Emergence = Synthesis (Where East Meets West)

Of late we’ve been discussing Eastern Orthodoxy here at Precipice. From my perspective, while the Orthodox Church is a growing ecclesial movement, it is still rather under-represented in terms of western conceptions of faith and church. And, for that matter, it is also under-represented in the EC conversation.

In my mind however, it is a movement that must be reckoned with. I say that because Eastern Orthodoxy really does represent an alternative view of Christian faith. It would be shortsighted- to say the very least, for those of us in the emerging church conversation not to explore the ecclesial options available in Orthodoxy.

Daniel B. Clendenin, a graduate staff member for InterVarsity at Stanford University, wrote an interesting article titled, “Why I am Not Orthodox” a few years ago. The article’s title is a little misleading. The article is not a point for point argument against Orthodoxy. Instead, it’s more of an introduction to Orthodoxy, in comparison to Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.

What the article does well is get to the heart of the differences between these three streams of Christianity. Clendenin writes,

The late Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff once remarked that the ultimate conflict between the Orthodox East and the Latin West, both Catholic and Protestant, resided in two different ideas about tradition. From the Orthodox perspective, both Catholics and Protestants seek to ground theological authority in an external norm. In Catholicism this external dogmatic authority resides in the teaching magisterium of the church as expressed in the primacy and infallibility of the papacy. In Protestantism there arose the doctrine of sola scriptura.

In contrast, Orthodoxy offers a view of theological authority that is internal and pneumatic rather than external and dogmatic. The Spirit of God himself, realizing the sacramental presence of Christ in the church, speaks to us in tradition. Thus Georges Florovsky once referred to tradition as "the witness of the Spirit."

What is interesting about Orthodoxy, as an alternative to Catholicism- and its offspring, Protestantism, is that it represents not just an alternate understanding of church, but an alternate understanding of the very nature in which truth is communicated- as is indicated in the quote above. In many ways, Orthodoxy is based on an alternate paradigm of reality.

For those (in the Evangelical wing of Protestantism primarily) who believe that the emerging church movement is merely seeking for the “latest hip ecclesial craze” rather than something enduringly meaningful, Eastern Orthodoxy is a rich reference and counterpoint. Because not only is Eastern Orthodoxy distinctly different than evangelical Protestantism, it is also very much its elder.

In many ways (for myself anyway) the emerging journey is an attempted reconciliation between Eastern and Western conceptions of Christian faith. Because of mutual entrenchment and commitment to their respective paradigms, neither the Catholic/Protestant or Orthodox wings of the Church are likely to empower this reconciliation. But the emerging conversation could champion this cause. And, while this conception is still forming in my heart and mind, it feels to me that this kind of synthesis is the very shift that the emerging church conversation is dancing about in anticipation.





On the Definition of Church, Claims of Discrimination, and Media Spin

This week the media around the western world raised serious hoopla regarding Pope Benedict’s comment that churches existing outside of the Roman Catholic communion are either “defective”, or “not true churches” at all. In my opinion this is all “much ado about nothing”.

I know that in a politically charged and politically correct climate such commentary is considered “news”; simply because it is so contrary to typical opinion. Many people, especially in the secular world, although plenty of Protestants too, believe such a comment to be outrageous. Why? Well, because the setting apart of Catholic churches from other churches is considered a form of “judging” – a big no-no in politically correct circles. In PC culture, this kind of action welcomes a discrimination lawsuit- or at least, dreams thereof.

Of course, what the Pope said really is nothing new. By definition, the Catholic Church is only going to recognize the catholicity of Catholic churches. Is this news? No, it’s merely a re-statement of what has been the official position of the Roman Catholic Church for the last 1500 years or so.

The Pope sees himself as the head of the Church because he can trace back a line to Peter, the first Bishop of Rome. This apostolic succession can also be claimed by the Eastern Orthodox. The Pope acknowledges this fact and therefore calls the Orthodox “defective” (because they don’t recognize the Pope as a reigning power) rather than denying them “true church” status altogether.

