Calling for a Second-Generation Pomo for President

Before I begin this post on George Bush and the complex, multi-faceted difficulties that arise from over-simplification, let me begin by saying that I do not generally fall easily within typical Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal branding.

If a software bot were tagging Precipice, my guess is that it would have a very difficult time knowing how to do so. Seemingly contradictory keyword phrases would no doubt keep it guessing. And maybe that’s true for the human beings prowling this site as well.

No doubt a Southern Baptist might call Precipice a trashy attempt to serve the vast, Left-wing conspiracy. But likewise, my good Presbyterian friends would no doubt consider some of the thoughts expressed in Precipice as outdated and predominantly law-based, hung up on arcane “rules and regulations”.

In addition to being a postmodern Christian, perhaps the fact that I was born in the UK, raised in Canada, and now call the United States home, has something to do with my tendency to confound typical definitions- specifically of the home-grown American variety.

Now, with that caveat aside, let me just say that, while George Bush appears intent on trusting future historians to put his legacy in its right perspective (he assumes history will one day vindicate him), it seems that reality suggests otherwise. If anything, the historical record is heading in the opposite direction from what George Bush would prefer.

Besides, even if it were not, the Bush administration’s seeming failsafe belief that "the ends justify the means" is not only foolhardy and unsustainable at a policy level, but also highly “unChristian”. I know that’s a rather strong statement. But on this one I think Jesus and Marshal McLuhan are on the same page: “the medium is the message”, more often than not.

But the question that arises is: Why would one grow unconcerned, laxidazical, and even dismissive on the question of the justness of methods and means in the first place? Especially when one considers themselves a follower of Jesus Christ- as George Bush clearly does? Well, according to the following book tackling these issues, it comes down to an overly simplistic, overly certain view of the situation – and one’s own role within it.


This section is taken from Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason, which is actually much more about the dangers that arise when a nation’s people are unaware of the true facts, and unable, or unwilling to debate them, than it is about the Bush White House specifically. Gore’s point is that the public forum itself is in danger in this age of the one-directional medium that is television, which now features a cavalier blending of news and entertainment.

But getting back to Gore’s point here, I think he’s bang-on in his assessment of where the problem begins. Over-commitment to an abstract conception is dangerous. The Quakers might refer to this as notionism. It works well in fairly-tales and children’s books, but not in the real world. That’s why fundamentalism – of any sort – is so problematic. Not only does it refuse to deal with anything that contradicts (or even complicates) itself, but it actually sees any attempt at dialogue (real two-way communication) as an attack that must be thwarted.

In my opinion, it is precisely because the world is now such a complex place, such a mix of cultures and creeds, and yet now so integrally and undeniably connected, that it is essential that our next president be a second-generation postmodern. Yes, I am using that term as a noun here, please excuse me.

What I'm gettng at is that, in reality, too much moral certainty (of the kind shown by George Bush) could actually prove disasterous in the coming years.

Now I know some are already raising their hands to their mouths in shock at such a statement. Am I calling for a moral relativist to lead the most powerful nation on the planet? No. I am not asking for an individual who doesn’t believe in truth. Rather, I’m calling for a person who recognizes that any one person’s perspective on truth is going to be subjective, tainted, incomplete.

That’s why I distinguish a second-generation pomo from the first. Whereas the first generation postmoderns saw truth itself as a myth, the second sees mankind’s ability to fully apprehend it as myth. It is that second generation kind of awareness that will ensure that our next president doesn’t follow in the treacherous steps of our present one. Who do I assume that person to be? I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.




A Thorn by Any Other Name: Wrestling with Human Depravity

Brandon O’Brian has written, what I see as, a very thoughtful, well reasoned article on the issue of human falleness/brokenness/depravity at Out of Ur. Brandon’s article is one that seeks for a balance that is all too often missed in the discussion on this topic. And, while finding balance here may be challenging, I would argue that is also vital. We need to resist our tendency to pendulum-swing on this topic. A balanced, middle ground is essential.

Brandon writes,

I, on the one hand, don't think we can remove fallenness from our core set of Christian doctrines. Like Brandon writes, you don't have to read Augustine to find evidence of this thing called "falleness" or "depravity" all around us. Even as children we come to an age when this dawns on us: There is something wrong with the world. And it is us.

I have a friend who would call himself a "liberal Christian". His perspective is that what we call fallenness is merely the bi-product of the process of evolution, only half-baked. In other words, the "kinks" will eventually work their way out of the system. I don't see that this conception really grasps the reality of the situation. The only way I can make sense of the state of the universe is to say that, at some point, something went a little haywire. There is a bug in the cosmos. And, from what I can see, it is not being removed, naturally, like impurities are in a mountain-flowing stream.

