A Precipice Re-design is in the Works

Those of you who are regulars to Precipice will probably know that we’ve been using the same web format (read: design), pretty much since the re-launch of Precipice two years ago. (For those of you who might not realize, in its first incarnation, Precipice ran for about a year in 2001-02). While I have changed the color scheme, usually to match the particular season we’re in, the site design has remained largely unchanged since it’s (re)inception in August of 2005.

Perhaps you, like I, have grown rather attached to the design we’ve been using over the last two years. The original design was crafted to be simple, yet attractive; bold, yet clearly straightforward enough so as not to take away from the written content, which of course, was always meant to be the bread and butter of the magazine. That initial design has served us well. When I look around the Web I think the “look and feel” of Precipice has held up nicely, and has helped to distinguish the site from a multitude of “cookie-cutter” formats (blogs for example) that tend to populate the virtual landscape.

For some people, design is nothing more than an afterthought, if it is even considered at all. For me, however, as Marshal McLuhan said years ago, the medium has always been part of the message. In other words, it seems to me that you lose something in the translation if you write about the things that are meant to be ultimately beautiful and meaningful- life in God for example- but do so in a medium that leaves much to be desired, in terms of aesthetic appeal. Those of you who are visual learners will have no problem whatsoever understanding what I’m saying! And even for those of you who aren't, doesn't the sheer, extravagent beauty of the natural world tell us something about God's desire to, at times, speak volumes, without even saying (or writing) a word?

Anyway, all that is to say, it won’t be long now before you will see a completely new design featured here at Precipice. After numerous stops and starts over the last year or so, we have finally come up with a design that, to me, easily trumps the original. With the aid of my extremely talented wife, Serena (who’s website design skills are on display, here), we’ve created a fresh, new website format, a tad more postmodern in flavor than the current incarnation, that still feels like the right fit for a content-driven website. By the way, the aforementioned telling beauty of God's creation will make up a major aspect of the new look; which only seems fitting for postmodern communication.

Curious as to what all this means exactly? Well, it won’t be long before you can find out. On October 15th we’ll be launching the re-design. So “come on back” for a fresh perspective on Precipice; just don’t forget to refresh your browser when you do so!




The Driscoll Effect: A Bitter Aftertaste of Modernism

Christianity Today recently ran an article about Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle. Driscoll is notoriously known for being a bit of a pastoral rebel, for being unconventional in his "means" while supposedly "orthodox" in his theology. In Donald Miller’s, Blue Like Jazz , Driscoll is the famous “cussing pastor”. It seems that when it comes to Driscoll, people either fully support him, or fully don’t. As the article points out from the outset, there are very few lukewarm reactions to Driscoll.

For my part, I would have to say I fit this mold. And on the hot to cold spectrum I certainly come down in arctic territory. My concern with Driscoll is not primarily his reformed theology- even if it’s not my particular cup of coffee. And my concern is not primarily with his “culture-relevant” attitude towards church- or specifically a church service. Rather, my concern is with his belief, seemingly fully imported from the modern era, that what matters is what you intellectually ascent to, as a set of ideas, rather than what kind of person you are, and become, through the process of spiritual (trans)formation.

The subtext, and thus premise, of the article about Driscoll is as such: “Love him or hate him, Mark Driscoll is helping people meet Jesus in one of America's least-churched cities.” To me, there are several problems with such a summary of Driscoll’s effect.

1.) There is no mention as to what kind of Jesus it is that Driscoll is introducing people to. Is it a Jesus made in his own image? Is it a Jesus who feels free to offend people, seemingly deliberately- so long as he holds the “right” intellectual perspectives about theology?

2.) Is the best method for reaching the unchurched of America’s least churched city to offer a brand of church service somewhat akin to the Jay Leno show- only with a stream of profanity that could never air on network television? In other words, is it possible that an unchurched audience just might respond to, and grow from, a church that focused more on subtance (i.e. spiritual formation), and less on slick?

I, and many others within Emerging circles, have launched many a critique against modernism- as an “ism”. But nothing comes across as more of a gross distortion of the gospel of the Kingdom than the idea that Christianity is really nothing more than an abstract ideology; an ideology somehow capable of being divorced from one’s own behavior.

