Why Narrative Theology Matters

I mentioned earlier that I've been working a bit on a side project involving narrative theology. On a mostly unrelated note, I've also been listening to a few of NT Wright's recent lectures, which have been absolutely fantastic (not that this should come as any great surprise). These have meshed well with some of my recent rantings, in particular those related to the idea of New Creation. This idea, this theme that unfolds marvelously in the scriptures, unfortunately often gets shortchanged in western Christianity, heavily influenced by Platonic ideas of the duality of spirit and matter. As a result, this idea of New Creation tends to show up more often as the epilogue, instead of as a significant theme in its own right.

Put simply - I don't think it's possible to have a robust, biblical theology that doesn't incorporate this idea of New Creation. I don't think that we can talk about sin, or about atonement, or about ecclesiology, or about justice, or about discipleship, or about leadership and service, or about, well, pretty much anything that's worth talking about from a theological standpoint without somehow connecting to the idea of New Creation.

Here is where I find that a narrative approach to scripture comes into its own: I find that this theme (among others) works much better if it's seen as just that - a theme - rather than as a doctrine. As a doctrine, we can catalog all of the passages that reference it, construct some general statements about it, and perhaps find some connecting points with other doctrines. Please don't misunderstand - I'm not knocking doctrine. It serves a specific and vital function, and I would never want to discard it. But constructing doctrines out of things, in the sense of saying what we do or don't believe about the New Creation (or other themes), isn't always the most beneficial approach. A narrative approach sees instead the New Creation as the climax of the story. It is the telos, or end, towards which the narrative progresses. In other words, we see the echoes of New Creation all over the scriptures - it is the focal point that brings the rest of the story into clarity. But it doesn't function like that for us, for those of us who have grown up in a tradition influenced by Enlightenment's neo-Platonic categories. It isn't the driving force behind our theology; it isn't the climax of the narrative; in many cases, it's simply absent, replaced by either some goofy sense of human progress or a disturbing sense of immanent doom and destruction.

Over the next few posts, I want to explore what it might mean to allow our theologies to embrace a robust understanding of and hope for the New Creation. I think that it may provide resources for us to imagine in new ways what it might mean to be the people of God - and provide a new approach for a way-of-being in the world.

Technorati Tags: narrative, new creation

Initial Impressions: Wings of War

I mentioned last week that I had an eagerly awaited package on the way. Well, yesterday I received it and proceeded to dig into my new acquisitions - a set of titles from the Wings of War series. Wings of War is a card game that simulates World War I fighter combat. Actually, it's not entirely fair to call it a card game - it's really more of a miniatures game played with cards, which has the advantage of being extremely cost-effective while allowing some interesting mechanics that you usually don't get with a typical miniatures game.

Ok, a pause here for those of you who aren't into games - if you're still reading, you're probably wondering what the heck a miniatures game is, right? Picture a game played entirely with small models of things - it could be tanks, it could be infantry, it could be starships, it could be orcs and dwarves. Basically, the miniatures represent units that move around the board and have specific abilities and ways to attack. Miniatures games care a lot about where pieces are, how far they can move, what direction they're facing, and what the terrain looks like along the way. All of those things play into whether a given unit will be successful at attacking another unit. And yes, they're pretty much entirely wargames - I can't think of a single miniatures game that isn't, although it's possible that there might be one out there somewhere. (But it would probably suck ;).

So - Wings of War. The cards, in this game, represent the airplanes in your squadron. They also represent the maneuvers that the plane can do - which immediately struck me as both a brilliant and elegant mechanic. The game plays in turns of three maneuvers per plane. In a nutshell, each maneuver card has a blue arrow printed on the card. Each player moves his or her plane by taking a maneuver card, placing it at the front of the plane, and then positioning the plane at the end of the arrow. Each plane uses its own maneuver deck, which represents all of the maneuvers that a given plane is able to accomplish. This allows the game to represent more agile and less agile planes by including different cards in the maneuver deck. A heavily armed two-seater, for example, might not have a maneuver card for a ninety-degree turn - but a lighter recon plane would. The basic point is to use the available maneuvers to get close enough to your opponent's plane to fire on it, causing him or her to draw cards from a damage deck. Each card in the damage deck represents a specific amount of damage, along with special conditions such as smoke or fire. When a plane takes more damage than it is able, it is considered to be shot down. Last one who can field planes wins - or scenarios are also available, with specific goals to accomplish (such as a recon target, destroying enemy balloons, etc.).

