(e)mergent Voyageurs

As I have explored the world of postmodernity and faith, few places have made me feel more at home than Resonate. In addition to the website and blog, there is an amazing Resonate Yahoo Group that is must for those who want to engage the issues, but more important, for those who want to connect. I have already connected with several people in person from connections made there. Check it out.

Another great reason to check itt out is that tomorrow (Sept. 1st) Resonate turns 1! Congrats to those who brought us this brain child. As a special part of the celebration, Resonate is releasing the first edition of The Resonate Journal, an online journal that will further our journey into culture, faith and the great Canadian reality. You won’t be disappointed.

I also wanted to bring your attention to a couple of new blogs that I have added to my blogroll that I hope you will check out and engage. The first is “penned” by my favourite person in the world- my wife, Kim. See her blog here. Kim is a rare and powerful example of a woman of God who is living her life to His fullest- co-founding director of an inner city ministry, handling a lions share of administrative and pastoral leadership, while discipling young believers into missional service to those too often forgotten in our affluent society. You won’t find a steady flow of deep theological musings, but you will find a greater depth in her authenticity and commitment.

The other is an exciting new addition to the emerging conversation, Xenophon Jones. Xenophon (a pseudonyme to protect the “innocent”) is an American Eastern Orthodox Christian who came to his current place in the faith journey from fundamentalist evangelicalism. He has found resonance in emerging journey, so his voice will bring a great deal of personal reflection, theological depth and poetic distinction. Add him to your lists and engage him in dialogue. It is well worth it.

So, to sum up again, here are the key links to check out:

After stumbling across a post entitled “What Is Truth?” by Scot McKnight over at Jesus Creed, I was considering how central this question is, not only to emergent journey, but to the whole of our faith as well. In preparation for this post, I scanned through a number of articles, books and blogs, and came to realize just how very complex the issue is. I am not a formal theologian, philosopher nor an academician, so what I express here might be naive, redundant or even offensive to some. However, I feel compelled to share it.

What is Truth? In John 14:6, Jesus tells us that He is the Truth. This verse has always been a source of wonder for me. Jesus is Truth incarnate. God in Three Persons- this Mystery of relational perfection- is the most absolute actuality of Truth. Before He called us into being out of nothing, He was Truth.

Truth, ultimately, is God. Intellectual certainty of Gods fullness is offensive to the vast Mystery of the Trinity. Therefore, knowing Truth must be primarily (though not exclusively) relational.

For example, I know Kim, my wife, as does her best friend, Shannon. However, though we have much in common in our perspective, our view of her is also very different. First, she relates to us differently, therefore we come to her through a unique context, which differently defines our understanding of her. Second, as well as we might know her, neither of us knows the true Kim- her true Self. In the same way, our relational knowing of Truth must be centrally that of faith, not propositional certainty.

Am I saying that we cannot have an epistemological grasp of Truth or that we shouldn’t even make attempts to? By no means! Epistemology deals with the nature, scope and origin of knowledge. While acknowledging both the infinite nature of the Godhead and my very limited and flawed perspective, I believe that there is a great deal we can know about God.

It is here that the question of certainty always seems to arise. Emergent believers are often known for acknowledging absolute truth, while having little faith in our ability to be certain. Wanting to unravel this, I began to research these ideas and soon found myself drowning in a seas of psychological objectivity, epistemic virtue, metaphysical absolutism, et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseum. Do not misunderstand. I am not dimishing the importance of these ideas, but rather demonstrating that the questions about Truth and our ability to know it, and therefore what that means, are intensely complex and have been engaged theologically, philosophically, etc. for millenium. What it comes down to, for me, is that there simply is no litmus test for Truth or certainty, and therefore must ultimately rely on faith.

I believe that the reason emergent voyageurs like myself affirm absolute Truth, while questioning (not absolutely refusing) our ability to achieve total certainty, is in part due to a strong awareness of history, where time and again Christians have brutally and ignorantly misrepresented Christ, often while acting out of sincere certainty. Additionally, the interpretation and application of Truth adds a significant complexity to the issue. In the end, it is about a cautious humility, not a desire to throw wide the doors of theological or moral relativism.

However, those of us on the emergent journey must recongize how often we fail to represent this humility. Nor should this understanding be an excuse not to pursue absolute Truth. We must- not because we see it as fully attainable, but because it is a journey that draws us towards God. Exploring propositional Truth is not to be rejected in light of its potential problem and historical abuses, but rather embraced as a tool through which we can enter into greater, more genuine relationship with God.

