Abi redefines and refocuses the controversy....

I have mentioned before that I'm not really comfortable with the terms currently used in the debates. I have had my synthesizing hat on for the past few years, looking to see if I could get my brain about things enough to describe what I have come to understand about the foundational issues that underpin the controversy.

Some of the key players in my thinking  these past 20+ years include: S. Scott Bartchy, Scot McKnight, C. S. Lewis, George MacDonald, Mont W. Smith, Lewis B. Smedes, Wayne Jacobsen, Alan & Deb Hirsch, Eugene H. Peterson, Neil Cole, Michael Frost, Tony and Felicity Dale, Len Hjalmarson, Wm. Paul Young and C. Baxter Kruger ... and all the thinkers of the past they have brought with them into today's arena. I would have a very difficult time separating the various threads each of these persons contributed to the wee tapestry I want to share today.

The following definitions are intentionally very dense as I try to squeeze 40 years and millions of words into something that begins to represent what I believe about how humans are meant to treat one another.  These concepts have been heated white-hot in wrath's purifying and restoring hell-fire (not sure whether I'm ready to join the May Synchroblog: What the hell? ... I may need a rest!) and hammered out on the anvil of spiritual formation over the past five years in my wee purple experience. And now they have been plunged to cool in the Living Water of Truth to harden and prepare for service.

My glasses are still a bit fogged from the steam...and I'm still a bit tender in places that have been pruned and cauterized...but I trust the love of Sarayu that sometimes wounds in order to heal.

I pull no punches today, so I know those brothers and sisters who have invested their lives in what is currently called Complementarianism will not be very happy with me.  The term "Patriarchal Subjugation" will probably offend them.  I am intending to be precise, not offensive. I endeavor to speak the truth in love, spritzing a bit of Trinitarian Windex on their Augustinian glasses, as Baxter says...but I know that they will not see differently until they get a new prescription.

And I realize that it is not my task to convince them and call them to repentance--that is the work of Grandmother! I trust that Jesus is on their journey with them right where they are and that the Spirit will lead them according to their readiness to follow.  I certainly know how long it took me to make this difficult transition. They are still my brothers and sisters in Christ, but that does not mean that I must agree with them.

If you've been following my thoughts over the past eight years, you will see how I've come to this particular synthesis. And, as Craig Groeschel told a group of us at a Church Planting Conference in Kansas about seven years ago:  I only guarantee what I'm saying for 90 days. The Spirit is always at work teaching and leading me toward deeper growth along this journey...and there's always something being pruned, weeded, mulched... hey, it's spring! ;^)

Here goes--I suggest that you read it slowly and out loud (if your surroundings allow!) 

Patriarchal Subjugation 

is a male-centered, domination-based 

functional social structure of scarcity 

implemented by coercion and aversion. 

It's Christian practice flows from 

Augustinian-based scriptural interpretation and tradition, 

which is influenced by the pagan Greek philosophy of Socrates 

as taught by Plato, Aristotle and others. 

(Interestingly, Socrates rose to influence 

as the 400 years of prophetic silence 

was beginning for the Hebrews 

and his philosophy was firmly entrenched 

in the dominant culture of the Roman Empire 

when, in the fullness of time, Christ was born.)

Its infiltration from Western Civilization into Western Christianity 

was as subtle as a pagan wolf in Christian sheep's clothing 

and its practice ultimately fosters bondage and stunted maturity—

both of the oppressor and the oppressed.

Its peace is built on the coercive order

and cruel efficiency of the PAX ROMANA.

[I will need to come back and unpack this later...

probably with lots of links

to things that have already been said better

 somewhere else!]

Perichoretic cHesed

is an other-centered, self-giving 

relational social structure of abundance 

implemented by gracious loving-kindness 

and manifests as unmerited favor, 

mutual submission and 

mutually-initiated helpfulness

based on the best interest of the other. 

It flows out of Trinitarian-based scriptural interpretation, 

which is influenced by the Hebraic covenant philosophy of YHWH 

as revealed to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 

and given to Moses in the Law,

known as the Old Covenant, 

and taught by the prophets. 

