA: Virginia Theological Seminary, 1993.
Hunter, George. The Celtic Way of Evangelism: How Christianity Can
Reach the West . . . Again. Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2000.
Jackson-McCabe, Matt. Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking
Ancient Groups and Texts. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2007.
Kaye, William, and Anne Amos. Re-reading Paul: A Fresh Look at His
Attitude to Torah and Judaism. Jewish-Christian Relations (1999),
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
201
Retrieved July 15, 2010 from website: http://www.jcrelation.
net/en/?id=789.
Keller, David. Oasis of Wisdom: The Worlds of the Desert Fathers and
Mothers. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005.
Kieckhefe, Richard. Theology in Stone: Church Architecture from
Byzantium to Berkeley. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Kinnaman, David, and Gabe Lyons. unChristian: What a New
Generation Really Thinks about Christianity . . . and Why It Matters.
Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007.
Kip, William. The Double Witness of the Church. Charleston, SC:
BibleLife, 2008.
Klijn, A.F.J., and G.J. Reinink. Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian
Sects. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1973.
Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Lehane, Brendan. Early Celtic Christianity. London: Continuum, 2005.
Lewis, C.S. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the
Wardrobe. New York: Harper-Collins, 2005.
———. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperOne, 2001.
Lippman, Matthew. Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2003.
Lopez, Davina. Apostle to the Conquered: Reimaging Paul’s Mission.
Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2008.
Ludemann, Gerd. Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity.
Louisville, KY: Knox, 1996.
Macfarlane, Alan. The Savage Wars of Peace. New York: MacMillan,
2003.
Maison, Jeffrey. I Love to Tell the Story. Atlanta, GA: Chalice, 1998.
Marcoux, Marcene. Cursillo, Anatomy of a Movement: The Experience of
Spiritual Renewal. London: Lambeth, 1982.
McEvoy, Paul. Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object. San
Francisco, CA: MicroAnalytix, 2001.
202
PA R A D O X Y
McLaren, Brian D. Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a
Revolution of Hope. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2007.
———. Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices.
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2008.
———. A Generous Orthodoxy: Why I Am a Missional, Evangelical,
Post/Protestant, Liberal/Conservative, Mystical/Poetic, Biblical,
Charismatic/Contemplative, Fundamentalist/Calvinist, Anabaptist/
Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, Green, Incarnational, Depressedyet-Hopeful, Emergent, Unfinished Christian. El Cahon, CA:
Zondervan, 2004.
———. The Last Word and the Word After That: A Tale of Faith, Doubt,
and a New Kind of Christianity. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass,
2008.
Meadows, Donella, and Ellen Meloy. Global Citizen. Washington,
DC: Island, 1991.
Milbank, John, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward, eds.
Radical Orthodoxy: A New Theology. Florence, KY: Routledge,
1998.
Milbank, John, and Catherine Pickstock. Truth in Aquinas (Radical
Orthodoxy). London: Rutledge, 2001.
Mitton, Michael. Restoring the Woven Cord: Strands of Celtic
Christianity for the Church Today. London: Darton, Longman
and Todd, 1995.
Moore, Ruth. Niels Bohr: The Man, His Science, and the World They
Changed. New York: Knopf, 1966.
Morton, Frederick. Love in Epigram. Chicago: A.C. McClurg and
Company, 1899.
Murphy, Nancey. Beyond Liberalism and Fundamentalism: How Modern
and Postmodern Philosophy Set the Theological Agenda. Harrisburg:
Trinity, 1996.
Neander, August. Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas: Vol. 1.
Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2009.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
203
Numbers, Ronald. Galileo Goes to Jail—and Other Myths about Science
and Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
O’Connor, Flannery. Mystery and Manners: Occasional Prose. New
York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 1969.
O’Murchu, Diarmuid. Quantum Theology: Spiritual Implications of the
New Physics. New York: Crossroad, 2004.
Penrose, Roger. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds,
and the Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
Peters, Madison C. Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud. New York: Bloch,
1912.
Peterson, Eugene. The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language.
Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004.
Pettegrew, Larry. “Evangelicalism, Paradigms, and the Emerging
Church.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 17 (2006): 159–75.
