A draft originally written 5-16-2006
Disjointed musings to follow:
Been thinking lately more about why we keep trying to revise Christianity. Each generation or so a faction of us come up with new ideas and methods and missions. And each generation thinks they are "doing it right", or "the true church".
Why?
Obviously because what works for some does not work for all ... but why haven't we got it right yet? We've had 2000 years to practice. It would seem that Jesus' ideas should work for ALL of us, if His teachings are in fact divine. Whatever kinks there were in the system should have worked themselves out by now. We should all be in fantastic agreement and have no disillusions, right?
I guess in theory that should be true. Why is it not? Why can't we all read the same books of the Bible and come away with pretty much spot-on clarity of what Jesus taught, what the Bible meant and what our lives should be like because of it?
The recent increase in interest in the Gnostic texts and the subject of "manipulation" of the canon ... all the recent to-do about the Gospel of Judas ... and the DaVinci Code ... suddenly have created ample reason for people to become interested in other "tracks" and "histories " of Christianity. I understand that gnosticism in itself is a widely arcing umbrella that can relate to many things, including Christian gnosticism. I know very little about it, but know that by and large all aspects of it are generally considered heretical. I'm not under the impression that all or any parts of gnosticism are compatible with true Trinitarian, Christ-professing Christianity. The truth is I really don't know enough about gnosticism to comment on that. But that's not denying the increased interest in such things in both Christians and non-Christians in recent months.
In the end, I begin to wonder ... and don't get me wrong here because I, for one, am fascinated with the lost gospels and other ancient texts ... only as useful in fleshing out the ways that people have viewed and understood the various Christian and Christian-related traditions over the millenia ... but if we believe our spiritual forefathers, the Council of Nicea or whoever we choose to credit/blame, have been keeping something from us or have manipulated the text of the Bible in order to suit their purposes ... and of course DVC perpetuates these myths in society ... we are not only lacking trust in the people who were involved in such things as canonization, but also lacking trust in God's ability to set the record straight should it be errant.
Is it because the whole sense of "emerging" church and all is broadening people's minds in so many ways ... allowing us to consider possibilities that were previously considered heretical ... that we are so interested in these texts? And if so, is that an altogether bad thing? Not that we need to be adding to the Gospel, but that we need to no longer be afraid to even cast a cursory sideways glance at anything that doesn't thoroughly mesh with what is considered to be "mainstream Christianity" today. Could we look with reverence at these ancient texts ... not a holy reverence, but an awe of the fact that people even of quite different theologies way-back-when still loved their Gospel enough to labor to create written records of it. And a sense that maybe these ancient texts can provide useful background and historical references that we would not have otherwise had.
And then even more so that we can look with a sense of kinship with those times, knowing that even as soon as 1 or 2 hundred years after Christ walked this earth that groups of people had vastly differing ideas of who He was and what He stood for, and we can nod our heads knowingly, somewhat more secure in the idea that differing theologies are as old as time. We "emerging" folk know what it feels like to be the underdog, to be misunderstood , misrepresented, and even feared. Maybe there's a certain amount of that in play with the gnostics as well.
Maybe "getting it right" isn't as important as "getting it out". That if people so much closer to these events and the life of Christ, historically speaking, couldn't "get it right", maybe we should be not be so hard on ourselves, either.
Graham Cooke says, in his teaching titled "What Causes Barrenness in Church Life" :
I sympathize, to some extent with the gnostics ... not that I know much about or agree with their lives or belief system, but the fact that they walked a different way and weren't afraid to announce it or even document it ... that's something the "emerging" church can take into account.
And as far as history repeating itself ...we keep thinking each in generation that each way we modify or elaborate on Christianity we are drawing closer to the "truth", "the church as it should be", or some such thing. But I wonder more and more if there really is "no ONE way"to "do" church, but rather a myriad of "ways" that are equally acceptable but vastly different expressions of faith in Christ. I'm not preaching universalism. I firmly believe Jesus is the only way to be reconciled to God. I just wonder if we couldn't simplify the "definition" of Christianity, then learn to graciously accept each other?
This post feels really random and pointless. Maybe eventually it will gel into something reasonably coherent.
Until then ... just wondering.
Disjointed musings to follow:
Been thinking lately more about why we keep trying to revise Christianity. Each generation or so a faction of us come up with new ideas and methods and missions. And each generation thinks they are "doing it right", or "the true church".
Why?
Obviously because what works for some does not work for all ... but why haven't we got it right yet? We've had 2000 years to practice. It would seem that Jesus' ideas should work for ALL of us, if His teachings are in fact divine. Whatever kinks there were in the system should have worked themselves out by now. We should all be in fantastic agreement and have no disillusions, right?