I purchased the Burning Drachens set, along with two expansion decks (Top Fighters and Recon Patrol). I wanted enough cards to give me a sense of the game while keeping my investment light in case it wasn't my cup of tea. Well, I played a few rounds with my boys last night - this game is a blast. We played with one plane each to get the hang of things, but I can imagine a game of three or so planes per player would be just crazy (in a good way). The rules are simple and intuitive, but the strategy is definitely present. It has a baseball-esque strategic element - in other words, you're trying to second guess what your opponent will do and plan accordingly. You need to think two steps ahead and try to guess where your opponent's plane will be at the end of three maneuvers from now; if you're wrong, you'll be giving him or her the opportunity to outmaneuver you. I think with more planes the options would open up a bit - can you use one plane to box your opponent in, while bringing your other around for the kill?

This is a great light wargame that can be enjoyed by almost anyone - my seven year old son picked it up in no time, and my six year old was mixing it up too. I can't wait to introduce it to my gaming buddies - it will make a great opener to get the juices flowing. I'll definitely be picking up the other two sets (Famous Aces and Watch Your Back!), and I'll be anxiously awaiting the release of the WW2 edition Dawn of War.

My copy of Tide of Iron is due to arrive on Thursday - I'm like a kid waiting for Christmas. We have a session planned for July 4 where ToI will be the main event. Can't wait!

Technorati Tags: games, Burning Drachens, Wings of War

Who's Driving the Bus: Narrative vs Systematic Theology

I'm working on a little side project at the moment that deals with narrative theology. Narrative theology is an approach that has received increasing attention in recent years; you'll likely see the term floating around in emerging church or postevangelical conversations, and it's gaining traction in other spheres as well. In a formal sense, my understanding is that it's connected to the postliberal theologians (Frei in particular), although I'm not all that knowledgeable about that particular school. In a popular sense, it's usually used to refer to an approach that attempts to take seriously the biblical narrative as a theological statement in and of itself - in other words, the form of the text matters a great deal to what the text is trying to say. It's often placed in contrast to systematic theology, which is in essence the attempt to summarize the message of the biblical text on a number of subjects, things like the nature of God, the nature of humanity, and the nature of scripture.

So I've been thinking about what it is that makes narrative and systematic theology different. I've read some critiques of systematic theology that I find just naive, especially in that they are often paired with an elevation of narrative theology. But on some level both approaches share a lot in common. Both are attempts to say in some kind of summary form what the text says at length. Narrative theology - and I'm referring to the popular approach as opposed to any specific work by the postliberal theologians - must take the text and condense and summarize it if it wants to say anything about what the text means. This task is typically driven by what is perceived as the "themes" of the narrative. So, for example, a narrative approach would probably describe the primary themes of scripture as something like Creation, Fall, Redemption, and New Creation. And, if you're paying attention, you can see those themes repeated and reinforced and echoed and fulfilled through the larger narrative - they form a framework through which we can understand what the text means. And those themes can be broken down further - you can speak of election, or of atonement, or of the church, or of the mission of Christ as themes that weave in and out of the larger theme of redemption, for example. And I'd say that an approach that takes those things seriously and uses them to illuminate the meaning of the text is an approach that's doing justice to scripture.

