The Explorer’s Way of Discipleship

 In the face of the failure in the West of an anthropocentric “Gospel” which is a passive and consumer-based offer of “betterment” I am excited to put forward “The Explorer’s Way of Discipleship” which is theocentric, active, creative and “generative in its theology, and which embraces a living discipleship of transformation that can change all our lives.

BY CHRISTOPHER MACDONALD, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

I was shocked to learn in one of my last seminary classes that, seriously, the history of theology records that about 95% of theological writings have been written in reaction to or against something seen as harmful.  That means theology, By necessity, has been dominated by a negative polemic – always been framed as “against” this or that – and this is the way we have come to learn how to teach.

I am not going to suggest that this has not been necessary on many occasions, but it explains why we possess so little truly positive theology that is creative, exploratory and whimsical. It is why we don’t have a line of folk waiting to suit up as Explorers.

Lest I fall into the same trap, I am choosing to follow Focus Point Four in this paper and work off a “generative theology” that is creative, open, exploratory, and deeply biblical. It is time we got a grip and started to move forward in faith, hope and love.

To jump ahead and explain “generative theology” a bit. It is simply’ a theology based in agape (gift) love which is tethered directly to the cross of Christ as serious disciples but also but also free within His living Lordship and the Holy Spirit to explore the full gamut of Biblical Truth. As it is based in Good News that reconciles, it is creative and hopeful and carries with it disciplines that outwardly-imposed morality can never match. It is not based in criticising or being against others though it may find lines of clear disagreement and departure. It seeks peace and to serve through Art and Word. It looks for connections that are real and grounded in scripture, in nature and in relationship.

The word “generative’” points to its creativity but should not be mistaken to say that it is generating a whole new fresh theology or theologies. Rather it is finally mining those rich corridors of theological ore which have been available all along but have been neglected in our seemingly unending need to tell other people where they are “wrong.” It is the unexplored country of “rightness” and beauty which scripture has always been the sole repository of. I will return to its beauty later in this presentation; but hopefully, all that proceeds will be “generative.”

FOCUS ONE:CHRIST THE CENTER (THEOCENTRIC OVER ANTHROPOCENTRIC WORLDVIEW)

It seems that somewhere along the way ( I am guessing the Enlightenment) we shifted or adopted a larger anthropocentric world-view. So much so we can hardly see that it has become our sole way of perception and our reference point. But scripture presents us with a theocentric (in many cases more specifically Christocentric) world-view. How might that deeply effect the ways we perceive and interpret the world? What if this is, in fact, much closer to reality than any of the myriad of anthropocentric views?

A simple example from the Gospels would be Jesus’ refrain “you have heard it said…but I say to you…” (and the contrasts put forward) and His teachings on the Kingdon of God” in direct contrast with earthly kingdoms.

I would ask the reader to re-read the Gospels and ask honestly if they present a theocentric or anthropocentric worldview; and if the latter, how much are we missing by not adopting the same?

Isn’t it possible that our profound unhappiness, emptiness and even confusion in the Church isn’t just a by-product of our stepping into the central place?. Could we not all relax and more easily “accept and celebrate” our diversity of we located ourselves around a great rim whose spokes all led back to one core Center which was Christ Himself?

I have watched while large denominations have had “Re-Imagining God” conferences. While it sounds mildly hip. isn’t one core point that the God who is “other” chose to reveal God’s own Self in a way we could understand?  Isn’t “re-imagining” God while God is attempting to clearly communicate God’s own Self really at cross purposes?

And God’s attempt has been by becoming not just sympathetic- but actually by becoming one of us in all ways even gestating in a womb for nine months.

Of course more than this is revealed as well. God in Christ is revealed as the Center of not only Creation at its inception, but also currently (Colossians 1:15-23). He is also revealed far more as “Lord” than “Savior” – and important view as that is.that possibly explains why St. Paul would “bring every thought captive” to Him (2 Corinthians 10). There is no quarter given to an anthropocentric Gospel or even that general worldview. God does not exist for us; we exist and find our being in God.

