Making Connections
I'm having another one of those weeks where disparate experiences are coming together in an interesting set of juxtapositions. I've been thinking a bit more about the whole question of story, about how we interpret our lives and our experiences through story and about how we as Christians so often do such a poor job of telling stories that help in this matter of interpretation. This line of thought has connected with some rather odd occurrences, that in and of themselves have no direct relation. First, I picked up the new David Crowder cd last week, and I've been digesting it - really good stuff, and perhaps the most interesting part is the undercurrent of story, particularly eschatological story, that runs through the lyrics. So this prompted some thinking on the sort of odd eschatology that happens in the emerging church - which, basically, is none. And I'm wondering, now, why it is that a movement (don't throw rocks - I used the "m" word) that prides itself so much on story has more or less ignored this one component that's so critical to the Old and New Testament narratives - the inauguration of the Kingdom? Left Behind nonsense not withstanding, it seems that apocalyptic speech needs redemption far more than it needs abandonment.
On another front, a friend forwarded this rather odd email from a pastor in our general area going off on another "emerging church - Satan, or something worse?" sort of rant. Most of these rants I just ignore; they're usually not informed enough to bother reading. This one, I did read, more out of a morbid curiosity than anything else (and I wasn't disappointed). But in between the lines of this rather sorry attempt at a critique, I had another thought - part of this we do to ourselves, because I'm not convinced that those of us who have bought shares in the emerging church, so to speak, can do a solid job of articulating an alternative interpretation of the biblical story to the one told by fundagelicalism. Sure, we can pick apart their version - but can we tell a better one, one that is grand and broad and deep and beautiful? Or do we just tell a different set of episodes in some oddly disjointed miniseries, episodes that have no connection except that the main characters all sort of float in and out with some degree of regularity?
Here's what I mean - I read a lot of stuff in and around this conversation that's just sloppy. I read people advocating unversalism or a particular approach to the afterlife or tolerance for this-or-that or even something as central to the story as social justice and it's not grounded anywhere except in something that passes for a storyline in episode 43. The problem with this is that I don't really see a difference between this and proof-texting, except that it's a bit more fun to read.
Maybe I'm wrong; maybe I just haven't found the right conversations. But I think that until we're able to articulate a story that is true to the Story, faithful to the Community of the saints, and that inspires our own imaginations, we'll never have the sort of transformational effect on twenty-first century first-world Christianity that I know most of us want. The rub is that I think it's there - I think the Story, when read and told truly and lovingly, has many of the pieces that we, generally speaking, are claiming. We just need to start inhabiting it, to put down the scripts for the uninspired episodes and trade up for the epic of which we're already a part.
More to come - I think I need to unpack this a bit more.
I wonder if one reason for the void of eschatology in the emerging church is the realization of how wrong we have been about it (especially for those coming out of the rapture crowd). We made an attempt at eschatology, got turned down, and now can't make ourselves face it again. Perhaps it's hard to even know where to begin.
I also find it hard to synthesize, if it's even possible,` the eschatological writings of the OT, especially in the prophets, and apocalyptic writings like Revelation. My latest lense for Revelation is that it's of the apocalyptic genre and deals with spiritual issues, such as the battle between God and evil during a time of intense persecution. But then what do we do with the promises to Israel and, just to muddy the waters even further, how do we add in the sayings of Jesus about the Kingdom of God.
Speaking for myself, I was so certain I knew what was going to happen at the conclusion of the story and now I am certain that I can only know Jesus is going to do something that will wrap things up, so to speak. It seems hard to say much else. I'm glad you've brought this topic up, but I sure don't know what to do with it.
Sorry for the ramblings. I wish I could have written this post in the "twinkling of an eye."
Posted by Ed C on October 4, 2005 09:51 PMNo answers here, Berkhimer. "Excrementology" is what I like to call unbiblical eschatology (by unbiblical I mean anything that I disagree with).
Kidding aside, eschatology is quite divisive. A more covenantal/Kingdom focus might be the most consistent approach for EC - the OT seems to have this focus, though "Jacob's Trouble" is obviously present. Most evangelical eschatology centers around the Great Tribulation and where the church will or will not be during that time. It would be quite interesting to see the church step back/up and focus on the realization of the kingdom they proclaim: Creation finally redeemed/restored. The arguments surrounding tribulation and rapture could then all take place in the footnotes, which nobody reads anyway. : )
Prophecy is given to God's people for knowledge, not for ignorance. For hope, not despair. I think that these prophetic texts that are symbols stacked on symbols might have been intended for, and will only completely make sense to, those who actually live through the period.
Also, don't forget that the church, while consistently botching it, has had plenty of time to study last things - all of it shouldn't be totally abandoned. The questions of When and How Literal seem to me to be the main areas of disagreement and problem.
Anyway, just vomiting out nonsense before the sleepies are out of my eyes. Glean what you can from it, if only the term "excrementology" (It's a winner, I'm telling you).
Posted by Scott L on October 5, 2005 07:52 AMI just realized, after pushing the "Post" button, how I ran roughshod over some excreme . . . eschatologies with the assumptions I made even in my suggestions. My apologies. It was unintentional and is more symptomatic of the embeddedness of my personal beliefs than anything else.
Posted by Scott L on October 5, 2005 07:58 AMglad you've resurfaced long enough to post :)
As I read this my mind went a different direction and I started to think about THE story and how we do - or don't - tell it.
It's so easy to get caught up in church as usual, focus on the theology studies or church or ordination or whatever it is, and lose the plot.
sigh.
"...until we're able to articulate a story that is true to the Story, faithful to the Community of the saints, and that inspires our own imaginations, we'll never have the sort of transformational effect on twenty-first century first-world Christianity that I know most of us want. "
until we get this, we will walk around and around in the desert. As you say it's not enough to unravel someone else's story - we need to become proficient in articulating the story, OUR story.
For me it starts right back with me sitting at His feet.
see you there later :)
"We just need to start inhabiting it, to put down the scripts for the uninpsired episodes and trade up for the epic of which we're already a part."
love that line.
This was a smart and thoughtful post, my friend. Looking forward to more of your unpacking.
Posted by so i go on October 6, 2005 11:10 AMThanks everyone for your most excellent comments - I haven't had an opportunity to respond in depth, but I will do so within the next day or so.
Posted by ScottB on October 8, 2005 01:07 AMThe way you describe the sloppiness in the emergent community is exactly the same way I would describe the sloppiness of the preterist community. The funny thing is that here you have a community focussed very much on eschatology and all we can do with apocalyptic language is call it "a poetic way of saying something."
Posted by Jared on October 11, 2005 10:57 AMI'm struggling with the best way to respond to these - there are so many excellent thoughts here. I think the best way might be to wrap everything into a second post, which I'll post asap. Thanks all!
Posted by ScottB on October 12, 2005 09:44 PM