But wait - isn't this starting to sound suspiciously like a systematic theology? After all, systematic theology also breaks down scripture into its components and then organizes and summarizes its findings. Isn't that the same thing that I've just described? I'd like to suggest that there is one significant difference in particular that shapes how I think about the two approaches: it's what drives the organization of the framework. Systematic theology begins with a framework already in place, and then mines the scriptures to fill in the predetermined structure. In other words, a typical systematic theology text will begin with the doctrine of God, and then go to the text to try to fill in the blanks or answer the questions that the framework has posed about God. And then that leads naturally to the doctrine of Christ, so we go back to the text to fill in the blanks for our new set of questions that the framework has naturally posed. And so on. The framework drives the exegesis. Narrative theology, however, begins with the text. The text begins, not with the doctrine of God, but with the story of Creation - so narrative theology, likewise, begins with creation. It's interesting that we don't really get to see what this God is like until about Genesis 12 or so, when we start to see God and Abraham interact. And it's not until Exodus that we even know how to refer to this God - until then, we don't even have a way to talk about him, except to call upon the experiences of our forebears. The one who is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob doesn't even reveal himself as Yahweh until the story is well underway. And that revelation is as much a concealing as a revealing - it would be hard to construct a doctrine around "I am that I am." (And perhaps there is a lesson in that...)

The point, then, is that narrative theology attempts to allow the text itself to set the agenda. It tries to let the text drive, not just the answers, but also the questions. That isn't to say that systematic theology is bad - sometimes, there is a need to ask the questions of our context, and to then search the text for what answers it may hold. It is, rather to say that both approaches need each other, because they both bring something different to our understanding of the scriptures.

Technorati Tags: narrative, scripture, theology

In the Pipeline

I've been traveling for work over the past few days - I had training in Washington DC on Thursday and Friday, which meant a three hour drive after work on Wednesday and then another after my training on Friday. What a miserable way to spend an evening - man, I hate driving. It was made even worse by a toll collector in Baltimore who shorted me $5. I, of course, didn't realize this until I hit the next toll plaza and found myself without sufficient cash for the toll. Now I get to find out if those cameras at the toll booths really work. At any rate - I'm caught up on comments now, so if you were waiting for a response from me, it should be up.

On a positive note, I have a few things in the pipeline. Not posts, although I have a few of those as well. I'm thinking games - I've got a few fun new items on the way that I'm absolutely looking forward to breaking open. First is Seafarers of Catan - I've been bitten by the Catan bug, it seems, because I can't stop playing it. Fortunately, it's simple enough that my boys can play, so I thought I'd grab the first expansion. Cities and Knights is probably out of their league, but I think they can handle islands and shipping. The second is a bit of a gamble on my part - I don't usually buy games sight unseen, especially good quality games (because they ain't cheap). I've been looking for something that has some solitaire scenarios, though, as it's hard at the moment to get a group together for the kind of games that I'm into (read: War of the Ring). So I stumbled on Wings at War, which is a card-based simulation of WW1 fighter combat. The reviews are generally good, although the ratings are a bit lower than I'd like for something that I've never played. But it sounds really intriguing, as the fighter combat is resolved through the use of cards - and I'm a sucker for card games. And it has one-player scenarios - that to me made it worth the gamble. Fantasy Flight puts out some great products, so I hope this is up to their usual standards. I'll post a review after I get to try it out. I'm also hoping to grab Tide of Iron, but it's pretty hard to find at the moment. And at $80 I need to order this one online - I can't afford to pay retail for it. At least I'll have a few goodies to tide me over until I can get my hands on it.

I don't post about gaming often, but for a long time it was a huge part of my life, until my local comic shop closed. Recently I find myself really missing it. Any other gamers out there? What are you currently playing?

Technorati Tags: gaming

Searching for New Creation

I think that at least a part of my recent funk, and part of what I referred to as the attempt to hold together things that I can no longer hold together, comes from what I perceive to be an increasing distance between the God of the scriptures and the god of the church. For many of us who have been involved with emerging church-related stuff for some time now, this may seem to be little more than a truism, a mere stating-of-the-obvious. But I think it also fair to say that many of us, contra the "angry young man" syndrome (thank you Don Carson, gender-centric language included), have long held out a hope that we were participating in something of a prophetic movement, a call to the traditions from which we came to return to scripture, to stop serving the interests of political parties, to be hospitable and welcoming to those who are not a part of our faith traditions, and to seek justice and mercy for the poor and oppressed. And, in testimony to the prophetic character of the movement, many of us have experienced pain, ridicule, and hostility, and some have lost jobs and relationships and more. But I think there has long been, for many folks, a desire that our traditions would enter into the conversation and find something that they currently lack.