And this is the point, is it not? That we be drawn into more authentic relationship with Him, being transformed together into His likeness? That, as we become one in Christ- as we become His Body- we also become expressions of this Truth incarnate to a world desperate for hope? For this journey draws us ever closer to that which God embodies above all else:

Love

I came across an interesting article in the The Scotsman this morning entitled “Famine Is Offensive, Not Jerry Springer”. In a response to the Christian protest against the “Jerry Springer: The Opera” which may (or may not) have led to the loss of arts funding by the British Arts Council, the author (a self-proclaimed “non-Christian”) considers the nature of Christianity against Christ. In his opening paragraph, Andrew Burnet says:

He goes on the speculate that Jesus is not so concerned with many of the things Christian invest time, energy and money into protesting, stating:

Inevitably, Christian readers will find some views of the writer harder to swallow than others, but it is quite rare to find an admittedly non-Christian writer, who is critiquing the Church, but graciously honours the exceptions to this critique and recognizes that Jesus Himself should not be measured by those who represent Him poorly. I wonder if many Christians would be so gracious.

So how do those of us who seek to represent Christ & Christianity in a more authentic way respond to such an article? Do we apologize for those who have so brutally misused the name of Jesus, both now and through history? Do we argue against the sweeping generalizations? Do we formulate an apologetic for Christianity as we see it (be it Emergent or what have you)?

Perhaps all of these things, in part, can and should be part of our response. However, I do not believe it is either enough nor the emphasis we should seek. Rather, if such public displays of unfortunate Christianity can draw the attention of a watching world, then let us change their hearts and minds with missional communities that distinguish themselves by that which they believe is True, not just what is simply good, right or moral.

Even further, I wonder if we should be distinguishing ourselves by standing beside those whose freedoms are threatened, even if those freedoms are exercised in ways we may be uncomfortable with or are disagreeable with our morality? This is not to say that we throw the doors open to unbridled permisiveness. Rather, acknowledging the complex and sensitive balance that needs to be found, create a world in which free will can be exercised responsibly and truly- meaning room must be made to fail. The Tree was in the Garden, after all.

It is not that we want to become “politcally correct” or even “socially acceptable”, but neither do we want to protect against the abuse of freedom by removing freedom altogether. Martin Luther King Jr. once said of racial segregation:

In the same way, while laws and rules may serve the ultimate good (though rarely when it hinders true freedom), they must be byproducts of this deeper, truer obedience to the unenforcable obligations of the loving God and loving our neighbours.

Today, Brother Maynard posted an excellent overview of some of the dialogue that is continuing to go on following the announcement about Emergent Canada earlier this week. I am encouraged by the increasingly constructive exchange that is happening. I think that, despite some initial bumps, there is a lot of promise for all of us as we work together to build the Kingdom.

In his recent post at Jesus Creed, Scot McKnight describe one key aspect of this journey as conversational (or relational). He says:

Within Canada, the emergent conversation has been deeply rooted in this relational exchange- an exchange of more than just ideas, but genuine friendship, edification and love. Perhaps that is why many of us felt initial pangs of what seemed like territorialism at the Emergent Canada news. As Brother Maynard commented to them, “To us in the blogosphere though, we feel we haven’t heard from you”. However, with time, most of us have recognize the need to continue to open our hearts and minds in generousity to fellow voyageurs who want nothing more than to share the journey with us.

In his post, Brother Maynard also speculated about other national expressions of Emergent outside of the US, wondering what could be learned from their journey.

Being part of YWAM has given me great opportunity to explore and experience the diversity that different national expressions of a decentralized ministry looks like. The complexity of differences and similarities are too broad to explore here in detail, but I will say that dialoguing with other national groups is an excellent idea, if only to broaden the conversational generousity of our growing community.

I will caution, however, about making any hasty comparisons in this regards. For example, while it might be assumed that Canada & Australia will have more in common than the US, I am not sure this is accurate. Being married to an Aussie, in many ways I have learned that there are some significant commonalities between the US, Australia and the UK (interestingly, Canada shares a far closer cultural paradigm and history to New Zealand). Conversely, there are several differences between these three nations that make them very different.

All that to say, that while we can learn from one another, comparisons are ill suited to draw meaningful conclusions in this context. As Canadians, we know that one unfortunate cultural characterstic we have is defining ourselves by what we are not-namely, American. Therefore, we need to be careful not to try to find better suited nations to model after, but rather search for an indigenously authentic identity. (Additionally, I believe that Canada and the US desperately need each other in this journey, and that closer ties, while maintaining cultural autonomy, is a crucial step we need to take).