Jesus wants to be the Center and, indeed is so while we are not. He said:

“Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matthew 11:28-30)

FOCUS TWO: TRANSFORMATION OVER A “BETTERMENT GOSPEL

Our crisis of theology and leadership has to do with our confusion over who we are, where we are going, and the nature of the “Good News.”

Doesn’t the Gospel, at its core, comes with an offer of rescue? Is there really any real talk in Jesus or any of the Apostles about “betterment” of our current situation and to somehow “Christianize” our worldly way of doing life? It seems to me rather that we are the Titanic and there will be no betterment of this ship only a variety of costly rescue and salvage operations meant to get as many people to safety as possible. A program of human betterment as the essential Gospel is like rearranging deck chairs on that tragic ship. It demonstrates a profound confusion over the state of affairs, where we are headed (for they would simply improve life on the boat and leave it at sea) and the nature of our passage (temporary).

Jesus, Paul and John never talk about “improvement,” only being “transformed.” Metamorphoses – the taking of us as one thing and transforming us into something different…

Rescue must come first. It helps if you have some idea of what you have been rescued from but it is not a requirement.

Jesus, Paul and John never talk about “improvement,” only being “transformed.” Metamorphoses – the taking of us as one thing and transforming us into something different is what they speak of.  St. John says,

See what kind of love the Father has given us so that we might be called children of God—and we are. Therefore the cosmos does not know us, because it did not know him. 2Beloved ones, now we are children of God, and what we shall be has not yet become apparent. We know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3:1-3) [1]

Paul speaks of this transformation using the same word Matthew uses for transfiguration:

Therefore I implore you, brothers, by God’s mercies, to present your bodies as a living, holy, acceptable sacrifice to God, your rational worship; And do not be configured to this age, but be transformed by renewal of the intellect, so you may test the will of God, which is good and acceptable and perfect. (Romans 12;1-2) [2]

 

2018-04-13 02.09.02-2

Text-explorative related candles custom made weekly. First-Century oil lamp replica.

Here the contrast is specifically between a stylish “betterment” (the Greek word is a form of schema from which we get schematic, and a substantial inner transformation which requires one to place one’s whole self at God’s disposal (v. 1) as a means of personal existential sacrifice. This is said to be “transfiguring.”

On some level, we all know this is true and possibly just avoid Jesus’ words about “taking up your cross” to follow Him. We fail to see that this transformative way of life is really the only avenue open that breeds freedom and life. “Amen, amen, I tell you, unless the grain of wheat falling to the ground dies, it remains alone; but if it dies it bears plenteous fruit.” (John 12:24)[3]

Amid a subtle American prosperity Gospel that is repackaged in a stunning variety of ways and churches which choose to only offer principle-driven ways of personal “betterment”, we should note the decline of the Church in the West. It is as if by trying to compete as a Consumer product “Gospel” ceases to truly be vibrant “Good News” at all and just blends in with infomercials and the mass variety of other betterment products available to Americans with a disposable income, Suddenly Christianity is a personal “for me” investment not a calling and a relationship. You can see why it lapses into a kind of slow killing off of faith.

Isn’t the call to active discipleship (Students or Explorers for Christ in a school of transformation) much more apt to bring real change, enliven real faith and move people out of the roles of passive church consumers to active transformative life in Christ? A Student/Learner or Explorer is an active Disciple.

FOCUS THREE: DEPTH EXEGESIS/EXPLORATION OVER THE PASSIVE VIEWER CONSUMER MODEL

Jesus spent more time discipling His close group of followers than he did preaching, healing or doing anything else during His three years of public ministry. And through that discipling the world was changed. Aren’t we doing the opposite – selling Christian experiences like something you can buy in bulk down at “Christco in a 5 gallon drum via our pre-packaged theologies, betterment books and programs for “successful Christian living?”

