(e)mergent Voyageurs

In his opening

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

at the “What is Emerging?: A Conversation about a New Kind of Church” at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, Brian McLaren used Galileo as an historical example of where, in the pursuit of new understanding, the existing Church reacted poorly to a perceived threat. In so doing, he presented Galileo almost as though he were an emergent forerunner, perpetuating an all too common “mythical” version of the story. He goes on to use a poem by John Donne which seems to support this reality, when in fact the proximity of Donne’s poem to these events demonstrates that the Copernican Theory had become far more accepted throughout Europe than the “myth” would suggest.

It isn’t surprising, as when most of us think about the Inquisitional trial of Galileo Galilei, we usually characterize it as a sad page in Church history where a sincere, innovative thinker is repressed to protect the power mongering of a bloated and corrupt institution. Our persecuted hero is then often portrayed as weak-kneed patsy, who recants at threat of excommunication and torture. While there are elements of truth mingled in this popular myth, its over simplification belies the deeper complexity of the true story.

In truth, while the Church was slow to accept the redemptive ramifications of Galileo’s discoveries, by and large the pope and leading theologians were not threatened by, but rather well acquainted with and accepting of his answers to the Copernican Theory. Additionally, the threat of torture was by then a formality of the procedure, as the accused would have been well aware.

So what, then, was the Church truly upset about?

As Wade Rowland writes of Galileo: “He had unlocked the logic of the scientific method, and concluded that its power was limitless, that with time and resources it was possible in principle for human reason to know everything there is to know – to know what God knows.”1

While we owe Galileo a great debt for his contribution to science, and while the Church was far too reticent to capitulate to science (in some circles), by embracing and spreading the myth, we fail to honour the deeper well of theological and philosophical wisdom that the Church demonstrated by calling Galileo on his mistakes. Galileo recanted, though grudgingly, NOT out of selfish fear of torture and excommunication, but because, at least in part, he was a God-fearing man of faith.

What can emerging churches/emerging movement learn from this?

First, as much as we challenge others who proof-text Scripture to defend or attack, so we should be mindful not to proof-text history in support of our own position (which is not what I am claiming Brian McLaren did). This particular story is rarely heard because of strongly modernist, anti-Church presentations of history and the pervasive anti-Catholicism that was and is still present in the world.

Second, and more importantly, we must be deeply committed to not representing ourselves, whether in the privacy of our own hearts and minds or in our public discourse, as the “martyred genius”. It can be far too easy to dismiss valid challenge and criticism as coming from antiquated, self-protecting institutions, and not from the wisdom and history of established traditions and doctrine.

So, was the Inquisition emergent? I wouldn’t go that far. But neither were they the persecuting, repressive order of the day, crush free thought and the pursuit of Truth. And therein lies the lesson.

[emerging church]

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.

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.

As the city of London reels under the harsh reality of the recent cowardly attacks on innocent people, I am left with an urgent need to pray. And yet, I do not know what to pray. I am without words.

Lord have mercy.

Christ have mercy.

Amen.