As to regional difference across Canada, this could be said for communities within a Province or neighbourhoods within a city. I agree that there are great distinctions between the regions within Canada, but I believe we need to begin the journey on that which we have in common. More to the point, however, is the nature of regional relationships based on our difficult history. Again, having lived and ministered throughout Canada, there is a distinct set of conflicts that divide our nation.

Because this, there is still negative attitudes between the regions, making a national movement difficult (which is why Emergent Canada being in the far West has probably raised some concerns). Even within YWAM, there are those who believe that our focus should remain only regional. Regional/local expressions will always be most important, as that is where relationship happen the truest, but this should be no excuse not to work to overcome these barriers. Can think of no better heritage to the emergent journey in Canada then to further work of reconciliation within out country.

In the end, if we are to become a Canadian expression of missional, relational, catholic/universal, global, emerging Christianity, then we need these challenges. It is in these difficulties that we begin to question our identities, visions, commitment, motivations, etc. As important as this topic is to discuss, Emergent Canada is not the real issue. The issue is that something is stirring in the Canadian church. And while challenges and conflicts are inevitable along the way, this is something for us all be excited about.

Canada has a unique vocation within the Body of Christ (as does every nations and culture). I believe that we have gifts to offer the global Church, such as what it means to be a “Mosaic People”, for example. As Canadians, we need to rekindlethis pioneering spirit that is at the roots our culture and heritage. So, let put our paddles in together and see where this journey will take us.

[emerging church]

As many of us do, I spend a good chunk of time each day surfing through the Blogosphere to follow some of my favourite bloggers. One such blog that I have found to be an essential in the emerging journey is Scot McKnight’s blog, Jesus Creed. Scot brings a generous, thorough and excellently critical voice to the dialogue. He is a must read, in my opinion, for all Emergent Voyageurs out there.

Specifically, I want to draw attention to his recent series called “Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy”, which is a response (in part) to Brian McLaren‘s book “A Generous Orthodoxy” and the possible fourth way beyond its largely evangelical current state. Here they are in the order they came out:

Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Preamble
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Kingdom
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Jesus
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Community
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Creedal
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: catholic
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Eschaton and Back
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Cultural
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Conversational (updated)
Generous (evangelical) Orthodoxy: Trust the Spirit (updated)

I will add to this list (mark them as ‘updated’) as Scot adds to his, so please check back for updates.

Peace,
Jamie

This post is a follow up of a previous post, entitled “Moving Through Inductive Bible Study“. In order to best appreciate the following post, please read the first part of this post. Thanks. -Jamie

Many have been asking me when I was planning on posting Part II of the “Moving Through Inductive Bible Study – Part I”, and with good reason- its been two months since the original post. However, there have been other circumstances that have limited my ability to respond throughly, namely crucial books that I had lent out and failed to get back, a busy summer of inner city ministry and, most of all, my fathers illness (still not diagnosis).

Now that the books have been returned, the summer quieting and my father recovering, I will endeavour to re-engage the topic and hope that the hiatus has not frustrated or lost too many of you. I will say, however, that before I go on, you should know that while I found it relatively easy to critique the inductive Bible study method, I found/find it extremely difficult offering alternatives. I will, therefore, require much more of the reader in this post than the previous.

I want to reaffirm from the beginning that neither this post, nor the previous one one this topic, seeks to reject the important place that the inductive method has in Scriptural study (or in science).

A great deal of the freedoms and blessings we experience in our lives have come through the revoluationary discoveries of this approach. Rather, I simply want to add balance and caution to a Christian culture that too often seems compelled to embrace singular paradigms, granting them sacrosanct status in a myopic attempt to be “right” (which is dangerous, regardless of how well intentioned it is).

When the West entered the Industrial Revolution, the mechanistic worldview of Descarte and Newton (which, arguably, contributed significantly to the Revolution) settled into the broader worldview of society. Suddenly, the machine became the ultimate Form by which we understood the world around us. Everything could be understood as a vast collection of pieces (like cogs in clockwork) that worked together to create the functional whole. All one needed to do to understand the whole was to understand the parts. And like a machine, dismantling it for study was the best way.

As this mentality began to form the Christian worldview, it deeply impacted the way we “did” Church. The Bible became an encyclopedia that could be dismantled to reveal the “truth”. However, Scripture itself reveals itself is quite a different light- not mechanistically, but organically. If Scripture (and I would dare say, our entire faith) was meant to be approached organically, then not only would the mechanistic model be inappropriate and misleading, but thoroughly damaging.