If you have no idea what I’m talking about when it comes to Driscoll and his “behavior”, let me give you a brief recap. Number one, Driscoll swears. Now that in itself is not such a problem. To me the problem lies in the heart intention behind all the cussing. It seems that Driscoll is most ready to cuss when he has been specifically asked not to do so- even when preaching as a guest in another church body. Now why would someone do that? If it’s merely to shock- there is no need. The gospel is shock enough to our Western, consumerist, hyper-individualistic society.

Secondly, Driscoll has shown a real lack of charity in his rhetoric about homosexuality. I’m not talking about his views regarding homosexuality, but rather the crass way he goes about expressing them.

Thirdly, Driscoll not only holds very “conservative” views about women- especially when it comes to church leadership and such, but he is often percieved as being misogynistic in his comments and attitudes towards women. Things really got heated last year, for instance, when Driscoll claimed, in response to the Ted Haggard scandal, that there was a real problem with pastors’ wives not giving out enough sexually- because of a misplaced sense of “security” in their husband's obligation to fidelity. I know, just like you, I’m wondering, how was this outrageous comment even relevant to the Ted Haggard situation?

But I digress… My concern, again, is with this idea that one can somehow be excused of all sorts of unChristlike behavior- merely because one’s church attendance is swelling. Again, the question should be- swelling around what conceptions? Isn’t the issue of what we are growing just as important, dare I say more important, than how fast we’re growing it? Apparently not. At least for some of the folk coming from this particular stream of the reformed spectrum.

One comment near the end of this piece sums up the problem. Darrin Patrick, vice president of Acts 29, Driscoll’s church planting movement, was quoted as saying: "You can't escape your upbringing. Mark is a street fighter." That low view of spiritual transformation is more than puzzling, it’s troubling. Now Driscoll may be a comedian, Driscoll may be an entertainer, Driscoll may be charismatic. Yet, none of these descriptions ensure he is a good and gifted leader of disciples.

You can dress up fundamentalism, and you can slap on a fresh coat of postmodern paint over a rusty demeanor, but the tree is eventually known by its fruit- (which is primarily NOT growth in numbers). Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with churches that seek growth in numbers. My concern is simply with churches, or movements, that make this the primary goal, regardless of what cultural identity these numbers are galvanizing around.

Ultimately, my concern is not primarily even with Driscoll. Yes, I think he needs to grow up. And yes, I think he needs to receive the correction that’s being offered from numerous circles. But the chief problem, it seems to me, is with the church-growth culture that let Driscoll believe his approach was okay to begin with. Because really, isn’t there seriously something wrong when we let people believe that coming across as an egotistical, offensive, dismissive personality is no problem at all- provided that one can recite the “correct” abstract, conceptual creedal framework?

It seems to me that an accurate reading of the full breadth of Scripture tells us that, ultimately, a right reference to God can only come through relationship; real, substantial relationship with a person. Correct theology then is more like falling in love than anything else. And this begs the question: How can people fall in love with a Jesus whom we profess (and claim to reflect) while listening to us spewing, what is perceived as, venom from our tongues?




A Healthy Fear of God

Isn’t it interesting how, in Christian circles, someone can use a term or a phrase, because it is a common part of our vocabulary, and yet seem to defy the very meaning of that term or phrase? Sometimes this is a result of blatant hypocrisy- like a televangelist calling for “seed faith” when he’s really looking for money to buy a new Cadillac. More often than not however, I think this happens because we apply a term or a phrase, an exhortation if you will, in support of our underlying presuppositions, rather than as a litmus test to those presuppositions.

Take for instance the warning that one should “fear God”. In Proverbs we read that “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom”. Some people, wanting to avoid anything like “fright” when describing God, like to point out that “fear” here means “awe”. This is true, that connotation is certainly there. But I don’t think we can get around the fact that a real, healthy, appropriate dose of fright is involved as well. Not because God is a mean deity, but because He is God.

You know, realizing how the entire Cosmos was created by such a being should give one pause. I would say such knowledge should make one simultaneously secure, and just a little scared- in a respectful kind of way; in such a way as to never get too comfortable with one’s own sanctity, or even with one’s own nicely boxed conceptions of said God.

