A Prayer Request
Please keep my father and the family in prayers. Thanks a lot.
Peace,
Jamie Arpin-Ricci
Please keep my father and the family in prayers. Thanks a lot.
Peace,
Jamie Arpin-Ricci
If there is any concensus in the emergent church, it is that the gospel preached in North America is not the Gospel. Closely related, many of us believe that what we call “church” is not the church. The church exists as a quality of relationship and the transcendent intersection of Spirit and flesh in faithful communities that serve to make Christ known. It is dynamic and powerful and bears only a passing relationship to the institutions built by humankind.

A discussion on RESONATE got me thinking about the relationship of the Gospel and its expression in faithful communities. The relationship is much like that of root and fruit.
At the risk of offense, here are some thoughts. If what we see around us is congregations rather than communities.. if we see organizations which mostly limit the earthly expression of the movement Jesus died to birth… if, in other words, we see many gatherings not much “church”.. then we are witnessing the natural outcome of a gospel that is not the Gospel.
My thesis is this: the true Gospel produces what God intended – authentic and faithful communities of Jesus apprentices who are impacting their world. If what we see around us is not that.. then it is an expression of a gospel that is not the Gospel. The fruit is wrong.. therefore the root is wrong.
Within emergent circles there is concensus on few things.. but one of those few things is that we have mostly lost the real Gospel.. we have exchanged it for slick packaged, self-oriented, pottage.. we have a gospel of sin management, fire insurance, that is informational but does not transform.. it has little reference to the Gospel of the Kingdom that Jesus preached.
And therefore it shouldn’t surprise us if the product is McChurch rather than ekklesia.
I then had them go through the list, cheering for characteristics they thought were positive and ignoring the ones they disliked (which usually meant booing). The results were fascinating. I realized instantly how the contrast of American & Canadian culture, even in the churches of both countries, reflected many of the difference that the emergent/postmodern Christian conversation is trying engage, such as surpassing conserative/liberal dichotomies, embracing new paradigms for intentional diversity and defining our identity beyond deconstructionist extremes.
As many of you already know, having been born in Minnesota to a Canadian family…
At the same time, Canada faces significant challenges and weakness that need to be addressed, such as establishing our national identity by what we are not (namely NOT American); cynical and subversive attitudes to leadership and great vision; general apathy- to name a few.
Conversely, the United States of America has a great deal that Canadian Christians desperately need to embrace, such as:
Conversely, as far as the US has come in its fight for equality, there is a great deal of deep healing and reconciliation that remains unfinished, especially with the African American and Native American communities. Their fierce determination, when fixed upon a goal, can become dangerously single-minded, even when committed to “bringing freedom” to others.
The emergent/postmodern journey is one that seeks a more authentic manifestation of the Church- thus requires voices from all peoples, cultures and nations. However, here in North America, the proximity and interconnection our these two nations requires specific attention. Americans would be wrong to dismiss Canada as a “small” voice, disconnected from their context, just as Canadians would be wrong to ignore or reject the US out of spite, frustration or even misplaced (though often denied) inferiority issues.
I would like to invite you, the readers- both American & Canadian- to add you voices here. Have anything add? Anything you disagree with? Let’s talk it out! All I ask is that we discuss, dialogue and even debate with grace and openness all around.
Lord have mercy.
Christ have mercy.
Amen.
Growing up in Canada, however, anti-American sentiment was all too common. Canadians often choose to define their identity by what they are not- namely American. With current world events, this has increased significantly. Regardless of ones position on the US, its government, culture, foreign policy, etc. (issues that do need to be addressed), the dismissive attitude of judgment is not something Canadians should be proud of, especially within the church.
No one with any objectivity can deny the incredible force for good that the American people have been, both throughout their history and today. Their unbeatable spirit, determined ingenuity and remarkable determination have made it possible for our world to be changed for the better in so many arenas. Acknowledging the inevitable human failures that all nations are prone to, the tasks of human rights, world missions, civil liberties, etc. would not be nearly where they are today without the United States.