Polkinghorne, John. Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and
Religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2007.
———. Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.
Priestley, Joseph. Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley. London: J. Johnson,
1806.
Pritz, Raymond. Nazarene Jewish Christianity: From the End of the
New Testament Period until Its Disappearance in the Fourth Century.
Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1988.
Quin, Alison. Hooker’s Understanding of the Authority of Scripture as
a Resource for Anglicans Today. Washington, DC: Episcopal
Diocese of Washington, DC, 2000.
Rojtman, Betty. Black Fire on White Fire: An Essay on Jewish
Hermeneutics, from Midrash to Kabbalah. Berkeley, CA: University
of California Press, 1998.
Russell, Robert. Theological Issues in Light of Physics and Cosmology:
An Introduction. Berkley, CA: Center for Theology and the
Natural Sciences, 1997.
204
PA R A D O X Y
Russinger, Greg, and Alex Field, eds. Practitioners: Voices within the
Emerging Church. Ventura, CA: Regal, 2005.
Rynne, Terrance. Gandhi and Jesus: The Saving Power of Non-Violence.
Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 2008.
Sanders, E.P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies.
Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990.
Sangster, W.E. The Secret of Radiant Life. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1988.
Sasso, Sandy. God’s Echo: Exploring Scripture with Midrash. Brewster,
MA: Paraclete Press, 2007.
Scalia, Elizabeth. Caring for the Dying with the Help of Your Catholic
Faith. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 2008.
Scullard, H.H. Martin of Tours: Apostle of Gaul. London: Deansgate
and Ridgefield, 1890.
Selleri, Franco, and Alwyn Van der Merwe. Quantum Paradoxes and
Physical Reality. Philadelphia, PA: Springer, 1990.
Shelley, Bruce. Church History in Plain Language. Nashville, TN:
Thomas Nelson, 2008.
Simpson, Ray. Exploring Celtic Spirituality: Historic Roots for Our
Future. London: Hodder, 1995.
Skarsaune, Oskar, and Reidar Hvalvik, eds. Jewish Believers in Jesus:
The Early Centuries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007.
Smith, James, and John Milbank. Introducing Radical Orthodoxy:
Mapping a Post-secular Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker,
2004.
Snyder, Graydon. Irish Jesus, Roman Jesus: The Formation of Early Irish
Christianity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2002.
Spink, Kathryn. Mother Teresa: A Complete Authorized Biography. New
York: HarperCollins, 1998.
Stone, Samuel. “The Church’s One Foundation,” Hymnal 1982
According to the Use of the Episcopal Church. New York: Church
Publishing, 1985.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
205
Sweet, Leonard. Quantum Spirituality: A Postmodern Apologetic.
Dayton, OH: United Theological Seminary, 1991.
Tanner, Kenneth, and Christopher Hall, eds. Ancient and
Postmodern Christianity: Paleo-Orthodoxy in the 21st Century—
Essays in Honor of Thomas C. Oden. Downers Grove, IL:
Intervarsity, 2002.
Theokritoff, Elizabeth, and Mary Cunningham, Cambridge
Companion to Orthodox Christian Theology. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, 2009.
Tickle, Phyllis. The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and
Why. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2008.
Trocmé, André. Jesus and the Nonviolent Revolution. Farmington, PA:
Plough, 2007.
Vreeland, Derek. Shape Shifters: How God Changes the Human Heart:
A Trinitarian Vision of Spiritual Transformation. Derbyshire, UK:
Word and Spirit, 2008.
Weiss, Avi. Black Fire on White Fire. Bronx, NY: Hebrew Institute of
Riverdale, 2006.
Whaling, Frank, and Albert Outler, John and Charles Wesley:
Selected Prayers, Hymns, Journal Notes, Sermons, Letters, and Treatises.
Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1981.
Wheatley, Margaret. Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order
in a Chaotic World. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler, 2006.
Wilber, Ken. Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World’s Great
Physicists. Boston, MA: Shambhala, 2001.
Williams, Thomas. Anselm: Basic Writings. Indianapolis, IN:
Hackett Publishing, 2007.
Wink, Walter. Jesus and Non-Violence: A Third Way. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress, 2003.