Maybe I paint with too broad a brush - I don't mean to imply that all is right and glorious and noble that carries the label "emerging". Far from it - I've often shared my criticisms of the ways in which this sort of thing is worked out, some of which are most definitely not prophetic in any real sense. But I think the general thrust of the ec is right and necessary, or at least what is necessary at this particular moment, and when it is firing on all cylinders, it is a beautiful thing.

Part of my frustration, then, is what I perceive as a circling the wagons of conservafundagelicalism. And this is a bigger thing that just emerging church, just to be clear - the exhibition of jackassery that is the latest Big Mac Attack is only floating at the periphery of my vision on this. It's also the insanity that is James Dobson's call for the firing of an NAE official for emphasizing global warming as a moral issue. It is the silence of the Religious Right on issues such as torture. It's the neo-gnosticism that masquerades as gospel, with a spiritual heaven and a spiritual salvation and a spiritual Jesus who really doesn't give a rat's behind about what happens in the here-and-now, so long as you're not sleeping around and are pissed off at people who are. Not that any of this is new - it's been going on for a long time. It's part of why I abandoned that ship in the first place. What bothers me of late is more the recent reaffirmation and intensification of these things, in the face of all of the calls for something new. They're doing fine, thank you - in fact, Jesus must really like them, because nobody else does. And we all know that Jesus is proud of us when nobody likes us.

On a personal note, I had a conversation with a friend today who's being put through the wringer at his church. I won't divulge details as it's not my story to tell - but I will say this: until we figure out that power and authority function differently in the Kingdom, we should run from positions of responsibility. We should be like Joseph, leaving things behind in our efforts to get out of there before we are caught and corrupted. Power is a dreadful thing when it's wielded without grace and humility - but it seems that we haven't realized that yet. Story after story - my own story included - leads me to believe that we just don't see the connection. Whether it's the Religious Right or Johnny Mac on a broad scale, or some random guys on staff at a church down the street, the faith tradition of my youth is enamored of power and displays no sense of embarrassment or shame about it. Somehow, they can read the scriptures and walk away thinking that what they do is just fine - and I'm left asking what in the world they're reading.

If you want to know why people are walking away from the Christian faith, let me break it down for you in a non-scientific, non-validated study: it's because we are jerks. Or, let me be more fair - it's because the people who represent the faith on a public basis often sound like jerks. And I know that's a crass generalization that doesn't get anywhere near the truth, that there are far more humble and gracious and loving people in the body of Christ than the ones who always seem to find themselves behind the microphone. But until we start to shout down the jerks in our midst, until we can be heard saying that it's not fine to treat people like sub-humans or to wield power to suit our own ends and not to serve others, then we will continue to lose credibility and the right to be heard.

The problem is that we are supposed to be the people of the New Creation. Paul says in 2 Corinthians that if anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation - or at least that's how it's translated. I've been wondering of late if what he really means is that when someone is in Christ, that is the new creation. You can read it like this: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ - New Creation! The old is gone, the new is come!" The New Creation is being put on display in front of the Old, in the people who are In Christ (which is always how Paul refers to the status of being a part of the Kingdom). The Church (big C) is supposed to be the place of the breaking-in of the Age to Come into the present age. And when we fail at our vocation of being that demonstration of New Creation, then the Kingdom appears just a bit more weak, just a bit more insubstantial, just a bit more frail and imaginary. And that is something of which to be ashamed and dismayed.

Semi-Random Linkage

I'm actually working on a real, live post - oh frabjous day, callou, callay! Or something like that. Anyway - I think perhaps something has shaken loose and the brain juices are flowing. More on that later. In the meantime, two must-reads that I stumbled upon lately:

• Michael Kruse has a truly excellent post on Emergent and the new religious left. The challenge that he offers: "I will know we have a truly emerging leader when he or she gives a press conference and neither Jim Edgar nor Jim Dobson are thrilled to be standing behind him or her." And be sure to read the comments.
• Andrew Jones has a fantastic post on the use of language among emerging folks. Great, great discussion about how the boundaries for language have shifted, and he makes a point that I've often thought needs to be emphasized - what is happening in western culture, broadly speaking, is a shift in sensibilities so that new norms are being created. It's not that any language is now considered appropriate - it's rather that language that is used to exclude and marginalize is being rejected instead of the more traditional taboos.