If, as an emerging Christian, I take seriously God's heart for redemption in every sphere of life, in all aspects of Creation, then I believe we need to take seriously this issue of brokenness. But I would also point out that, as Brandon reasons, this does not mean we opt for an extreme form of depravity- as found in some streams of Calvinism. As has been pointed out by others before me, it is ironic that people that hold to such an extreme form of total depravity trust their own depraved conceptions - derived from a depraved mind - in drawing such conclusions. That’s more than a little ironic, it's suspect. Don’t you think?

We really do need to strike a balance here. I like Scot McKnight’s conception of “cracked icons”, and I would highly recommend his book A Community Called Atonement on this issue.

Ultimately, it does us no good to pretend the problem doesn't exist. It does. And it is at the root of all of the world's problems - problems that I fully believe Jesus wants to see resolved - along with our own individual "personal" brokenness.

So let's avoid calling people worthless bits of trash who have no value outside of God's sovereign work of regeneration. On the contrary, they have immense value. They are beloved.

But on the other hand, let’s not lie to people, telling them that change is all within their power.

The only hope for the world comes in understanding that the line between good and evil travels not between generations, classes, nations, or cultures, but down the center of every human heart. Regeneration, restoration, and integration must begin there, for us to have any hope for the same to happen across the planet.


Brian McLaren on the What and the How of Spiritual Discipline

Brian McLaren’s new book Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices, which is the first offering in a new Ancient Practices series spearheaded by Phyllis Tickle, is an interesting read indeed. It’s a book about spiritual practices, but not just the spiritual practices themselves. It is both a why and a how on the subject. In many ways it covers ground that the classics Celebration of Discipline and the Spirit of the Disciplines covered individually. In other words, as with Foster’s Celebration of Discipline, it is a book that actually discusses the disciplines/practices themselves. And, as with Dallas Willard’s the Spirit of the Disciplines, it is a book that discusses why such practices are so vital for spiritual growth and vitality.

Brian makes a point, when speaking about pleasure, that I believe is so essential for understanding the heart of the disciplines. Many Evangelicals misunderstand the point of such spiritual practices; assuming that such discipline is a form of works-righteousness, or the personally wrathful response to a depraved mind; a kind of “let me punish myself for I am so unworthy” kind of enterprise. In reality, it is no such thing. At least, it shouldn’t be.

Speaking of purgation, Brian writes


McLaren points out that we work at limiting our exposure to pleasure, not because it is bad or evil, but rather, because it is so good that it can easily become addictive. This is such a powerful, yet simple, straightforward, populist explanation for the reasoning behind practices such as Lent. This is where the both/and explanation is so vital. Is God for pleasure? Absolutely! Of course He is! After all, He created it. But, because it is so enjoyable, we, as agents of free-will, must choose to be responsible with it. I guess you could say that what we’re talking about is, in some ways, a form of personal resource management. It is a personal spiritual sustainability program.

*Stay tuned for the transcript of a full interview I recently did with Brian, both about Finding Our Way Again, as well as his recent Everything Must Change tour, in the days to come…




A Question of Origins- Or is It? Framing the Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design Debate

Recently, on our Central Oregon Emergent Cohort blog, the always stimulating question of origins came up. Specifically, the question of origins in relation to the Creation account in the book of Genesis. You know, the whole Evolution/Creationism/Intelligent Design debate.

Now, I have to admit, for me, this has been a resolved issue for some time now. I suppose I am surprised that some people still seem unaware of what the real issues in the debate really are- or, should I say, what they really should be.

Regarding the Bible and the subject of origins, the real question is not whether or not the Bible is trustworthy- personally, I certainly think it is. The question is: what answers was the Bible - specifically, the book of Genesis - trying to answer. It is highly anachronistic of us to assume its answering the questions as we would formulate them in the 20th and 21st centuries.

The Bible is inspired and authoritative- but the question of what topics the various books and genres of the Bible are trying to address is another thing entirely. When we make the Bible (or a specific book of the Bible) into something it originally was not, then it is WE who are changing it, distorting the original intent God gave through the people and cultures he spoke through. Talk about messing with your intelligent design!

Part of the confusion relates to the question of how people understand the “intelligent design” option. If, by this we mean, God’s creative flare was somehow, mysteriously, involved in the process- sure, who wouldn’t opt for that? But, that’s not what Intelligent Design most often refers to. Intelligent Design is an argument put forward by a specific group of people (the Discovery Institute are front and center here) who are really only trying to clean up the original literal six-day Creation perspective enough - by slapping on a  new coat of paint and not much more -  as to make the argument more palatable for a 21st century audience. This group is certainly less than transparent in regards to their process, their goals, and their means.