———. The Powers That Be: Theology for a New Millennium. New
York: Random House 1999.
206
PA R A D O X Y
———. “Turning the Other Cheek: What Did Jesus Really
Mean?” Catholic New Times, February 13, 2005.
Wolfson, Richard. Einstein’s Relativity and the Quantum Revolution:
Modern Physics for Non-Scientists. Chantilly, VA: Teaching
Company, 2001.
Wood, Robert. Day Four: The Pilgrims Continued Journey. Nashville,
TN: Upper Room, 2004.
Wright, N.T. The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New
Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. New York:
HarperOne, 2008.
Zwick, Mark, and Louise Zwick. The Catholic Worker Movement:
Intellectual and Spiritual Origins. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005.
A B O U T PA R A C L E T E P R E S S
WHO WE ARE
Paraclete Press is a publisher of books, recordings, and DVDs on Christian
spirituality. Our publishing represents a full expression of Christian belief
and practice—from Catholic to Evangelical, from Protestant to Orthodox.
We are the publishing arm of the Community of Jesus, an ecumenical
monastic community in the Benedictine tradition. As such, we are uniquely
positioned in the marketplace without connection to a large corporation and
with informal relationships to many branches and denominations of faith.
W H AT W E A R E D O I N G
B O O K S . Paraclete publishes books that show the richness and depth of
what it means to be Christian. Although Benedictine spirituality is at the
heart of all that we do, we publish books that reflect the Christian experience
across many cultures, time periods, and houses of worship. We publish books
that nourish the vibrant life of the church and its people—books about
spiritual practice, formation, history, ideas, and customs.
We have several different series, including the best-selling Living Library,
Paraclete Essentials, and Paraclete Giants series of classic texts in contemporary
English; A Voice from the Monastery—men and women monastics writing about
living a spiritual life today; award-winning literary faith fiction and poetry; and
the Active Prayer Series that brings creativity and liveliness to any life of prayer.
RECORDINGS.
From Gregorian chant to contemporary American
choral works, our music recordings celebrate sacred choral music through
the centuries. Paraclete distributes the recordings of the internationally
acclaimed choir Gloriæ Dei Cantores, praised for their “rapt and fathomless
spiritual intensity” by American Record Guide, and the Gloriæ Dei Cantores
Schola, which specializes in the study and performance of Gregorian chant.
Paraclete is also the exclusive North American distributor of the recordings of
the Monastic Choir of St. Peter’s Abbey in Solesmes, France, long considered
to be a leading authority on Gregorian chant.
D V D S . Our DVDs offer spiritual help, healing, and biblical guidance for
life issues: grief and loss, marriage, forgiveness, anger management, facing
death, and spiritual formation.
L E A R N M O R E A B O U T U S AT O U R W E B S I T E :
www.paracletepress.com, or call us toll-free at 1-800-451-5006.
You may also be interested in …
/ iÊ/i>V }ÊvÊÌ iÊ/ÜiÛi
believing & practicing the primitive Christianity
of the ancient didache community
by Tony Jones
The Didache, an early handbook of an anonymous Christian
community, “is the most important book you’ve never heard of.” It
spells out a way of life for Jesus-followers, including how to love one
another, how to practice the Eucharist, and how to take in wandering
prophets. Tony Jones unpacks the ancient document with insight and
perspective and traces the life of a small house church in Missouri that
is trying to live according to it precepts. Includes a new contemporary
English translation of the complete text of the Didache.
ISBN 978-1-55725-590-7
Trade paper, $14.99
/ iÊ7Ã`ÊvÊ-Ì>LÌÞ
rooting faith in a mobile culture
by Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove
“In whatever place you live, do not easily leave it.”
—Abba Anthony
Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove illuminates the biblical and monastic
understanding of why staying in one place is both a virtue and good
for you. When we cultivate an inner stability of heart—by rooting
ourselves in the places where we live—true growth can happen. The
Wisdom of Stability is a must-read for anyone seeking an authentic path
of Christian transformation.
ISBN 978-1-55725-623-2
Trade paper, $14.99
Available from most booksellers or through Paraclete Press:
www.paracletepress.com; 1-800-451-5006.
Try your local bookstore first.