Does Jesus present Gospel in this way or through enigmatic parables that challenge? Does Paul offer such a slick package or careful and heartfelt instruction meant to grow men and women up into maturity (Ephesians 4:11-17)

Megachurches are set up to accommodate mass audiences who will sit and passively watch a presentation. A few hours later can anyone recite the real content of the message or just the title?  It is a passive model – like television where the only relevant question is “did you like it?”

The Problem with passive viewership and consumer religion is that it leaves people unchanged and in many cases actually inoculated to transformation.

In contrast, an interactive, dialogical and immersive exploration of biblical texts and worship combined with active discipleship cannot help but begin to change lives. As Mike Breen points out “Most of us have become quite good at the church thing. And yet, disciples are the only thing that Jesus cares about, and it’s the only number that Jesus is counting.” (Building a Discipling Culture) .

In our latest active study: Adventures with Doctor Luke: Middle Eastern Parables and Narratives of Jesus, we employ a dynamic format built for exploring the text in an open yet also disciplined fashion. Sticking to Middle Eastern (Hebraic) peasant roots, more technical notes on the text are sent out a few days in advance so we are not bogged down in the minutiae of language studies or spend all our time on Hebrew poetic form when we really want to get to what is being said in the text.

I act as a facilitator attempting to draw out as many comments from each Explorer as possible in each session of our “micro-exegesis.” I make sure to include quieter members of the group by asking questions or having them be the readers.

Participants are not only learning the Gospel of Luke over 15 weeks, they are also learning how to use the direct tool of biblical interpretation and how to think biblically while they explore.

There is always an immersive/interactive element. Examples can be found in the chart below for weeks 2-6.

WEEK 2        LUKE 7:36-50           RECLINING AT TABLE (MIDDLE EASTERN MEAL DURING STUDY
WEEK 3        LUKE 10:25-37         BANDAGE IMAGINED WOUND AFTER OIL AND WINE APPLIED
WEEK 4        LUKE 10:38-11:13     BREAD, EGG AND FISH BEHIND THE CURTAIN AS GIFT
WEEK 5        LUKE 12:13-21          GAMESHOW: “O MAN!”
WEEK 6        LUKE 12;22-39        ART PROJECT: LILLIES OF THE FIELD

Naturally, in such an open (but guided) format, theological and philosophical life questions arise which tempt the group to stray from the textual study. In this case, anything major is put on reserve for “Round Two” discussions after the exegetical study of the narrative. Parable or both has been concluded.

The study itself is scheduled each week for one hour only so as to not be burdensome, but Expolorers have ritually chosen to expand the time to three to four hours of spirited group exploration. I attribute much of this directly to the participatory and non-passive nature of the format.

It should also be noted that such a study method places exegesis and biblical studies prior to theology (horse firmly before all carts).

In our study time we are simply free to follow the text wherever they go  “come what may” – not in subjectivity, but rather against the firm bedrock of scholarship and embedded in 1st Century studies that keep the study contextualized.

One student., commenting on the team effort, said “I really feel like an Explorer!” And as every “disciple” is a “student of Jesus” we want to foster this reality.

FOCUS FOUR: GENERATIVE THEOLOGY

Taking direct cues from artist and theologian Makoto Fujimura (The Brehm Institute/Fuller Seminary) and his book Culture Care, I saw that the same crises that happened in the Arts under Modernity had struck Theology at the same time as well.  It was just that this last blow, starting at the turn of the last Century all but extinguished any fresh theology from consideration. It was either being deconstructed  and reinterpreted in a culture of Skepticism that reduced it to a bland liberal moralism; or it was being held hostage by “Funda-gelical” reactionaries whose dominant paradigms involved fear and power. In every case it all goes hand in hand with a deeply anthropocentric world-view and then attempting to compensate for that loss via creating consumer religion.

Fujimura has envisioned a way out of the tragedy of Modernity in his work through “Generative Art.” Given the close parallels and root disease for both the Arts and Theology, I saw no reason that  “Generative Theology” would not also be possible.