What I opt for is plenty of mystery. Did God play a role in our development as a species? Yes, of course, as a follower of Jesus, I believe that. But I think it’s difficult (read: impossible) to separate what God did in the process from what the natural selection that took place. The two are intertwined in some mysterious, glorious, though sometimes messy, ways that we can't begin to fully understand.

But getting back to my original point- the Bible is only inspired and authoritative when applied to the kinds of questions it was trying to answer, the kinds of issues it was trying to address- and from within the genre it was originally written. For instance, when we think about the book of Genesis we would do well to remember that, for that Ancient Near Eastern audience, the question was not: how did God, step by step, according to 20th century standards, work out the complexities of the Big Bang, or something like that. But rather, is there one God about all other gods (the gods who were synonymous with the natural elements like water, wind, etc…)? And, perhaps even more importantly, is this one God trustworthy? Or does he randomly throw down lightning because we’ve crossed him in some utterly incomprehensible way? These are the kinds of questions being addressed in the Creation account- because these were the burning issues of the day.

If we don't pay attention to original intent and genre than we can turn the Bible into virtually anything we want to- as David Koresh and many others have done.

I guess my main caution would be- don't question your belief in the inspiration and authority of the Bible, rather, question your assumptions regarding the issues it’s really trying to address.

Holiness and Spiritual Discpline: Terms and a Set of Practices Underapplied in the Emerging Church?

In a few days I’m going to be interviewing Brian McLaren about, among other things, his new book Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices, which comes out later this month. Clearly this book marks a slight change in direction for Brian. Or perhaps, one could say, this book demonstrates Brian’s desire to speak, not just to global crises and potential resolutions, as he did in Everything Must Change, but also to the crises of the interior, personal kind. Of course, these crises are related. After all, we can only give away what we ourselves have become. Or to put it another way, as an old pastor of mine used to say, we can only grow the tree as high and wide as its roots are deep.

Speaking of the interior life, spiritual disciplines, etc… I have recently been thinking about holiness as it relates to the emerging church conversation. Holiness is the state or quality of being holy. And how does our friendly Merriam-Webster Dictionary define holy? Here are four of the most common uses of the term:

1: exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness
2: divine <for the Lord our God is holy — Psalms 99:9(Authorized Version)>
3: devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity <a holy temple> <holy prophets>
4: having a divine quality <holy love> b: venerated as or as if sacred <holy scripture> <a holy relic>

I suppose I am using the term as it applies to the quality of Christlikeness- in other words, taking on the character of God. I do sometimes grow a little concerned that we in the EC, in our pursuit of honesty, frankness, relevance, down-to-earthness, cultural congeniality, etc…, do sometimes underestimate the need to draw away, to be set apart in a very literal way (in terms of time and energy), so as to be set apart- in terms of holiness. And we cannot underestimate the degree to which Christianity is, as it was referred to in its earliest days, a way. And one has to practice this way of being in order to move forward in it. It is gleaned by no other means. There is no patch, be it a book, a podcast, or what have you, that can replace the behavioral practices needed to grow in Christlikeness. Of course, Jesus himself demonstrated this in that he often separated himself from others in order to draw near to God.

I know some people might find this term: holy, to feel a little religious. I can understand that. But I think we need not confuse holiness for self-righteousness, or pseudo-holiness. Holiness is a beautiful quality. The kind of quality that can be appreciated by people of all kinds- religious or not. In fact, if our holiness only seems attractive to the religious crowd, I’d question whether or not we’ve really found it- or if we’re even on the right track.

Right now, the emerging church conversation continues to be rather intellectually-oriented. This is not a bad thing. I’m not making a value judgment either way. It’s just the state of things as they now exist. And this should not be surprising. Coming out of the funk of modernism in its more extreme forms, I think an intellectual approach is necessary. Obviously, if you're read Precipice very much at all, you know that can I tend to pontificate intellectually with the best of them. However, it should never be at the sacrifice of our pursuit of holiness. And please, understand, I say this as someone who is certainly not very far along the holiness track myself. But I am far along enough to know that it is a worthy road- a vital direction to pursue if we are to be incarnations of the good news of Jesus and the Kingdom to the world.

Current from: April 2008 - March 2008 - February 2008 - January 2008 - December 2007 - November 2007 - October 2007 - September 2007 - August 2007 - July 2007 - June 2007 - May 2007 - March-April 2007 - January-February 2007 - November-December 2006 - July-October 2006 - May/June 2006 - April 2006 - March 2006 - February 2006 - January 2006 - December 2005 - Christmas Current 2005 - November 2005 - October 2005 - September 2005