All I’ll say on this matter is that Jesus himself said that God could rise up sons of Abraham from stones - if necessary. That seems to imply that succession alone is a guarantee of nothing. At least that’s my take.

In the end it is a divergent self-understanding and definition of “church” that is at play here; not a case of egregious discrimination. The question is not whether Protestant churches are part of the Roman Catholic communion because, clearly, they are not. The question is whether or not the Pope’s claim that “apostolic succession alone creates the foundation for Christian communion”- is valid.

Of course, the media’s not spinning this matter like this. It’s much more inflammatory and headline-grabbing to write” Pope: Other Churches Not True Churches” without providing any historical and ecclesial context.

Ah, the sound-bite culture. Don’t you love it?





Following Jesus (Despite Divergent Data-Sets)

Politically, culturally (and religiously) we are in a unique and often bizarre time- at least here in the United States. The state of common knowledge (and therefore for the most part, of opinion) is dependant on whatever particular data set one subscribes to. Now, of course, this is a bit of a proverbial loop. People will consciously and subconsciously seek out the data set that tends to support their own particular worldview. And this of course serves to confirm the beliefs one already possesses.

Take for example what is commonly referred to as the global climate crisis. One group of Americans believes very strongly that we are approaching a near catastrophe due to the global warming activities of human beings. Another set of people believes wholeheartedly that most of this global warming talk is, excuse the term, “overheated”. In other words, the data set they subscribe to suggests that propaganda, and not strong scientific evidence, is behind all the hoopla.

My point is not to prove either one of these opinions as right- or wrong (although it seems prudent to err on the side of caution if nothing else). The point is not that divergent opinion exists, but rather than divergent data sets do. And by their very nature these data sets are called upon as if they represent the sum total of relevant, available information.

Considering our present state of spin, with these divergent data set references, it becomes awfully difficult to see the forest for the trees. And no one likes a perpetual state of cognitive dissonance. In fact, we human beings do everything we can to avoid such dilemmas. And that’s why people tend to subscribe to one particular political persuasion/infrastructure/data set over another. To do otherwise is libel to cause many a migraine and many a confused individual.

But what is a sincere, committed follower of Jesus of Nazareth to do? Its one thing to study the words and works of Jesus and then respond to one data set. But its another thing entirely to try and find a Christlike response to multiple data sets! And what of two different Christ-followers responding to separate, mutually exclusive data sets? Its not surprising that both might look at the other like some sort of betrayer, sell-out, etc. What else can one expect when divergent data sets are in play?

I think it is this confusion- in part- that leads to the opting out of the political process by so many sincere, devoted Christians. Even in Evangelical circles this multiple data set phenomena is a very real factor. Listen for instance to James Dobson and Jim Wallis and you’ll no doubt marvel at the fact that they live in the same country, the same world- and supposedly subscribe to the same Bible as a reference point.

When the reference points are supposedly the same how can the two sets of priorities prove so insanely divergent? Well, again, it comes down to data-sets. And the tendency for human beings to seek out confirmation for what they already believe.

It seems that the only way out of this quandary is to newly, freshly embrace the unknown. To try and create a counter-cultural movement that seeks to search out information that may in fact disprove pre-existing suppositions. I’m speaking of a modern-day acting out of Francis of Assisi’s call for us to “seek first to understand (the other)”. Assuming on the other hand that the opposite side is simply wrong, or insincere, or both, is really not an option. Not if we are to actively pursue the reconciliation Jesus called us to in the spirit of the Kingdom.





Pope John-Paul II: A Counter-Modernist Revolutionary

If one were to compile a list of the most influential Christian figures from the 20th century, one would be hard-pressed to find a more prominent individual than Pope John Paul II. And I say this not because he was the Bishop of Rome, and therefore the leader of hundreds of millions of Catholics across the globe, but rather because his character, his direct impression upon the world- as a person- was so great.