I don't do this very often, but these two posts in particular caught my attention and deserve a bit of reflection.

Blog Funk

I think there are three kinds of bloggers: first, there are those who post like mad, chronicling each and every moment and instance of their lives. Or linking to every bit of whatever that someone else has so chronicled. These folks have multiple posts per day and could probably generate daily archives if they so chose. The motto for these folks might be, "More is more." Second, you have folks that post every so often. And, if these folks have been around for a while, they probably post substantive bits that attract attention. Every post is worth reading - but there aren't that many of them, maybe a few a week - and they're fine with that. The motto for these folks is probably, "Less is more." The third kind are the folks who post like the second group but feel the need to post like the first. They feel the lack of content and are self-conscious about it. The motto for these folks is generally, "Less is less." (Ok, there is a group of uber-bloggers who post with the frequency of the first and the substance of the second. They are something more than human. Think Scot McKnight. They have earned the title uber-blogger, and mere mortals cannot aspire to their greatness.)

I definitely fall into the third category. I'm self-conscious about blogging, and I definitely feel the lack when there isn't any new content. I take it personally when people drop subscriptions and whatnot. And I'm self-critical about what I write, going back and tweaking word choices and punctuation in a way that probably borders on OCD. But I'm also not much of a linker - I'd much rather write my own stuff than put up a bunch of links to other people's content. Not that I'm disparaging such by any means - I find the most helpful stuff by following links from people who are good at filtering content. It's just not me.

So I know there's been a lack of stuff here of late. I've got a half-finished series that's sitting on the back burner and I owe another post on a group blog that I was invited to participate in. It's just not there. I don't think I've ever had a funk like this in three and a half years of blogging. In truth, the blog is just one of the symptoms - I'm not reading anything exciting and I'm not really thinking anything original or challenging. I'm at a point where it feels like I'm having the same conversations over and over, and I'm bored with them. Cynicism has been running high of late - part of why I'm not writing much is that I try to leave as much of that off the blog as I can (although it creeps in from time to time anyway). I feel like I've spent a long time trying to hold some things together that I just can't hold any longer, and it's not been pleasant. I am less hopeful for the future of the American church than I have been for a long time. From where I sit, the two primary interpretations of the gospel (depending on the stream in which one swims) seem to be either:

1) You suck, and you need to follow Jesus so that you can suck less. Oh, and vote Republican.

Or

2) Don't be mean to people. Oh, and don't vote Republican.

To be honest, I'm not buying either. And most other folks around here aren't either, those that haven't downed the Kool-aid anyway. There needs to be something bigger than that - no, that's not accurate. There is something bigger than that, at least in the scriptures I read. I just can't seem to figure out why there's so much difficulty in articulating it. Why do we sell out for such small, pathetic stories? Why is it so hard to read the text and walk away thinking, "The Kingdom has come, and it changes everything?" That, if anything, seems to be pretty straightforward.

I had a great conversation with someone at work recently, talking about social networking and how it could be used to alleviate poverty and bring resources to bear on local issues. And I mentioned that one of the natural venues for such networking to my mind is local faith communities. Her response was that she simply doesn't know enough people who have any interest in church or religion for that to be viable. I suggested that perhaps one reason that folks were tuning out is that religion in America has so often had nothing to say about daily life, about offering resources for doing things like helping the poor in local neighborhoods and about making sense of work and family and connecting faith with how we live in the everyday. I know that's a generalization, but I think it's true to many folks' experiences. And my conversation partner thought it was a valid observation and something to consider, so I take it that it's true to her experience as well. I know that it's true to mine. We're fortunate enough to be a part of a wonderful local church that we absolutely love - but based on a lot of anecdotal evidence that I encounter, I think it's the exception, unfortunately.

I don't know - I need to find something to get the juices flowing again, to generate some excitement and impetus to keep imagining. Right now, it's just not there. And I mean that in a bigger sense than just this little old blog.