What does that term mean? A creative/explorative and generative theology is 1) free to proclaim prophetically while being faithful to the biblical witness and 2) does not jettison what is valuable in any of the work which has been done via the previous approach as if a new vision for theology can be done in a vacuum or is the end-all and be-all.

That also means it is more than a peace-at-any-cost ecumenicism. It truly sees all three major branches of the Church as common heritage and currently as One Body. Expolorers are free to draw from the entire catalog of Church history and should. This is unprecedented.

Does it mean we should not be on guard or there is no place for polemics or apologetics? Of course not. But let’s no longer be limited to only doing those things or thinking that is our only way of operating.

In searching my mind for theologians in my lifetime who are, or were Generative theologians the only person who truly comes to mind is Thomas  Merton. One can argue that C.S. Lewis – when not doing apologetics- was also doing Generative work in both his fiction and in books like Letters to Malcolm Chiefly on Prayer and The Weight of Glory.)  But really it was Merton who chose new themes to write on and explore which were 1) not against anyone, and 2) were not polemics or apologetics (or even a practical guide to a way of life).

Generative Theology would produce those books – like the new ones on Christ’s glory or on the Great Christological Hymn and how it might be connected with quantum physics as well as the search for human meaning. And a new generation of commentaries not adjudicated by immediate American concerns or reduced to pragmatic “principles” (I call this homogenization) for use as consumer products. Theological pursuits not determined solely by what is politically en vogue, but which can draw from the seemingly inexhaustibly suggestive nature of the 66 books we hold sacred.

It is here that the word generative once again becomes important. Just as God is to be worshiped for God’s own sake, so great theology is to be done because it is true and it is at the core of being human to explore and document the full range of human experience. This theological expression should not be dominated by a theology primarily “against.” but be essentially a theology “for” especially as the “Good News” it is at the core of that theology. That it retains an edgy polemic against falsehood is, of course, necessary. The character and witness of the New Testament demonstrate this, but it is not all consuming leading to the myopia and hair-splitting we have currently come to.

The summary call is to healthy discipleship as life-long learner/explorers of our living Lord. Let uus no long be derailed or distracted from our ciore cource materials in the Word of God but remain open to how God speaks through nature and one another dynamically through His living Holy Spirit. With Christ ever as the Center of attention things are kept both loyal and in balance. Seep roots can grow and richer soil be cultivated for the Word to grow.

We will find that people never did want to be entertained – not really. What they wanted was something meaningful to do and a sense of calling. As such they will be willing to give up the tricks and treats of Consumer Religion easily in favor of active discipleship that is purpose-filled, And you will see the grip of life-long sins weaken not through some dead moralizg (which happens to strengthen them in most cases) but rather because people will have a sense of the reality of being transformed into something new, not just briefly morally improved or made “better.”

Lastly a word for the bored and there are millions of you out there simply bored to tears. Exploring a Universe where Christ is the Center and doing generative theology is truly new country to explore/ Think of going to an Explorer’s Group that is not only not like some social obligation but where every week you – as a group – uncover new things about God and the Universe – things that directtly inpact your life.

That is what happens in our Adventures with Doctor Luke or C.S. Lewis’ The Four Loves  studies. I may facilitate bit I doubt I speak up more than 20-25 percent of the time. The rest is drawing out the best work and thoughts from the class itself as we explore together.

