Thursday, January 12, 2006

What Is The Gospel? – Part 2

In my introductory post in this “What Is The Gospel?” series, I laid a foundation of a “definition”, which raised some excellent discussion. Some people liked my definition, others did not. Some said it was too complex, other oversimple. Most added great input. I encourage anyone who has not to read Part 1 and the comments that followed. It will lay an important launching point for the rest of this series. So, to restate:

“The Gospel is the glory of the Triune God made manifest in His work to reconcile every person to union with Himself, communion with others, to fullness of life, and to harmony with Creation, in the context of community for the good of all.”

I should begin by reminding you all that I am not a theologian. I have not had the advantage of any seminary or even Bible college education. That being said, I ask for your grace as I step out of my comfort zone. As I have stated many times before, too often, when we try to explain the Gospel, we begin with Romans. However, I believe that our understanding of the Gospel must be born out of Genesis, where The Story begins. Before everything, there is God- Father, Son & Spirit- eternally existing in loving union so true that Three are One. This intimate mutual indwelling is beautifully described in the Greek word Perichoresis, the mutual dance of indwelling/co-inherence of the three Persons of the Trinity.

When God created humanity, He said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Genesis 1:26). He created us in the image of His multiplicity (“in our image”), meaning that His Trinitarian nature, the perichoresis, is somehow reflected in us. God eternal intention for His children was that we would live with Him, with each other and with all Creation, in a dance of communion that would reflect the greater Perichoresis.

Additionally, just as God’s intentions extend beyond just our souls to our whole beings, physical body included, so to is the larger Creation part of that destiny. Understand, I am NOT advocating that animals and trees are of equal value and importance as humanity, but rather that they are an extension of the intended purposes of God for us. Creation is not an inconsequential mass upon which we dance, but part of the dance itself. I will explore this in more detail in a future post.

Several people who read the last post called into question my (seeming) exclusion of Jesus in this story. However, the Son is and has always been a Person within the Trinity, an eternal and essential participant in the Perichoresis. When God created us in His image, He was inviting us to participate in the shared life of the Trinity, into the relational reality of His Being. Ephesians 1:4,5 tells us that His intention for us, through Jesus Christ, was to be the focus of His live, even before the foundations of the world. C. Baxter Kruger says “He became human to create a living and everlasting relationship between his Father and the human race, to be the mediator, the in whom the life of the Triune God intersects with and flows into human existence, and the one in whom human life is lifted up int the circle of the Trinity.” (“Jesus & the Undoing of Adam”, pg. 21, Perichoresis Press, 2003). He goes on to suggests that the incarnation was always the intention of God, even before sin entered the picture.

Sin, however, did enter the picture, casting Creation into ruin. True to His truest nature, God did not condemn humanity to our “deserved judgment”, but rather extended His unparalleled grace through Christ, unwilling that any should perish. “The death of Christ was the seamless movement in which the Triune God laid hold of the human race and decisively and sovereignly altered its very existence, cleansing it of all alienation, quickening it with new life and lifting it up into union with the Father, Son and Spirit” (ibid. pg. 40).

The implications of this are staggering, devastating the overly legalization of both God and His Good News, rooting it again in the central core of who He is- relational, communal, in fellowship. Love. (Scot McKnight eloquently argues in his excellent book “Embracing Grace”, no single perspective on the atonement can sufficiently encompass all that God did through Christ. He sites the silences of the Creeds on this topic as reflecting this wisdom). For too long too many of us have represented God & His Gospel as little more than God satisfying His thirst for justice in blood, allowing His Son to bear the brunt of His wrath. By making this aspect of God’s character the central (and often exclusive) motivation, we turn the Trinity in on Itself, violating His truest nature which was determined by His refusal to let the Garden be the end of the story.

Therefore, when we as a Church begin to live and reflect this intended perichoresis, it give glory to God. Glory, in the context of the Gospel, IS the manifestation of this perichoresis. God is glorified when in all that honours Him in His truest nature- thus the Trinitarian Perichoresis and the reflection and manifestation of that in His Creation, gives Him glory.

The next posts in this series will explore in more detail the concept of fullness of life and harmony with Creation in this context, as well as looking more specifically at what Jesus teaches us through all this. I will try, in the end, to show what this means for the emerging church and how it changes our understanding and practice of evangelism.