In his book, Searching for God Knows What, Donald Miller discusses this concept of “fearing God”.

A God who is that different, that other (from us), can tell you again and again He loves you and you are still going to be quite afraid, just because of what it feels like when you think about His nature.

And then Miller writes,

I wonder what it sounded like to God when Jerry Falwell went on television and said the reason the twin towers were hit by those planes was because there were homosexuals in the building. I wonder what kind of annoying squeak that was in God’s ear. I don’t think a person who makes statements like that fears God. I don’t think people like this respect God when he says to love your brother, love your enemy, turn the other cheek, don’t judge lest you be judged, be patient, be kind, hold your tongue and give every effort to keep the bonds of peace. I don’t think they actually fear Him or think He means what He says.

And isn’t that what fear - in part - means? That we take God seriously? That we act as if Jesus was serious when He said that it is those who hear and do what He teaches that are His family?

Again, as I said at the outset, it seems to me that if we are to take God’s “otherness” seriously, the first thing a healthy fear of God should make us do is prayerfully, scripturally, holistically consider the presuppositions which serve as the seed bed for our beliefs- about God, about ourselves, about others, and about Creation.




The Necessity of Kingdom-centric Imagination in America

Something I have noticed as an Emerging Christian in contemporary America is that I often find myself uncomfortable with the typical categories (both religious and socio-political) that are most often applied to those of Christian faith. Personally, I feel frustrated when people try and lump myself (or others) into easily defined, rigid, one-dimensional categories. Are you a liberal? Are you a conservative? Are you an Evangelical? Are you “Bible-believing”, etc. These kinds of questions and these kinds of labels are problematic- to say the least.

And not only do they fail to fit- more often than not, but they also contribute to a lack of imagination within the fabric of American Christianity. I focus on America here, not because I am nation-centric (I now live here, but was actually born in the UK and raised in Canada), but because the problem is most pronounced here. I do not remember the same narrow bands of definition existing to anything like the same degree in Canada.

Speaking of labels, and how Kingdom conviction can tend to bend them, blend them, transcend them, I’ve been enjoying re-reading Brian McLaren’s The Secret Message of Jesus. This book does an excellent job of addressing the degree to which Jesus’ message served as an alternative to everything that was available on the scene in first century Palestine. McLaren reminds us that there were several counterfutures, and related responses, offered by the various parties involved in the Jewish eschatological debate. McLaren writes,

There is the fight response of the Zealots (fight, rebel, terrorize), the flight response of the Essenes (isolate, evacuate, escape), and the blame response of the Pharisees (condemn, shame, avoid).

And then, paraphrasing the words of Jesus, McLaren reminds us that, despite these narrow possibilities,

 “Jesus enters with a creative future. He says, ‘Do not believe any of these people or follow them either in capitulation or in fight, flight, or blame. It is time to live in a radically new way- the way of the kingdom of God. Learn from me how to take this path- it’s the only way to avoid destruction.’”

Isn’t it interesting reading this passage (paraphrased as it may be) in the light of our current conversation? It helps us to see that perhaps Jesus was speaking of the bankrupt nature of the present socio-political-religious categories of His day – as they pertain to the hope for society, as opposed to individualistic concerns that relate to one's fate in the afterlife.

I think McLaren is dead on in assuming that much of Jesus’ message actually dealt with the “then and there” of his culture; which is to say that today, it speaks to the “here and now” of western society. In America, perhaps more so than in any other western nation, we need greater imagination, new Kingdom-centric models, to help lead us out of our present cultural malaise.

You know the expression, keep doing what you’ve always done and you’ll keep getting what you’ve always gotten. Haven’t we been brow-beaten by our present models enough to know that something fresh and imaginative is necessary? Especially if we hope to experience real, substantial, lasting change? Another phrase by another great author comes to mind here. Walter Bruggemann made a lasting impression on me when he spoke of the need for what he called “prophetic imagination”. I think that’s exactly what we need today. When you hear the term prophecy, perhaps you think of future-telling. Bruggemann reminds us that, in its original context, the term very often referred to the expression of counter-cultural, Kingdom-centric hope for a different way of life.



Current from: 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