Big Tent Christianity, a conference coming up in September has called for a synchroblog this week, addressing the following questions - What does “big tent Christianity” mean to you? What does it look like in your context? What are your hopes and dreams for the Church?
I have to say upfront that I was a bit taken back by the question. My first reaction is what other kind of Christianity is there? I truly don't understand how anyone can look at Jesus and see anything other than a big tent. As soon as I say that, I have to admit that many who call themselves followers of Jesus envision a very small tent with rigidly defined borders.
A few years ago in my denomination - American Baptist Churches, USA - there was a big discussion regarding whether the church is a bounded set or a centered set. The conservatives saw a bounded set wherein the members of the church fit clear parameters. They had to believe certain things, had to have experienced certain things, and need to have made specific commitments. If an individual fell short in any area, they were out. If congregations fudged on any area, they were out. Those left of center saw the church as a centered set with the person of Jesus as the focus. There was no list which one had to check off, only a relationship to Jesus to be lived. Individuals and congregations were more free to define that relationship within their context as their journeys led. The discussion has largely ended with an uneasy truce being made. The denomination has chosen a bounded set with less restrictive boundaries. Many conservatives are unhappy with the decision and one region withdrew from the denomination. For them the boundaries are too loose. Many liberals and progressives are equally unhappy, chaffing at any boundaries set by external authorities, and have sought new connections with more open groupings of churches such as the United Church of Christ and/or the Alliance of Baptists.
So what should a big tent Christianity look like? Some thoughts...
It will be different from place to place and time to time. Context is the key to incarnation and big tent Christianity is incarnational if it is anything.
Other words that are important for me are "welcoming," "compassionate," and perhaps most important of all, "humble."
It will be Big Tent both in terms of a welcome to a wide variety of people but also to a wild mix of ideas and questions. A few years ago we had an adult Sunday School class on the Baptist tradition where we wrote confessions of faith (we do not have creeds). One of the small groups wrote a confession that began, "All confessions of faith must be written in pencil." I like that a lot. It feels right to me.
The final descriptor that strikes me is, "difficult." To hold together a community of faith is difficult when there is no list of doctrines to which one must adhere, no enemies to revile, no list of do's and don'ts to which one must ascribe. Instead we have a common lord to follow and a common journey to walk. I believe that can be enough to hold us together... if we want to be held together. And I believe that is the only Church worth being held together in... and the only church worthy of the name, Christian.
Showing posts with label contextualization. Show all posts
Showing posts with label contextualization. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Monday, October 05, 2009
More about being Biblical
I have read that Christianity is the only major religion where the scriptures do not need to be read in the language of the founder. Think of Islam as an example. The Koran is only the word of Allah if it is read in Arabic... and indeed, it should be read aloud to be it's holiest. If it is translated into English or any other language, it is no longer the unadulterated Word of Allah.
That makes sense to me. Language is a way of conceptualizing the universe. The structure of the language both describes the universe and defines the way the individual can experience it. Last year I even heard a story on NPR about disappearing languages that mentioned a language that counts in both base 12 and base 20. Living in a culture that sees numbers in base 10, I automatically translate that idea into one that is completely foreign to them... or am just puzzled that "they" don't see the universe as it really is... base 10.
The semantic range of a word almost never exactly corresponds from one language to another. There is a reference that many pastors have on their shelves called The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament which tries to take important words in the Bible and show their semantic range. The word we translate as "salvation" from the Greek has an article some 70 pages long, explaining what it meant to those who used that term and thought in the original language. And you thought the Amplified Bible was tedious? The Muslims know, and rightly so, that once you translate the text is is not and cannot be the same. Translation requires interpretation. Let me give an example of that. There is a Greek word that is often translated servant - "diaconos." In the early church the term became a technical term, referring to a church officer. We transliterated it to "deacon." When translating, any time the translator comes across that word, s/he has to decide whether the word is referring to a servant or to a church officer. The translators of the KJV had a theological position that helped them. "Women cannot be deacons," they thought, so any time the word clearly referred to a woman, they always translated it as "servant." Their theology dictated the translation.
There were theological decisions made regarding which books would be included and which left out of the Bible. And different traditions disagreed as to which books belonged in which categories.
Finally, even if we agree which books are in and which are out and can make a "perfect" translation, we have literally thousands of manuscripts of the scriptural texts which often do not agree with one another. Those who say that the scriptures are "inerrant in their original autographs" are simply hedging their bets... they want to make a theological statement but it is meaningless. We do not and never will have the original autographs. Some fundamentalists have seen this for what it is and claim that God would not allow us to not have an inerrant word... so it must be the KJV!