Additionally…
So on this day of celebration, July 4th, I would like to honour the United States of America, the land of my birth. I honour them for the rich tradition of Christian service and values. I honour them for their unquenchable spirit. I honour them for championing the cause of freedom that seeks to empower even its own detractors. Thank you for your service to the world and to our God.
(NOTE: This post is dedicated to honour the United States on their Independence Day. Therefore, while I believe in open dialogue and the need to critical examination of American culture and government, this thread is NOT the place. Judgment, criticism, attacks, etc. will not be tolerated. Thank you.)
First, I believe that the emergent journey is one that is frought with dangers. We regularly risk the twin extremes of reckless abandonment and paralysing fear. Our awareness of this reality should give birth to humility and care, rather than further polarization over reactionary emotions. Emotions are an important part of this conversation, as long as their do not rule us (anymore than we should be overly ruled by our minds or our need to action).
Second, I truly believe that the emergent journey needs the critics for it to remain true, even when those critiques are communicated inapproproately or with poor intentions, for we do not live our faith in a vaccuum. However, once again we find ourselves between the dualing tensions of open dialogue that edifies and distracting conflicts that are simply “sounding gongs”.
Finally, I am torn by the nature of what inclusivity should mean in this dialogue. Censorship can become an appealing option, but one I avoid with deep conviction, believing that all voices should be heard in the right context. However, I wonder if this blog and others like it- dedicated to the forward development and maturation of the emergent journey- are appropriate places for the dissent of those not sharing this commitment.
The questions remain for me: What is the purpose of this site? Should it function under the presupposition that those utilizing it are already more or less committed to this journey? If so, while constructive criticism and caution are welcome, should they not largely (or only) come from those with a commitment to this end?
And if not functioning under these presuppositions, then the issue becomes how to better deal with these exchanges. What I hope to see here (and else) is a greater sense of civility to one another from both sides, including a more gracious scrutiny of the words being read as well as those being written. In fact, I believe it is more important for those of us who believe this movement represents us to hold ourselves to an even higher standard.
We must also be very careful not to justify hostile or harsh retorts, sarcasm or judgment by citing Biblical examples of godly rebuke. While Jesus and the Apostles did speak correctively to others, we lack the nature of their tone and the equivelance of their context, not to mention their proven authority. Let us treat each other with the mutual humility that we all deserve.
I have still not answered all these questions, so I would appreciate all of your insights. For my part, if I have presented myself and my beliefs and ideas inappropriately or unkindly, please accept my sincerest apology. If I have, I would appreciate the opportunity to make it right.
Alright. Some great comments from my last post on this topic. Which has led to some interesting discussion in other places. The lead off question:
Notice. I haven’t said that the emerging church has not resisted normative gaze. For me, that remains to be seen. We’ll see. But where were we?
I take my cue from the apostle Paul again:
Basically the classical aesthetic becomes the “norm” for beauty and truth. For a richer genealogy of modern racism check out West’s Reader. I am sure there are other places where this can be found. But what comes out of this is this: the tyranny of a perceived universal over a particular. Thus particularity becomes a scandal. One attempting to speak authentically from their particularity becomes a scandal. This could be do to perceived power. But as a Christian I can only see this as some kind of idolatry. In effect raising one’s ethnicity above others and holding it as the norm for others to follow suit I believe to be a form of idolatry. Jesus once told us that it was a sin to love one’s own family more than Him. Which is startling thing for Jesus to say in our culture charged with jingoism and nationalistic pride.
I wanted to write more but this is where my main thoughts have left me thus far. I have been thinking about some things Stanley Hauerwas has said on the attachments of the old age or aeon and how that is connected to violence and idolatry. For it seems that race-ism is deeply connected to an over-love for family and ethnic heritage than it is of pure hatred of another family or race. We’ll see as this journey unfolds.