UPCOMING CLASSES

God in the Dock (C.S. Lewis Book study) Summer 2018

Gospel of John: Book of Signs: Fall 2018

New Seeds of Contemplation (Book Study) “Morning with Thomas Merton” TBD

 

 

 

 

1] THE NEW TESTAMENT: A TRANSLATION BY DAVID BENTLY HART (KINDLE LOCATIONS 10762-10765). YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS. KINDLE EDITION.
[2] IBID., (KINDLE LOCATIONS 7065-7068). YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS. KINDLE EDITION.
[3] IBID., (KINDLE LOCATIONS 4717-4718). YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS. KINDLE EDITION.
 [4] F.F. BRUCE REMARKS “THIS IS ONE OF THE GREAT CHRISTOLOGICAL PASSAGES OF THE NT, DECLARING AS IT DOES OUR LORD’S DIVINE ESSENCE, PRE-EXISTENCE, AND CREATIVE AGENCY. YET, HIGH AS THE CHRISTOLOGY IS, IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ORIGINAL TO PAUL HIMSELF; BUT RATHER PART OF WHAT HE “RECEIVED” AS PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN TEACHING.”
[5] BECKER, ERNEST THE DENIAL OF DEATH,. FREE PRESS 1975
Advertisements

On Cemetary, er Seminary

American Baptist Seminary of the West.

American Baptist Seminary of the West.

When best friend Scott Mitchell used to come back through Sacramento from Princeton Seminary we would stay up late arguing. I couldn’t understand exactly why he was paying big bucks to have his faith ritually shredded by rabid skepticism. My argument was pretty much “would you go to a school to learn English literature where the professor’s actually hated Shakespeare?”

We got through it (the beer helped – plus good humor and a somewhat undying devotion to one another).

Over the years, although never the least bit “fundamentalist,” I still had some vestiges of self-righteousness to shake off – and that happened in the late 80s.

Did I say “shake-off?” Oh…I miss-spoke.

“Stripped off” – like thick skin off a body would be more apropos.

Years later I would encourage my ex-wife to go to seminary in Berkeley – to the GTU. I knew she had a fine mind for theology and would do well. She did well but somehow in the process decided God no longer exists.

She is quite matter of fact about this now. I think she looks at me like someone in some infantile stage who will one day outgrow a “phase.” Jung now reigns supreme.

Okay.

Me? I feel no need to address this at all. It would be like her disbelieving that Scott Mitchell exists. I don’t need to convince anyone. I do think it curious that one goes to school to study God (“theology”=”the study of God”) and one comes away with a degree in God’s non-existence. Do you really graduate? (Shouldn’t you anti-graduate? And shouldn’t they tell you ahead of time that it’s essentially a waste of your time and money?)

It is from such stories (and they are legion) that the term “Cemetary” has been applied pejoratively to seminaries. It is where you go to kill and bury your faith.

Really? Seriously?

Well no one really starts that way I do not think. But some professors, it seems, take it as a sort of mission to “disillusion” (and that can be a good thing if you take it at the root meaning “dis -illusion”) their students – many of which come from highly coddled church environments filled with as much christenized mythology and nonsense as they do actual real information.

These students may come from a Christian High School, then College believing in a 7,000 year-old Earth – that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally (that there are no literary forms to be taken as poetry, or metaphor etc…) and they have been force-fed a brand of  Americanized Fundagelicalism that merges power, money and even splices America itself into Biblical prophecy.

Oh my…

imageThey are not taught to think critically (like how can Moses have written the first five books of the Bible when they record his own death? Also, isn’t that prior to written language historically?)

Well depending on what institution they go to it it is just like shooting ducks in a small barrel – only the ducks fly in and pay to be there.

And most ducks come unarmed.

My Experience

I have decided advantages.

I’ve never been an unarmed anything. I was deadly even at 21 at CSUS. In fact I terrorized my teachers and made them quack.

But that was Sac State. Not exactly top notch scholars. I got into it with the New Testament Professor on the authorship of Ephesians. He came at me with a knife..I came back with a 14 page annotated summary of twenty-two scholars work on authorship that landed him in another time zone (er, bazooka).

In my current situation no one would be impressed. Maybe a “okay…and?”

Not here  I take serious issue with some of the assumptions that are being made prior to investigation. They effect the outcome of the research. In my last paper, the tacit assumption that the psalm (89) was a “psalm of lament” with a rhetorical argument was weak in my view. I made my case directly from the text.