OK, so what does this say to those of us who want to be "Biblical?" It tells us that the Christian scriptures are not documents written by the finger of God on stone. They are living words, meant to wrestled with in the context of the community of faith. They are not, God's instruction manual for human beings. They are the history of God's people struggling with their experience of God and trying to live lives of authentic faith in their times and cultures, reflecting both the best and the worst of human nature.
So, do I believe the Bible is true? Absolutely. Do I believe it is historical? Sometimes, but usually I think that is an irrelevant question. Do I believe it is inspired of/by God? Absolutely, but that never means dictated by God. Do I believe the Bible is central to Christian faith? Absolutely, but the Bible is not the object of our faith or devotion, that is Jesus, the Word.
That makes sense to me. Language is a way of conceptualizing the universe. The structure of the language both describes the universe and defines the way the individual can experience it. Last year I even heard a story on NPR about disappearing languages that mentioned a language that counts in both base 12 and base 20. Living in a culture that sees numbers in base 10, I automatically translate that idea into one that is completely foreign to them... or am just puzzled that "they" don't see the universe as it really is... base 10.
The semantic range of a word almost never exactly corresponds from one language to another. There is a reference that many pastors have on their shelves called The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament which tries to take important words in the Bible and show their semantic range. The word we translate as "salvation" from the Greek has an article some 70 pages long, explaining what it meant to those who used that term and thought in the original language. And you thought the Amplified Bible was tedious? The Muslims know, and rightly so, that once you translate the text is is not and cannot be the same. Translation requires interpretation. Let me give an example of that. There is a Greek word that is often translated servant - "diaconos." In the early church the term became a technical term, referring to a church officer. We transliterated it to "deacon." When translating, any time the translator comes across that word, s/he has to decide whether the word is referring to a servant or to a church officer. The translators of the KJV had a theological position that helped them. "Women cannot be deacons," they thought, so any time the word clearly referred to a woman, they always translated it as "servant." Their theology dictated the translation.
There were theological decisions made regarding which books would be included and which left out of the Bible. And different traditions disagreed as to which books belonged in which categories.
Finally, even if we agree which books are in and which are out and can make a "perfect" translation, we have literally thousands of manuscripts of the scriptural texts which often do not agree with one another. Those who say that the scriptures are "inerrant in their original autographs" are simply hedging their bets... they want to make a theological statement but it is meaningless. We do not and never will have the original autographs. Some fundamentalists have seen this for what it is and claim that God would not allow us to not have an inerrant word... so it must be the KJV!
OK, so what does this say to those of us who want to be "Biblical?" It tells us that the Christian scriptures are not documents written by the finger of God on stone. They are living words, meant to wrestled with in the context of the community of faith. They are not, God's instruction manual for human beings. They are the history of God's people struggling with their experience of God and trying to live lives of authentic faith in their times and cultures, reflecting both the best and the worst of human nature.
So, do I believe the Bible is true? Absolutely. Do I believe it is historical? Sometimes, but usually I think that is an irrelevant question. Do I believe it is inspired of/by God? Absolutely, but that never means dictated by God. Do I believe the Bible is central to Christian faith? Absolutely, but the Bible is not the object of our faith or devotion, that is Jesus, the Word.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
incarnation
The genius of Christianity is found in the incarnation. The love of God is most clearly seen and experienced when God puts on flesh and blood in Jesus and completely identifies with humanity.
The corollary of the incarnation is contextualization. Putting on flesh involves being found in a specific culture with a specific worldview and a way of experiencing the world that reflects that context. While Jesus experienced the world in his context, we experience Jesus in ours and we overlay him with our understandings and experiences. While some would argue that that moves us a step, or many steps, away from the historical Jesus, I think it is part of God's plan that we bring Jesus into our contexts.
My favorite Christmas carol is one that celebrates the way we contextualize Jesus. It is called Some Children See Him. It was written by Alfred Burt and Wihla Hutson in 1951. Burt wrote 15 carols that accompanied Christmas cards his family sent from 1942-1954.
My favorite recording of the carol was done by Stacy Sullivan. Take a listen to her version on her CD, Cold Enough to Snow. I cry every time I listen to it. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a video of her version.
Here's a video interpretation of the carol sung by James Taylor. You get a taste of the song even though the arrangement is a bit schmaltzy.