Just recently I have been re-acquainted- and in some ways more personally introduced to- John Paul II, through his writings in Crossing the Threshold of Hope. This is a book that I have considered reading for years now, yet somehow never quite got to. That changed last week when I came across it in my local library- yet again. This time I picked it up.

For those of you who haven’t read Crossing the Threshold of Hope, the book is set up in a question and answer format. In fact, the contents of this book arose out of a proposed interview between John Paul II and a writer named Vittorio Messori (is that a great Italian name or what?) When the Pope’s schedule became too busy to allow for a face to face interview, John Paul decided to answer the questions on paper instead. Eventually that material turned into this book.

When some think of the Church of Rome they associate it with backwards dogma and ancient, overly-worn conceptions of reality. Indeed some see the Church of Rome as existing in its own little (or perhaps not so little) world- cut off from the realities of the 21st century. When one reads the responses offered by John Paul II in this book however, it is difficult to maintain that stereotype.

Here is a man who is unquestionably familiar with modern, as well as ancient thought. His rich, deep, well-read understanding of the philosophical underpinnings behind society’s contemporary cultural milieu is expansive. Not only did he not avoid trying to understand others beliefs (whether they be other religions, or atheistic, sate-first constructs as was in place in his native Poland) but he actually craved to interact with them. In that sense, he is about the furthest thing from a fundamentalist as you can imagine.

For those of us caught up in the Emerging Church conversation John Paul II is also an ally in his compelling, telling critique of the Enlightenment experiment. He writes:

According to the Enlightenment mentality, the world does not need God’s love. The world is self-sufficient. And God, in turn, is not, above all else, Love. If anything, He is intellect, an intellect that eternally knows. No one needs his intervention in the world that exists, that is self-sufficient, that is transparent to human knowledge, that is ever more free of scientific mysteries, that is ever more an inexhaustible mine of raw materials for man- the demigod of modern technology. This is the world that must make man happy.

Christ instead says to Nicodemus: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish” (cf. Jn 3:16). In this way Jesus makes us understand that the world is not the source of man’s ultimate happiness. Rather, it can become the source of his ruin. This world which appears to be a great workshop in which knowledge is developed by man, which appears as progress and civilization, as a modern system of communications, as a structure of democratic freedoms without any limitations, this world is not capable of making man happy.

Well said.

While John Paul II might not have considered himself a post-modern individual, I certainly think he would have been comfortable with the term, counter-modern. And in that sense he probably had more in common with Emerging Church interests than one might first imagine.

In another passage in Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul echoes another concern of the Emerging Church crowd, namely that truth be understood as experience, rather than merely as a legal category belonging to one particular religion. Indeed, John Paul II is quite open about his belief that truth exists in other religions; and not just by chance, but actually by the mysterious action of the Holy Spirit working throughout the world:

…The Holy Spirit works effectively even outside the visible structure of the Church, making use of these very “semina Verbi”, that constitute a kind of common soteriological root present in all religions.

I have been convinced of this on numerous occasions, both while visiting the countries of the Far East and while meeting representatives of those religions, especially during the historic meeting at Assisi, we found ourselves gathered together praying for peace.

Thus, instead of marveling at the fact that Providence allows such a great variety of religions, we should be amazed at the number of common elements found within them.

John Paul finishes this point by touching on faith in Christ as being an interior conversion, rather than a merely outward verbal confession. He writes, “In those regions (the continent of Asia), many accept Him and many more have an implicit faith in Him.”

Earlier on in this same chapter John Paul also touches on the common EC concern that Christianity, as a religion, is so often associated with colonialism, Empire, and the blatant westernization of other cultures; which of course has little to do with the actual sharing of Jesus with such peoples. Speaking of the experience of Gandhi, John Paul II writes,

Mahatma Ghandi, Indian and Hindu, pointed this out many times, in his deeply evangelical manner. He was disillusioned with the ways in which Christianity was expressed in the political and social life of nations.

Pope John Paul goes on to ask,

Could a man who fought for the liberation of his great nation from colonial dependence accept Christianity in the same form as it had been imposed on his country by those same colonial powers?



Current from: 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