Posted by Jamie Arpin-Ricci in 05:57:42 | Permalink | Comments (28)

Monday, January 9, 2006

Review – ‘The Book of Daniel’ NBC debut

There has been a fair amount of buzz surrounding this past weeks debut of the new NBC drama, “The Book of Daniel”. The show follows the ups and downs (more of the latter) of an Episcopal priest Daniel Webster (Aidan Quinn) in an upper-class New York City suburb. One knows something has struck a nerve when the American Family Association (AFA) comes out swinging before having seen even a single episode.

So what has so many people up in arms? Could it be that Daniel has an openly gay son who he (awkwardly) supports? That his adopted son is sleeping with the daughter of a rich parishioner? Maybe because his daughter is selling drugs to support her comic book venture? His wife walking around with a perpetual martini or his own frequent Vicodin popping? Would it be that the shows creator is also openly gay? No, no, it would have to be the adulterous bishops, right?

Probably all these things raise the hackles of the conservative Christian right, but what seems to top the list is Daniel’s frequent conversations with Jesus, in all his hippie glory. The AFA says the show “mocks Christianity”, despite the network’s insistence that its intention is not to offend. It’s not the first time that controversial religious fare has tried grab for ratings, with varying success (“Nothing Sacred”, which I rather liked, but got canceled quickly or “Touched By An Angel” which I could barely sit through). “The Book of Daniel” tries to shake things up by being more of a “Joan of Arcadia” meets “Desperate Housewives”.

Now, in reading all this, you might think I am describe all the hot plot lines in store for the first season, but alas, that isn’t so. In fact, all of this (plus a good deal more) lays itself out for viewers in first 2 hour, debut episode. Throw in the obligatory heart-warming scenes of connection with each of his kids, the melodrama of his mother fading into Alzheimer’s and the local Italian Catholic priest plucked right out of “The Sopranos”, and you’ll wonder what is left for next week, let alone a full season.

So, is “The Book of Daniel” as scandalous as some are saying? After watching the premiere, my answer is all too clear: Yes.

However, it is not scandalous for its provocative plotlines (it is par for the network TV course), no for its religious “liberalism”. No, the true scandal of this show is that such shallow writing, pat situationalism, over-packed crises- in short, the poor writing ever made it air. It’s representation of Jesus is hockey, showing up for one liners to add cheesy punchlines or sentimental schmaltz. Sure, every show needs the chance to warm up and find it’s “voice”, but “The Book of Daniel” will need a miracle to survive.

Tagged:

Posted by Jamie Arpin-Ricci in 12:46:30 | Permalink | Comments (30)

Saturday, January 7, 2006

Homosexuality & the Church – Part 3

There has been a lot of attention around my recent series, starting with the letter from Alex (which, again, is a pseudo-name to protect his identity at his request), going on to explore some tough questions with the intention to learn from each other. I have been very pleased that the conversation has stayed away from petty name calling and hateful arguments. It has been an good start.

However, being the final post in this series, as Alex had the first word on this topic, I felt it was important that he had the last. While he rarely commented, he informs me that he has followed the dialogue closely. His closing words are well worth some serious consideration:

When Jamie & I talked about posting my original letter, I suspected it would stir up some interest. Regardless of what people believe on the issue, they tend to hold those beliefs with a lot conviction. As has been noted, there has been little (to none) of the expected hate or name calling that typically is drawn to this topic like flies on- well, you get the picture.

My hope in writing here was that people would have the chance to explore this issue beyond theory and theology by putting a person out front (albeit anonymously). In Part 2, I think Jamie’s intention was to ask questions with me (the person) in front of the issue. I thought Jamie was being naive in this regards, but I see now that he was simply being hopeful. The fact is that the conversation quickly slipped back into the very abstract legalities of doctrine that, while important, leave people such as me feeling like specimens, political soapboxes and philosophical abstractions. Most often the intentions are good, but people too often fail to understand how it feels- how could they?