As it was radically reinterpreted by Jesus 

and introduced as the New Covenant, 

(cut in his very own body 

and shedding his very own blood,

to bring about our rebirth and adoption)

and taught by Paul and the very Early Church Fathers, 

its faithful and humble practice

results in the growing freedom

and growing maturity 

of ALL toward Christlikeness. 

Its peace is the very own peace of Christ Jesus, 

which is not at the world gives,

but rather removes both anxiety and fear

as all come to learn of their 

inclusion in the very Life Eternal

of the Father and the Son in the Spirit

as adopted children and joint heirs with Christ Jesus.

Perichoretic cHesed...

It's News...because we didn't know it.  And it's Good!  (HT: C. Baxter Kruger)

Grace and peace to you!

Abi

Abi ponders the roots of sin....

With gratitude to Mont Smith, Scott Bartchy, Scott Peck, Alan Hirsch, Paul Young, Wayne Jacobsen, Penelope Wilcock, Baxter Kruger...and so many others who have challenged my thinking. Thanks be to God....

* * * * * * *

I have come, over the past 20 years, to believe that understanding sin requires that we back up and understand the primary will of God...so that we see clearly the target that sin misses.

Belief is certainly part of the will of God, but perhaps that is too narrow, or not specific enough. What is it that we are to believe?

Scripture tells us repeatedly that God is love. Love is a relational term that needs the context of the Trinity --Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- for proper understanding. Too many see God as alone and distant in his holiness (Greek thinking) rather than engaged as an eternal relationship of love that includes all creation.

If God is by nature a loving relationship of mutuality and equality, where there is such unity of desire that can only be described as Oneness, then we have to ponder the meaning of creation.

I believe They created in order to share Their life of loving relationship with humans. History has been the process of humanity's education. And this is where sin comes in.

I believe that the problem of human sin is one of laziness -- of taking the easy way rather than embracing the necessary work of growing through loving relationships. This laziness partners with a desire for independence, because it seems easier (better!) to do things our way instead of entering into the growth required by love that fosters the other's best interest and finds a way in unity. This is why sin almost always is manifest as coercion -- trying to get our way by force.

This coercive way is sin because it misses the mark of loving the other as we love ourselves. It weakens or destroys relationship and introduces fear...and I don't mean holy awe....

And when we are afraid, we trust less...and, boom -- we get unbelief.

The serpent sowed seeds of fear by suggesting that God was not to be trusted -- that he was holding something back -- and the rule against eating of the forbidden fruit was a form of coercion. Laziness took that seed and gave it place instead of running straight to God for the truth.

The serpent stole their innocent dependence on God as Guide and they turned to independence instead of growing toward greater interdependence.

I have come to realize that much of Western Christianity is mired in the unfortunate blending of Roman/Greek philosophy, which forms a pair of legal/rational information-as-knowledge contextual glasses. This moves away from God's Hebrew experience + information = knowledge philosophy, which is founded on cHesed -- gracious loving-kindness -- within God's series of covenants. When that happens, misinterpretation will follow about the very nature of God and humanity...with the horrific results too many accept today as God's will. So very sad....

Only by the continual renewing of our minds by the Spirit will we have eyes that can see the Truth in Jesus, and this calls us to die to self so that we can be alive in Christ.

Lord have mercy on us in our blindness...and lead us out of the darkness of our own fallen thinking!

Amen!

May Synchroblog -- Letting go....

While I've been working on my perichoresis series off-line, I have been seeing the many posts pop up for this month's synchroblog.  And even though I have not even been able to read one of them yet, I finally felt this morning that this wee, purple abbess needed to chip in a few words.

Those of you who have wandered through the posts here know that I have been letting go of ever so many things over the past few years ... but today I just want to say that the most important thing that I have had to let go (and let go again and again and again) is the desire for the approval of man.

When I have been concerned over the approval of man, my ability to listen to the voice of the Spirit and follow the example of Jesus in being obedient to the Father's will has been compromised.

I'm not talking about the approval of the "worldly culture" here ... I'm talking about the church culture that has been institutionalized.  (If you want to get a better understanding of what it means to be institutionalized, watch The Shawshank Redemption -- as Red talks about what happened to Brooks, and again at his last parole board hearing.)

I'm looking forward to reading The Faith of Leap, by Hirsch and Frost ... as I'm pretty sure this will be part of what they're talking about....