I guess in theory that should be true. Why is it not? Why can't we all read the same books of the Bible and come away with pretty much spot-on clarity of what Jesus taught, what the Bible meant and what our lives should be like because of it?
The recent increase in interest in the Gnostic texts and the subject of "manipulation" of the canon ... all the recent to-do about the Gospel of Judas ... and the DaVinci Code ... suddenly have created ample reason for people to become interested in other "tracks" and "histories " of Christianity. I understand that gnosticism in itself is a widely arcing umbrella that can relate to many things, including Christian gnosticism. I know very little about it, but know that by and large all aspects of it are generally considered heretical. I'm not under the impression that all or any parts of gnosticism are compatible with true Trinitarian, Christ-professing Christianity. The truth is I really don't know enough about gnosticism to comment on that. But that's not denying the increased interest in such things in both Christians and non-Christians in recent months.
In the end, I begin to wonder ... and don't get me wrong here because I, for one, am fascinated with the lost gospels and other ancient texts ... only as useful in fleshing out the ways that people have viewed and understood the various Christian and Christian-related traditions over the millenia ... but if we believe our spiritual forefathers, the Council of Nicea or whoever we choose to credit/blame, have been keeping something from us or have manipulated the text of the Bible in order to suit their purposes ... and of course DVC perpetuates these myths in society ... we are not only lacking trust in the people who were involved in such things as canonization, but also lacking trust in God's ability to set the record straight should it be errant.
Is it because the whole sense of "emerging" church and all is broadening people's minds in so many ways ... allowing us to consider possibilities that were previously considered heretical ... that we are so interested in these texts? And if so, is that an altogether bad thing? Not that we need to be adding to the Gospel, but that we need to no longer be afraid to even cast a cursory sideways glance at anything that doesn't thoroughly mesh with what is considered to be "mainstream Christianity" today. Could we look with reverence at these ancient texts ... not a holy reverence, but an awe of the fact that people even of quite different theologies way-back-when still loved their Gospel enough to labor to create written records of it. And a sense that maybe these ancient texts can provide useful background and historical references that we would not have otherwise had.
And then even more so that we can look with a sense of kinship with those times, knowing that even as soon as 1 or 2 hundred years after Christ walked this earth that groups of people had vastly differing ideas of who He was and what He stood for, and we can nod our heads knowingly, somewhat more secure in the idea that differing theologies are as old as time. We "emerging" folk know what it feels like to be the underdog, to be misunderstood , misrepresented, and even feared. Maybe there's a certain amount of that in play with the gnostics as well.
Maybe "getting it right" isn't as important as "getting it out". That if people so much closer to these events and the life of Christ, historically speaking, couldn't "get it right", maybe we should be not be so hard on ourselves, either.
Graham Cooke says, in his teaching titled "What Causes Barrenness in Church Life" :
"So the early Church grew up next to a hidebound institution that continued thinking that it alone held the glorious tradition of the truth of God. The old persecuted the new, which in turn eventually came against the newer works, which in time grew to be the oppressors of new moves of God till the present day. The chronicles of the Church are littered with stories of new moves of God erupting in the earth through orthodox persecution and then settling back into conventional, narrow-minded religiosity.So this old-versus-new thing has been going on since the dawn of Christianity. With that, I wonder again if the message of Jesus was not meant to be cut-and-dried at all, but as varied and colorful as the people who walk it and live it, viewed through kaleidoscope lenses and windows of experience rather than through some systematic and uniform interpretation.
Only the presence of God can prevent institutional Christianity from reducing truth to a set of rules or worship to a meaningless time of singing without awe."
(The entire teaching can be found here. Although I have great respect for Graham Cooke, I am generally not a supporter of the site this particular teaching is found on.)
I sympathize, to some extent with the gnostics ... not that I know much about or agree with their lives or belief system, but the fact that they walked a different way and weren't afraid to announce it or even document it ... that's something the "emerging" church can take into account.
And as far as history repeating itself ...we keep thinking each in generation that each way we modify or elaborate on Christianity we are drawing closer to the "truth", "the church as it should be", or some such thing. But I wonder more and more if there really is "no ONE way"to "do" church, but rather a myriad of "ways" that are equally acceptable but vastly different expressions of faith in Christ. I'm not preaching universalism. I firmly believe Jesus is the only way to be reconciled to God. I just wonder if we couldn't simplify the "definition" of Christianity, then learn to graciously accept each other?
This post feels really random and pointless. Maybe eventually it will gel into something reasonably coherent.
Until then ... just wondering.
0 comments:
Post a Comment