Can you imagine when people refer to something as intimate as your sexual orientation in the same sentence as child molestation or murder? My orientation may be unnatural, but I experience it to be as real and authentic and natural as anyones heterosexuality, so these kinds of comparisons do NOTHING in bringing to trust a community of faith that claims to have the “answer” to my “sin”. People talk about moral certainty, but how do you think you would feel if you spent the rest of your life not quite certain that you weren’t giving up your chance at true love? Some might serve up the line that the Bible or God provides that, but that is a cop out. I believe it is wrong and choose to live my life accordingly, but if that kind of certainty was truly available, we would have the massive divisions of faith that are all too evident in the Church.



For some reason many Christians feel that it is of utmost importance to make it clear that homosexuality is a sin (and some, that it is among the worst of sins). Using the new hot word “tolerance”, they scare each other into believing that by not making this disclaimer off the hop, they risk becoming “soft on sin”, or worse, liberal. Jesus came to live and love among sinners, suffering and dying for them while they were still sinners. How could we do any less? We are called, first and foremost, to love people regardless of their sin. We do not ignore the sin, but neither do we make the first and central point of reference when seek to be the active presence of Christ in the world.



In the end, as “nice” as the dialogue may have seemed, I still choose to remain anonymous. The fact is, many of your reading this know me. Several even read my blog. Some go to church with me. And others will meet me and never know this aspect of my life. Sadly, even in the most well-intentioned of Evangelical communities, admitting even a hint of homosexuality tends to become the defining aspect of how people perceive you. Being the butt of endless jokes and innuendos (largely indirectly, as though that makes it any better), assumed to be a pervert or a child molester, and touted as the political and moral puppet-issue of the left & right alike- and these are just the perks. So, should I have used my real name here?



No. At this stage, I choose to fade into the background. We have come a long way in this dialogue, but not that far. Don’t get me wrong. It isn’t that I am ashamed or even afraid. I have done nothing wrong and could deal with whatever anyone wants to throw at me. Sticks & stones. No, I remain in the shadows because I can’t be bothered to have the same tired conversations again and again. I can’t be bothered to be objectified for the purpose of theological or political bantering. I can’t be bothered until the tide of the conversation turns and I see this issue dealt with as Christ would- which is all too rare.



Thanks for listening. I’m honoured your thought it worth your time.

Posted by Jamie Arpin-Ricci in 04:00:44 | Permalink | Comments (28)

Thursday, January 5, 2006

Homosexuality & the Church – Part 2

I suppose I should have anticipated the stir I’d cause by posting Alex’s letter on his experiences with and questions about homosexuality, but I must say it has been a very interesting, engaging and somewhat intense dialogue between people from all spectrums. I am very grateful that, despite the vast differences in belief represented in the commentors, we have been able to dialogue without some of the all too common hate that comes with this topic.

Throughout the discussion, I have realized that there are many dynamics at play behind the conversation that complicate some interactions. Here are some of the questions being discussed implicitly as I see them (Again, it must be noted that I do NOT represent Emergent or the emerging church in any opinions expressed here. Also, do not assume or infer any beliefs that are not explicitly stated as my own):

Is Homosexuality Sin?

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality?

If Homosexuality Is Sin, Is It Worse Than Others?

Where Do We Go From Here?

Let me try to touch on each briefly:

-Is Homosexuality Sin? This is the foundational issue that keeps cropping up. It is an important and difficult issue to discuss. If this issue isn’t addressed in some way, it always creeps into other peripheral discussions. Too often true dialogue is undermined by failing to recognize the differing foundational presuppositions we all hold. For example, within the comment section, two very sincere people who had both thought & prayed through the issues, studying Scripture, both came to exactly opposite conclusions. How could this be? In part, I am sure, because they are functioning under different presuppositions about Scripture, and thus, God.

-What Does The Bible Say About Homosexuality? While many would suggest that this is a clear cut issue, I don’t think it is always the case. For example, Sodom & Gomorrah are still used as a proof of God’s stance against homosexuality. However, this story is about unbridled hedonism finding expression in orgy. If this story had been about men calling for women, would it have been any better? No. God would have judged this equally.

Additionally, it is very hard to draw from Old Testament Law, even on sins considered abominations (i.e. anybody where clothing of the opposite sex). The New Testament Scriptures are the clearest, though they too can be challenging given the frequency of contextual references. However, they remain the Scriptures that keep me from abandoning the traditional Christian position (though admittedly I still find myself uncertain at times).