Letting go of the approval of man in favor of the approval of God is risky business in the church.  Turning away from the security of conformity to the conventions of man in order to embrace the risky freedom of being love by God, loving God in return, and loving others as ourselves is not for the faint of heart, it seems.

While there are many things that could use letting go, I have found that as I let go of this one -- the approval of man -- there are many others that fall away almost without thinking.  When we live in the reality of the cHesed of God, his love and grace and mercy set us free so that we may live full.

It's like that old story of the monkey with his hand in the peanut jar ... stuck because he has grabbed a fist full of peanuts and so can no longer slide his hand out of the jar opening.  Only when he lets go of the peanuts can he escape ... and then learn that he can get the peanuts out by dumping the jar out.  The prisons we get caught in by holding on greedily to that which has been freely given, eh?

Peace to you all ... and may our Father give you the courage to let go of whatever is keeping you stuck.

...and I am sorry that I have not posted all the other synchroblog posts.  I think you can find them here.  [Note on 5/16...updated the link.  Sorry about that :^(  ]

Abi

Abi Responds to David Fitch About reJesus....

I was caught by a Facebook entry by David Fitch about reJesus...so I popped over to see what he had to say.  I like Dave and I can see where he's coming from in this post -- just as I can see the perspective of my friend Len, who made the first comment (...Len, I've not had a chance to read your recent post -- but I will!).  That being said, this is what I had to say:

Having just posted a bit on this new book myself, I find that I understand what you're saying -- but think it might be a case of "methinks he doth protest too much".

The organic/missional church is frequently confronted with those who are afraid of both this and "heresy" -- as if the Holy Spirit is not able to teach and lead competently.  Perhaps it is a holding-on to the security of "history" rather than being able to have God lead us on down the road to a new place.

For many (most?) of those for whom organic and/or missional are where the Spirit is leading, it is precisely because the forms of church they have experienced have been so toxic that they must move away.  That does not mean that they are going as "individuals" -- they are going as disciples of the wild Messiah.  They are being gathered together so that they may engage the incarnational/missional pulse in the situation in which they find themselves.

Hirsch and Frost are not anti-church.  I believe that they are not convinced that the institutionalized church that many hold to is the "right" form of church.  My experience is right with them -- moving away from 40+ years of practice into something very other.  And I have had to move away so that I might see clearly enough to peal away the "laminations" of the institution in order to free the living organic body.

Perhaps many forms of the church have, like Eustace, wandered into the dragon's lair of consumerism and patriarchy and numerous other disractions ... and has awakened to find that is has turned into a dragon itself.  Today's fantasy world would welcome a friendly dragon that is powerful and flies and breathes fire with which to vanquish all its foes.  But, again like Eustace, it will find that the Body of Christ is a human reality ... and keeping and feeding and trying to carry a dragon along a wild sea-faring journey is just not practical.  And so the Dragon that was Eustace follows Aslan and submits to the Lion's claws in order to be un-dragoned and the boy trapped inside is set free to journey with his companions again.

There is much to be gained from the continuity of the church's history.  But it is too easy to set up the form as an idol and find Jesus outside that door knocking....

...or so this wee abbess thinks!

Blessings

...and that's about all I have to say about it at the moment.  Miles to go before I'm finished packing....

Abi

Abi's thoughts about reJesus and UNTAMED....

Why I love Alan & Debra Hirsch

When I went to Neil Cole's first Organic Church Conference in Long Beach, CA, in January of 2007, I did not know the Hirsches.  As I was trying to decide which seminars to attend, I thought Alan's sounded interesting.  It was beyond interesting ... it was mind-blowing.  Not in what Alan was saying -- but that he was saying what I had come to in my heart, but didn't know how to articulate.  I later told Alan that listening to (and, later, reading) him was for me just like reading C.S. Lewis was in the 70's:  seeing/hearing what I had come to believe in my heart but had no words with which to articulate it.

It will come as no surprise to my friends that what links me to Alan is our common embrace of Hebraic thought over and against Greek/Platonic thought.  This need to approach all things of God through a Hebrew filter is what drives my insistence on understanding cHesed and using cHesed glasses to view scripture and discipleship and relationship.

Really ... if one wants to understand scripture and the Incarnation, there is no way to get there without learning to think like a Hebrew.