The corollary of the incarnation is contextualization. Putting on flesh involves being found in a specific culture with a specific worldview and a way of experiencing the world that reflects that context. While Jesus experienced the world in his context, we experience Jesus in ours and we overlay him with our understandings and experiences. While some would argue that that moves us a step, or many steps, away from the historical Jesus, I think it is part of God's plan that we bring Jesus into our contexts.
My favorite Christmas carol is one that celebrates the way we contextualize Jesus. It is called Some Children See Him. It was written by Alfred Burt and Wihla Hutson in 1951. Burt wrote 15 carols that accompanied Christmas cards his family sent from 1942-1954.
Some children see Him lily white,
the baby Jesus born this night.
Some children see Him lily white,
with tresses soft and fair.
Some children see Him bronzed and brown,
The Lord of heav'n to earth come down.
Some children see Him bronzed and brown,
with dark and heavy hair.
Some children see Him almond-eyed,
this Savior whom we kneel beside.
some children see Him almond-eyed,
with skin of yellow hue.
Some children see Him dark as they,
sweet Mary's Son to whom we pray.
Some children see him dark as they,
and, ah! they love Him, too!
The children in each different place
will see the baby Jesus' face
like theirs, but bright with heavenly grace,
and filled with holy light.
O lay aside each earthly thing
and with thy heart as offering,
come worship now the infant King.
'Tis love that's born tonight!
My favorite recording of the carol was done by Stacy Sullivan. Take a listen to her version on her CD, Cold Enough to Snow. I cry every time I listen to it. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a video of her version.
Here's a video interpretation of the carol sung by James Taylor. You get a taste of the song even though the arrangement is a bit schmaltzy.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Ouch
Churches walk a very fine line between being relevant to the culture and embracing it whole hog. Incarnation requires us to be relevant in the context we find ourselves but many of the values of the dominant culture are antithetical to the call of Jesus. If we do not speak the language of the culture and understand it, then we have nothing to say. At the same time, if we fail to be authentic to the values of Jesus in our context, we lose our credibility and damage the ministry of the church.
Sometimes, the line is really difficult to walk. I wonder when worship treads too close to entertainment or when church leaders become celebrities. At CDCC, we try to use media well, present music with quality, and I work hard to make my sermons engaging. I want to keep people's attention in a world where they are inundated with high production value entertainment. Running a church that speaks to this culture isn't cheap, especially in Santa Barbara. Money is an issue we cannot ignore but we must always be good stewards of the money we receive. And it is difficult to measure "success" outside of its cultural trappings.
Add to that a culture that has high expectations of the Church even as they ignore it. Folk in the broader culture expect churches of all institutions, to be authentic to the values we espouse. We become an easy target if we slip over the line even a little.
A friend shared this link to a youtube video that evidently came from an Australian television show called Chaser's War on Everything. It is a parody of a very large church in Australia with huge numbers of people, incredibly high production values, and more resources than many small countries in the developing world. I have no idea how fairly the parody reflects Hillsong, but it certainly hurts any of us in the institutional church who struggle with those lines. Evidently the perception of some in Australia is that Hillsong has crossed the line.
I have to say that I wrestled with whether or not I should post the video. I did laugh... and cringe as I watched it. Most of all though, I prayed... May God keep the Church of Jesus from becoming like this parody. I posted it as a reminder to myself...
Sometimes, the line is really difficult to walk. I wonder when worship treads too close to entertainment or when church leaders become celebrities. At CDCC, we try to use media well, present music with quality, and I work hard to make my sermons engaging. I want to keep people's attention in a world where they are inundated with high production value entertainment. Running a church that speaks to this culture isn't cheap, especially in Santa Barbara. Money is an issue we cannot ignore but we must always be good stewards of the money we receive. And it is difficult to measure "success" outside of its cultural trappings.
Add to that a culture that has high expectations of the Church even as they ignore it. Folk in the broader culture expect churches of all institutions, to be authentic to the values we espouse. We become an easy target if we slip over the line even a little.
A friend shared this link to a youtube video that evidently came from an Australian television show called Chaser's War on Everything. It is a parody of a very large church in Australia with huge numbers of people, incredibly high production values, and more resources than many small countries in the developing world. I have no idea how fairly the parody reflects Hillsong, but it certainly hurts any of us in the institutional church who struggle with those lines. Evidently the perception of some in Australia is that Hillsong has crossed the line.
I have to say that I wrestled with whether or not I should post the video. I did laugh... and cringe as I watched it. Most of all though, I prayed... May God keep the Church of Jesus from becoming like this parody. I posted it as a reminder to myself...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