-If Homosexuality Is Sin, Is It Worse Than Others? While most people who have commented seem to think that homosexuality is a sin, there is still a great deal of variance on whether it is a worse sin than others. Mark Poole, an openly gay Christian man, commented well on this issue. While he & I disagree on what Scripture says about the issue, he gives us all something to think about:

“There is a tendency within modern Christianity (as with society at large) to focus on one or two hot-button issues and to make these a litmus test for orthodoxy. This has happened today with regard to issues of abortion, homosexuality and evolution. Many Christians spend a good proportion of their time and energy worrying about such matters (to the point of persecuting or demonizing those who disagree with them on such points) whilst conveniently ignoring weightier matters about which the Bible has a great deal to say — such as doing justice, loving mercifully and walking humbly with God.

“For every Biblical reference to sexual sin of one form or another there are ten condemning pride, arrogance, unseemly wealth and oppressive governance. If we are to be Biblical in our thinking about morality we should read the Bible in its entirety for what it has to say about the whole range of moral issues — and not just focus on a few selective texts that conform to our own comfortable sureties — and each one ask ourselves how we ourselves measure up.

“This is hard for any of us to do, because our sinful natures find it much easier to point our what appears to be wrong with the other person. To phrase it a little differently — we can be so busy applying Romans 1 to the sins of others that we never make it to Romans 2. The insidious nature of the sin of self-righteousness is that it leads us to believe we are right with God as a result of our orthodoxy — and not because of God’s grace.

“So much of what passes for “popular” Christianity today is expressed through what it is “against”. Perhaps (although I am not sure) it is a mark of character to be opposed to those things that God detests. If so, then I would encourage people to search the Bible for phrases like “the Lord hates” (especially Proverbs 6) or “woe to you” (especially Matthew 23 and Luke 6, 10 and 11).” (For the full comment, see comments in Part 1)

-Where Do We Go From Here? This is perhaps the most challenging question of all, as it is difficult to answer until there can be some sense of the above stated issues. If we believe that homosexuality is not a sin, then the way ahead is fairly clear (IMHO). However, isn’t the case for most Christians, including myself. If it is sin, and one of the worse among them, then the question is how can we manifest the life and love of Jesus to this community without alienating them with judgment, ignorance and hatred? If we cannot come to a clear sense of these issues, should we accept this as a difference of theological position, as one might over the issue of predestination or ordination of women (which I STRONGLY support)? So many questions come up, that I believe that there needs to be serious dialogue between people of various positions. I hope this will begin to happen here and on other blogs, but it must to happen in real, face to face relational connections.

To close, for all those who engage in the comment section, while I encourage you to freely discuss the issue with respect, I would suggest that trying to convince each other of opposing positions is largely fruitless. Rather, put your energy in understanding the position of the other. Both sides need to truly identify with the position of the other, to try to understand the heart- the person behind the “issue”.

Posted by Jamie Arpin-Ricci in 01:33:47 | Permalink | Comments (48)

Wednesday, January 4, 2006

Conference Options – 2006

After the intensity of my previous post (don’t get me wrong, the dialogue continues to be great), I thought I would seek some input from all of you regarding the options for conferneces coming up this year. Before anyone launches into a tirade about the waste of time and money in going to conferences, don’t bother. It may not be the best approach, but I have found it immensely helpful in connecting with the larger community of faith. With that said, here are some of the options I am considering:

-National Pastors Convention – San Diego: Scot McKnight, John Frye and others have suggested this conference. While not a “pastor” in the commonly defined sense, I have increasingly been realzing the pastoral calling God has been leading me into over the past year. The conference site is very appealing. The dates are challenging for me, but workable. The biggest challenge, one that will most likely eliminate this option, is the cost of travel, fees and housing. While this tops my list of conventions I WANT to attend, as a missionary with YWAM, this seems very unlikely.

-Micah Challenge Development Meeting: A friend of mine, Dave Skene, has been named Co-ordinator for Youth Mobalization for The Micah Challenge here in Canada. He has invited me to participate in a development meeting, largely for my interest in postmodernity & justice issues. It is something I would very much like to be involved in. However, while cheaper, it still takes a chunk of budget to go where there will be fewer people to connect with. I am possibly going to go to this one regardless of the other options, but we’ll see.

