bob.blog: A Christianity Worth Believing, pt 1

Over the next week or so, I want to interact with Doug Pagitt's book, A Christianity Worth Believing.

I've finished a first read through, we have Doug coming to town next week for some good interaction, and I have both some praise and some questions/concerns... so seems like a good time.

The first three chapters are available online, and I think you should read them:
1. Confessions of an Adopted Son
2. Passion Play
3. From Amen to Uh-Oh

If you've heard Doug speak over the last decade you've heard the stories in the first couple of chapters. (I first heard Doug speak at a NYP Convention in late 2000, I think. He did a Critical Concerns Course with Mark Driscoll. I liked Mark a lot. I liked Doug too, but thought he was a bit out there... Those few hours with the two of them literally changed the course of my life by setting me on a very different path for ministry and absolutely ruining me for church-as-usual. I still feel in many ways that I'm still right there, floating balanced between the two. Anyway...)
You may have heard the stories, but in this book, Doug takes it a step further and tells us what else and what next- what happened after the Passion Play, how Doug started his journey as a member of the Christian family.

The thesis of the book, and both the main beauty and the main problems are found in summary in chapter One.

Doug says this:

"This book... in an expression of my desire for a Christianity that makes sense in the world in which we live, a Christianity that is not afraid of questions and will not resist answers, regardless of where they lead. It is my attempt to embrace a faith that is expansive, growing, and beautiful, one in which God is active and alive, involved in all of life. Because I believe in a Christianity where nothing is left out and no one is left behind, where humanity participates with God in the redemption of the world; where sin is more than a legal problem to be judged but a relational problem that can be healed; where we pursue harmony, centered on Jesus the Messiah, the Jew, whose life, death, and resurrection allow us to live well with God; where the Bible draws us into a story of life and healing; where we find hope for this life and life ever after; where love is alive, where love drives out fear, where love propels us toward lives lived for the betterment of all the world."

Amen!

What he does in this book is present an over-the-top positive and inspiring view of a truly vital/alive/potent Christianity (as opposed to the "positive thinking" Christianities of the Schullers of the world that present Jesus more as a means towards better self esteem).

Doug sees God moving in the world, changing things, bringing healing, forgiveness, redemption... and his call is for us to join God in that process- to truly live as though we were in (as Paul puts it in 1st Cor 1:9, NLT) "partnership with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord."

In it, Doug provides the most accessible, most clearly written and most compelling vision of Emergent Village-styled theology and thinking I've seen yet.

But in that summary paragraph, I also see the seeds of two issues I have with this book and with Tony Jones' The New Christians.

First- The statement "I believe in a Christianity where nothing is left out and no one is left behind" is going to have the Ken Silvas of the world having kittens. And the reason is this- it's vague enough to mean a number of different things, it's not adequately unpacked later in the book or in other works by Doug, and the issues it touches on, while probably not "A" level stuff (Do I have to believe in hell to go to heaven?), are at minimum "B" level, worth-speaking-clearly and worth-helping-people-know-what-I-mean kinds of things.
Yes, God is at work reconciling all things to Himself through the blood of Jesus (Col 1:20)- the question, and it's an important one, is what happens to those who will not be reconciled? The Tyler Durden's of the world who would reject God's redemption, reject Christ...

I've had a running dialogue with Doug. My plea to him was to speak in such a way that he told us not only what he thought, but what he didn't think. In other words, help us (his friends... and his critics for that matter) out by understanding that everyone will not only hear what he's saying, but draw inferences as well. And when the potential exists to draw inferences that are not in line with what Doug is actually saying, nothing could be more helpful than to say "Here's what I'm saying... and since I know where some people are going to go with that, here's what I'm not saying."
So far, I haven't been able to express this clearly enough... I think Doug has always (at least in our last interview) heard me as wanting him to draw boundaries on people's thinking and tell them what not to think.
No- that's not it. It's more this: I have no problem with taking hits and critique for friends. Doug doesn't either, as he talked about in that Next Wave interview...

But.

I'd love to avoid taking hits for what someone's NOT saying. And while there's a lot to be said for the winsome, provocative way in which guys like Doug and Brian McLaren communicate, often, what it means practically is that people will misunderstand them, proceed to attack said misunderstanding, and then proceed to condemn others of us who appreciate some of what these guys are saying on the basis of that same misunderstanding. A truly sad chain of jumping to conclusions and judgment.
Do I care what guys like John MacArthur and other critics of the emerging church think? Yes and no. No- it has little impact on me loving God, loving people, being about the work of Jesus in the world. But yes, we remain one family, one Body. These critics are my brothers and sisters in Christ- and if something is going to strain our unity, I'd rather have it be something someone actually believes, is actually proposing that brings that strain, not just what someone imagines someone else in the emerging church is saying.
To me, being clear on the issues that we know are likely to cause strain and rifts in the Body is servanthood. Yes- we should say what we mean and mean what we say. And we can work for unity by being as clear as possible.

So what does Doug mean when he says "no one left behind." Is that a poke at LeftBehind™ theology? If so, I'm probably down. Is it a statement of unlimited atonement, where the work of Jesus is seen as applying to all, if not actually efficacious for all (as in classic Arminian theology)? If so, again, I'm probably down.
Is it a statement that no one, not even the John Wayne Gacys or Idi Amins of the world will ultimately be "lost?" Is Doug's idea that the dross in each individual life will be what's burned away in judgment? Or will some people so cling to that dross that they themselves will be lost to the new heavens and new earth choosing instead disconnection with God (the definition of "hell", and about the only thing Doug and his interviewer agreed on in this whole conversation...)?

Even after reading this grilling of Doug, I'm still not sure.

It's not like Doug never does what I'm asking- that is, tell us what he's NOT meaning. He does it right there on page two: "I want to be very clear: I am not conflicted because I struggle to believe. I am conflicted because I want to believe differently."

I also recognize that perhaps there's a method to the madness. Maybe for Doug, a part of fleshing out a Christianity worth believing is moving away from the "Tell 'em the bad news, then tell 'em the Good News" strategy of standard evangelicalism. If so, again, I'm (mostly) down.

But it seems like a necessary part of drawing a picture of the Kingdom of God, and of inviting people into participation in it, is to give a warning about what the consequences of rejecting that invitation are- what is the result not just to the world, but to individuals in it who actively oppose and reject what God has done/is doing? At least, that seemed to be important to Jesus. (I'm not the only person who is at the same time sympathetic to emerging sensibilities and concerned that emerging writers "often leav[e] crucial things unsaid.")

The other issue I have with certain parts of this book (and a bit in Tony Jone's latest) is a surprising bit of binary, either/or thinking when it come to certain parts of theology. But this post is long enough- so that's where we'll start on part two.

But- All in all, like I said- there are both beautiful and puzzling/concerning parts in A Christianity Worth Believing. Check out the summary/sample chapters and tell me what you think...

5 Comments

So don't compare me to Ken but this statement as you said "Because I believe in a Christianity where nothing is left out and no one is left behind," bugs me. I appreciate that you're wanting to explain it but if that's what he means why can't he say it plainly? This is my main conflict with a lot of "emergent type" writers.

Posted by: Aaron Stewart | April 11, 2008 at 02:31 PM