Back to the Brian McLaren visit!

Again-the legalese first - I am required by my lawyers to make this disclaimer:  What you are about to read are my notes of his visit, my elaborations on his comments (both here an in my notes for the days events)...
Right... there we are.. I have been given permission to continue.  

So- in his visit in the afternoon of the 6th of May - that more intimate gathering where he shared with us some thoughts he'd had... thoughts that are actually put in a book... he spoke of the propensity of Christianity (in its past and present) to not only identify itself (through its doctrines and theology)... but in its opposition to those that do not share their specific beliefs.  He used the phrase Oppositional Identity.

I think I mentioned before, he found in his studies that there are two "sides" denominations tend to fall; often they may have a pretty strong identity- who they are, what they believe, that all may be perfectly clear.   But that strong identity also seems to bring with it a sense that "we" are "in" and "they" are not!    WE are in, WE'RE the chosen.  WE have it right.   But THEY (basically those that are not you) are... well... not you.

But the other extreme a denomination can fall on this pendulum, perhaps as a reaction to this exclusive theology, is to be very open-minded about "the other"... to be tolerant... more than that, to be really accepting.    "It doesn't matter what they believe... God loves them all... and so do I!"    But the other side of this coin is the diminishment of that denomination's (or congregation's) identity; the importance of their doctrines and theology is reduced in favor of their open-ness and tolerance of the other.


He mentioned some challenges that we must grapple with:

Historical Challenge - He brought up the Gospel story of the Good Samaritan.  In the story, Jesus talks about how we are to behave... and in the story the one that best exemplifies these behaviors is the one that is "other".   The Samaritans and the Israelites DID NOT get along.   Interesting because they both - Samaritan and Israelite alike, came from the same Semitic lineage... they worshiped the same God (but don't tell them that), they had very similar customs, similar temples, etc.   And yet they became enemies.  And here Jesus uses the Samaritan as the example of they- the Israelites- are supposed to be like.  Jesus uses the "other" to teach the ones who believe themselves to be "in".    We have a history of alienating neighbors, those who may be more similar than not.      

He talked about the Doctrinal Challenge - Is it the doctrines that foment hostility?   Then let's reduce them, right?!  Makes sense.   But then we run the risk of losing our identity.

How we understand some of our doctrines may partly influence our "identities" of not just us, but the other.   He gave the example of 'Original Sin"; the idea we may take from this is that God is hostile to that which is NOT perfect.  Adam and Eve disobeyed, and therefore have fallen out of the perfect state of being with God.  This hostile state can only be ameliorated, fixed, by a perfect sacrifice... Jesus.  He asks - where does this ultimately lead?   Certainly to Jesus' death... but more to the point, to what image of God does this lead you?  A God whom we must appease, one that calls us to perfect justice.
I believe he asked - what if "Original Sin" was more the notion of how we build identity in opposition to other?  

Another example was the doctrine of the Trinity.  There is the classic church-doctrine... three distinct individual persons, yet together they form the God-head.  He asks us to re-think; what if it were more social trinitarianism... what if the trinity can be seem as insights into the nature of God?  That this not be used as a measure to judge others, separateness coming together to express unity.   He described the challenge of trying to envision "Fatherness" without colonizing "the Son".   He then went on, the ultimate practice of "trinitarianism"would be to practice it in the presence of non-Christians.  "I move to the other.. and the other isn't bad."

He also described the Liturgical Challenge -  I believe he talked about how we must look at our worship style and see how it may or may not bring out identity in opposition to other.

He mentioned the Missional Challenge, but I had very little notes at that point... ran out of paper.   My bad.   But I can only imagine it includes the notion of going somewhere to do what we do... but do we do it as a means to help, or as a means to convert?   Do we go with the idea we are going to teach them our ways... or are we going just as ready to be taught?   For most of our traditions, going somewhere to learn their ways just doesn't smack of "mission" work, does it?

I took his final challenge to be - how can we maintain our identities as Christians (and more specifically Baptists, Methodists, Nazarene, whatever... and all the theology it brings up) without it also raising in us the need or desire to change them into us... to convince them that we are right, and they are wrong.  It was all in all an interesting evening, leaving me with a lot to think about.

My oh my, Brian... can this actually be done?   Well folks, what do you think?  

Comments?   Questions?   Go for it...