My fathers recent surgery was quite complex. It require a long incision from his back, down along his ribs, under his arm to the front of his body. The surgeon then went between two ribs and deflated the lung, which he then pulled out through the ribs and incision, to examine the lung and remove the offending tissue. Once finished, this incredibly delicate process was reversed- the lung replace in the chest cavity through the ribs, reinflated, the incision closed. From there, my father faces weeks- months of recovery and treatment, exercise and diet, medication and good old fashion loving.

Now imagine, if you will, that this procedure had been done in an automechanics shop. Pop the hood, bang around, leave it for the night, randomly replace parts, etc. The contrast could not be more stark. From hands that are greasy and rough to meticulously sterilized hands of a senior surgeon, we see the differences clearly. (Note: I mean no disrespect to mechanics, as I am deeply dependant and indebted to them).

Throughout Scripture, organic metaphors are used to illustrate the simply, yet profound Truth of God. One might argue that these were utilized not to give direction towards a defining of worldview, but rather as a reflection of the prevailing worldview of the time. Surely Jesus, for example, could not use mechanistic metaphors, as they were virtually non-exsistent. Granted this is true, but beyond metaphors, Scripture consistently roots humanity in His creation ,from Genesis through Revelation.

How does this understanding, then, inform the way we approach Scripture in practical terms? A very good question, and one I still wrestle with. Perhaps another question is this: Can we fully appreciate the organic approach to Scripture if we do first allow ourselves, our communities, etc. to break free from the pervading mechanistic worldviews we are already so deeply shaped by?

So I leave you with these questions, not for idle consideration, but as sincerely inquiries that need an answer. Leave your ideas, questions, etc. in the comment section, and we can engage the issue together. I am sure there will be a Part III (and beyond), but I will allow that to be shaped by what we discuss here.
___________________________________________________________
For further reading on the shift from the mechanistic paradigm to the organic/wholistic paradigm, see the writings of Fritjof Capra. While highly influenced by Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, his books “The Web of Life” and “The Hidden Connections” are excellent reads that need Christian interpretation.

[emerging church]

As some of you may know, several emergent voyageurs in the Winnipeg area decided to get together tonight for a “theology pub night”. Most of them I had never met beyond a screen name on various blogs. So it was with a tad of uncertainty that walked down there this evening.

Within seconds, the uncertainty vanished. My the end of the evening it had been replaced by a growing conviction about one reason why this emergent journey is so important to me- people. Good, authentic, funny people. People whose faith is not a moral standard by which all things are measured, but a celebration of passion and relationship and, above all, wonder.

Ok, so I am being melodramatic, but I’ll be honest with you. As I walked home, I found myself deeply moved by the time we spent together. The discussion was mind-blowingly profound (though we did engage in some theology, as felt obliged to live up to the name), it was just real. I knew immediate that there was no need for pretense, for guardedness. It felt natural.

Now, I am not saying that this kind of experience is exclusive to this sphere. However, I will say that I have encounter few gatherings of Christians- people I had just met- where I felt so free to be me. I look forward to more such gatherings.

I am sure others, like Brother Maynard (whose identity Dan & I speculated on while he stood next to us, unbeknownst) and RobbyMac will share better the actually content of our many discussions. It was making new friends that took the night.

So, raise your glasses, folks. Cheers!

Today I received word that Emergent Canada is in the process of finalizing their formal creation. At the site, they mentioned that “we are in the process on incorporating an organization with charitable status; we have been connecting people; we have developed links with the admin of the US and UK groups.” This has sent ripples around the web, with speculation, excitement and concern bubbly moderately in the midst. Since this blog is dedicated to the Canadian emerging journey, I thought I should weigh in.

Before I go on, though, I should be clear: Though I will express concerns and critiques about this news, please do not think that I am against it. In fact, I have invited the folks at Emergent Canada to respond to any comments or concerns expressed here. Emergent Canada, should it develop further, will have my prayer and support as fellow voyageurs on this faith journey.

Let me start with a little background. Like many of us, I received an email around a year ago, gathering info about my interest in the emergent conversation and how it pertained to Canada. I was delighted to receive the contact, though after that I heard little to nothing, depsite my attempts to find out what was going on. A couple of months ago I emailed them again, trying to find others in Winnipeg to connect with, which they kindly helped with.

From there, I began exploring several Canadian (and other international) websites & blogs, as well as writing a few emails. I then started Emergent Voyageurs in order to better engage the conversation. It took off far quicker than I had anticipated. I soon was connecting online and in person with many people across Canada and the globe.

However, it was with RESONATE.ca that I found not only a vibrant and thoroughly welcoming “emergent” community, but one that was authentically, organically, indigenously Canadian. RESONATE has been more welcoming and affirming than any other e-community I have encountered thus far.