[But I realized later I could have strengthened it with examples of strong “Psalms of Lament” that were not “disarmed” by subordinate considerations like in Psalm 89.. Oh well…]

I want to make it clear that I do not identify with either “Liberals” or “Conservatives” theologically. In both cases it seems to me you have to sign-off on party-line items that require you check your brain at the door.

Not on this suit.

The-Fugitive-Tommy-Lee-Jones-I-Dont-Care

“I REALLY don’t care.”

When it comes to issues like the “inerrancy of scripture”, I see that litmus test as a thoroughly modernist construct meant to divide and miss the point of the gravity of scripture as different than any other “Word” with which we have to do. When questions like that crop up I keep seeing myself in that tube with Harrison Ford in The Fugitive as Tommy Lee Jones where Ford keeps jappering away and Jones just says “I DON’T CARE!”

Is it harder to work in a situation where a priori assumptions have to be painstakingly investigated first? Absolutely.

There is no doubting that I am functioning within a deep “hermeneutic of suspicion” where the only thing not under suspicion seems to be that very thing.

Why should you get off scott free?

Why should a purely literary theory currently in vogue in the West  (in a highly dualistic currently deconstructionist mindset) hold court over Ancient Middle Eastern documents formed mostly through an oral tradition and formed in a holistic culture?

Seriously.

I’m getting okay with working within the “hermeneutic of suspicion.”

I have to work harder.

Frankly it would be a lot more FUN to work within a system of overt highly-informed belief (possibly at a place like Regent or Fuller) – but my M.A. looks to be in Beckerian studies – which inherently implies someone with the elasticity of mind to move across academic disciplines, bear with wildly divergent views – be deeply committed to pluralism – and all the while not back off one iota from the idea of ultimate Truth.

Let’s hope God brings along some like-minded individuals…

The Psalm 89 paper can be viewed as a .pdf here

 

Wha Happa?

Why we are teetering on the verge of Looney Tunes I cannot help but hear Elmer Fudd asking “Wha Happa?”

I mean if you went to culinary school and they really had a disparaging view of food and seemed to not wanna celebrate it you might think you were in the wrong place, no?

So I am reading “scholars” who think that they just made up the whole Epyptian capitivity slavery thing and that the Jews where Canaanites all along who just rose up at a certain time in social revolt but later wnated a better cover story.

Seriously.

And of course all the families with their rich oral traditions and family histories were just gonna buy into this later all at once… when it came time to write it all down.

Okay, “Duane, I’m due back on the planet  Earth now.”

And it is exactly there that I really do not care.

Believe what you want.

Let me give you two examples of why.

The first is from the world of psychology. In the early 80s I was struggling to get any kind of coherence out of the psychology department at Sac State. It became obvious it was a vain attempt so I gave up – much to the consternation of onlookers

But no one today tinks that was a mistake. I can say to anyone in the field that I studied during that period and they just just shale their heads “oh…yeah, well.”

The other example is the infamous Graf-Wellahusen JEDP Theory (Source Criticism) which was first plunked in my lap in 1977. It seemed contrived and thin then (but not without some merits) and when it was reintroduced this year it felt about the same. But now – some 38 years later it has come under a high degree of scrutiny – not from Conservative sources, but Liberal sources as well – especially since 1986.

Sure, a rookie comes into the league with a novel fastball that looks pretty tricky; but wait awhile until the real hitters adjust to it and see how long he lasts.

What’s it all about?

Seriously?

I think it is about being cool for the most part – about human meaning.

Me? I am so patently uncool as to possibly be cool. It’s ironic I realize. I truly do not care.

I came here (to seminary) to play ball. I came here to do serious work. I didn;t come to bunt, or take base on balls.

I believe – and I believe for good reasons; smart reasons. The facts are on my side and when there are no facts there is mystery and what Luther called simply ruthless trust in God’s grace and nature.