-Other Options?: Does anyone else have any suggestions? While I am at it, any creative ideas to make it financially viable? I am looking for conferences/events that will serve to better connect me to the larger emerging conversation or other such contexts.

I want your input. So let fly!

Posted by Jamie Arpin-Ricci in 02:55:20 | Permalink | Comments (8)

Sunday, January 1, 2006

Homosexuality & the Church – Part 1

I recently received an email with some interesting thoughts from someone who reads this blog. In telling me his story, I was challenged by the personal, yet thoughtful nature they explored the issue of their own homosexual orientation. I have helped them edit the content, changing enough details to protect their identity. It is important to note that this is a record of reflection, questions and personal experiences. Do not assume beliefs or positions held by either myself or the author unless they are EXPLICITLY stated. With that said, read on:

I first realized that I was different in high school. Sure, I had a healthy attraction to girls, but I didn’t quite understand the disgusted expressions on the faces of my male friends when they joked about anything remotely sexual between men (even nudity). Before long, I realize that I was somewhat more sexually attracted to guys than girls. The shock, fear and angst that came with this revelation floored me.

Growing up in an evangelical community didn’t help in finding someone to talk to about it. While things have improved since I was a kid, telling Christians you’re “gay” brands you with an all-defining stigma. It wouldn’t matter that I had been one of the most dedicated Sunday School teachers for years, parents would always wonder about leaving their kids with me. Girlfriends would always wonder if I could ever really like them. Guy friends would fear that I really did love them.

The fact is, other than a problem with pornography, I have never acted on the orientation. While this certainly reduces the stigma, it comes with problems of its own- such as people assuming it isn’t really an issue with me or that it was just a phase. Even then, no matter what my other personality traits, interestings or even life callings, I am still seen and treated as the one who “struggles with homosexuality”.

With all the talk in the church about homosexuality, I cannot help but notice how often the tone is abstract- theological, political and hypothetical. Even within the emerging church, certain leaders choose not to make their “positions” known, and while I understand the wisdom in this, it still leaves people like me hanging out there, wondering, confused. The larger evangelical church has done a poor job at giving helpful answers, so there is a sense of eager hope that I feel in engaging the emerging conversation.

Here are some of issues that I wrestle with:

-Most Christians approach the issue of homosexuality as though it is unequivically clear in Scripture that it is wrong (and understandably so). However, I can’t help but consider that early Christians were equally sure that slavery and the treatment of other races as unhuman was equally part of God’s Biblical mandate. Will future Christians realize they were wrong about this issue too? Am I suffering in vein? I am not convinced it is the case, but the question doesn’t leave me.

-More “progressive” evangelicals are placing more emphasis on orientation. For example, they understand that homosexual activity is sin, but the orientation is not a choice. While this is somewhat better than “Hate the sin, but not the sinner”, it still fails to see how deeply rooted the orientation is in our personality. The attraction is as real and “natural” to us as heterosexual attraction to others. It isn’t just about lust. It isn’t just about sex. It is far more complex than that. The differentiation between orientation and action is helpful for basic understanding, but in reality – in our hearts & minds & bodies, we are one.

-Gay marraige has been the hot topic. While I believe that no law should require a Christian church (or any religion) to perform such unions, I am not sure I believe it is right to make them illegal. If the argument is based on God’s design for marriage, sexuality, family and cultural responsibility- thus a Biblical, Christian worldview- does this not, then also mean that we should stand against the understanding of marraige that undermines this? Should not Islamic or Hindu marraiges, where the role, position and (often) even the value of women is in direct contradiction to Judeo-Christians mores? Should not common-law marraiges receive the same press and emotion from the Christian community? I say all this, not to be political, but to demonstrate that the fierce commitment against these “evils” is not being honestly addressed.

So much more could be said. Let me close with this: Homosexuality is an easy target because, for the vast majority of its critics, it is a “sin” few will ever be guilty of (and fewer still would admit it). It provides us with an “enemy” of unequivical evil, thus a distraction for the true sins and failures of our lives, both as individuals and as the Body of Christ. Until we cease this violation of God’s truth and His children, we stand in sin far greater than the one we condemn.

-Alex

Posted by Jamie Arpin-Ricci in 20:10:34 | Permalink | Comments (78)