When I received todays announcement, my first reaction was moderate concern. What jumped out the most was the name- Emergent Canada- and its intentional affiliation with Emergent US and Emergent UK. Don’t get me wrong, I think both entities are excellent. However, I have found that they are not entirely fitting models to our Canadian context. I was also concerned that taking the name will further “franchise” the emerging journey more than it should be (in my opinion).

I am also concerned that this has birth out of very localized initiative. As the site said of Brian McLaren’s (who I have deep, deep respect for) visit with them, “In the months after this, [Brian] handed us the ball to start something ‘distinctly Canadian’”. While I appreciate Brian’s leadership in the conversation, I am not sure that his handing the ball off qualifies for national representation.

Rather, I would hope that, should Canadians believe that we need a formal expression of the emerging journey, not to mention a organizational link (formal or otherwise) to Emergent US (& UK), it would grow from a natural community of relationships, which I believe RESONATE represents.

Again, please do not misunderstand. I neither think that Emergent Canada is usurping RESONATE or that RESONATE should (or wants to) have this role. I am simply concerned at the nature of the development of this new endeavour, that, perhaps, the cart is being put before the horse.

In the end, I believe there is great potential for good in Emergent Canada, which means there is also great potential for problems. This is inevitable. For one, I want to say I am committed to serve them, moving through these challenges, as they have expressed great openness and willingness to be shaped from without, by all who want to invest.

As long as we recognize that each group, network and even individual, represents a piece in the larger mosaic, we will growing to become a vibrant and beautiful picture. Emergent.ca will play a complimentary role in it, I have little doubt.

While this does not represent all the concerns I have about Emergent Canada, it is a starting point. I look forward to adding their voice to this dialogue here, as well as that of all of you.

Peace,
Jamie Arpin-Ricci

I recently came across a number of favourable movie reviews about the movie “Kinsey”, the story of Alfred Kinsey who is considered a pioneer in the area of human sexuality research, whose 1948 publication “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” was one of the first recorded works that saw science address sexual behavior, with several other controversial volumes.

Now, most Christians would dismiss Kinsey as a pervert, some going so far as accusing him as a child abuser. They also site, in addition to his findings and theories that they say run contrary to Christian morality, that his techniques and lifestyle were wildly hedonistic and dangerous. And in all fairness, they would right. The reality of Kinsey’s life by his own records and admissions is that he was deeply immersed in sexual perversion.

As an aside, while not an excuse, I believe that Kinsey’s motivation was genuinely well intentioned and scientific. He sincerely believed he was contributing to the positive development of science and human health. Someone who is motivated only (or even primarily) by his own lust or perversion would not be characterized by the discipline and hard work that Kinsey’s life and work reflect.

However…

However, before we simply close the book on Kinsey, we have to stop and examine the world/culture into which his work was introduced. “Christian” North America presented a overly moralized, often demonized view of sexuality, where dangerous ignorance was paraded as “moral innocence”, contributing not only to growing sexual disorders and diseases, but also painful and needlessly disfunctional sexual relationship & identities. This so-called “Christian” sexual ethic was/is equally perverse as the sexual mores Kinsey set forth.

In many ways, Kinsey models the best and worst of what modernism provided the church in North America. Kinsey drew sexuality out of the shallow mores of Puritanical fundamentalism, providing both a solid scientific understanding, as well as a context for social awareness and openness. Modernism did this for Christianity as well, something I am grateful for.

Conversely, Kinsey neglected the sacred and mystertious aspect of, not only sexuality, but science. He approached the topic in the mythical ‘vaccuum’ of so called objectivity, failing to recognize the inseperability of all things. In the same way, Modernism sucked the mystery out of Christianity, embracing the fallacy that systematic, propositional knowledge held exclusive authority, dismissing things such poetry, romance and beauty.

Just as the rise of the morally strict and repressive Cathar gnostics of France in the early part of this millenium was matched (even courted) by the emergence of the Troubadours and their libertine lifestyles, our own historical “Christian” treatment of sexuality helped give rise to that which it most fervently rebuked.

In that way, we owe a small debt of gratitude to Kinsey for asking the questions- the questions that should have been asked by the Church (though, granted, with far different methods and presuppositions). They are questions that, while beginning to enter the church, still remain largely muddied by the vesitages of our past, a past that served us well, but held us back.

This is crucial for us to embrace, not only for the development of healthy sexuality, but because it also informs the very nature of our relationship with Christ as Bridegroom of the Bride-Church.

The following quote is from the exceptional book, “Subversive Orthodoxy: Outlaws, Revolutionaries, and Other Christians in Disguise” by Robert Inchausti (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos P, 2005. pgs 17-19):