UNTAMED

I will have to unpack their book later, but suffice it to say that it is a fabulous book -- and one perfect to use with a small group.  The thoughts for pondering at the end of each chapter are priceless.  And I must say that it is a book that really whets one's appetite for more.  Especially the hint that Deb will be writing a book of her own.  I look forward with great expectancy to that one!

For a wee abbess known for asking hard questions and telling it like it is, this book was so refreshing.  My frequent feelings of "abi-normal" ness were met by companions who share them.  It helped me understand even more why I resonated so strongly with both of them at that conference.

The Abbess highly recommends that you get their book.  You will not be sorry.

reJesus

Alan's newest book with Michael Frost is also wonderful.  I found myself nodding along as I read.  So  much frank analysis and fresh views of where we are as little Jesuses ... and where we need to be.  Another book to process with a group, although they do not have the wonderful discussion helps at the end of their chapters.

That being said, it was a bit of a shock to run into what I consider a bit of infiltrating Platonic Greek thought in their discussion of Paul's Vision of the Jesus Community in Chapter Seven:  The Church That Jesus Built.

Beginning with page 168, there are a number of examples where they embrace the understanding of "head" as authority rather than source.  Frankly, I was shocked by this.  One of the challenges of bridging time and space and culture and language is to realize how words are used at different times with different connotations.  Consequently, the next few pages brought a few raised eyebrows rather than head nods.  These were also the only times in the book that their words didn't ring true and their thoughts did not convince.  For me, at least, this was a missed opportunity to free the wild Messiah from another misconception.

In using the Ephesians1:22 verse where Christ is head over all things for the church, we  have an example where head is clearly used as a metaphor for authority -- over all things FOR the church.  And I agree with their conclusion that this means that all Christ's influence is used to benefit the church.  This is cHesed -- looking out for the best interest of the covenant partner.

But when Paul goes on to speak of the church as the Body of Christ, then the head metaphor must change from authority to one of source -- both as to origination as well as to sustenance.  I know that this is a hotly debated issue ... and getting hotter still.  But there is some important context which I find compelling.  And I am hopeful that Alan might find it so as well.

One of the critically important ancient arguments has actually been one of physiology -- concerning the location of the mind (the center of intelligence, reason, thinking, and decision-making).  In Paul's day, there had been two camps:  head and heart.  ( I am indebted to my friend, Dr. S. Scott Bartchy, for sending me an important article on this by Troy W. Martin from Saint Xavier University.  I am sorry that I do not have a link to it to include here.)

Plato, Philo and Plutarch held the head to be the center of intelligence, reason, thinking, and decision-making -- the center of control of the body.  It was no jump for those of that camp to see Paul's use of head as control or authority.

But Aristotle and the Stoics held the heart (kardia) as the center of intelligence, reason, thinking, and decision-making.  Many translators have shown this confusion when they chose to translate Paul's use of kardia as "mind" rather than "heart."

This, then, frees Paul to use "head" in what many see as the more common metaphorical sense -- as the source, origin and one who sustains life rather than the ruler and authority over another.

If we are to really hold to the Hebrew mindset, we must realize that when God came in Christ, he did not come to rule and exercise authority over humanity.  Even as we recognize him as Lord and Savior, Jesus shows himself to be the quintessential covenant-maker and covenant-keeper who uses all his power and influence for the best interest of the covenant partner -- us.

It is never in anyone's best interest for someone to rule over another.  That way leads to dependency and immaturity.  No, the way of Christ for his Bride is one of love that submits and grace that serves and mercy that initiates and supports.  There is no wielding of authority or ruling by coersion.  There is only wooing and waiting for the return of cHesed from the Beloved.

No, there is no way to biblically show Christ as the head of the Church his body in such as way as to allow husbands to rule with authority over their wives -- not at least in a way that is internally consistent for our God who is Love -- mutuality-in-equality. 

To have Paul making an appeal to order out of the wild freedom Jesus brought to the downtrodden is to really miss the point here.  He calls men to realize that Jesus had stripped them of their patriarchal power and calls them to love their wives by submitting to their needs, to be gracious to their wives by serving them and showing mercy to their wives by initiating and supporting their growth to maturity in Christ.  As sister in Christ first, wife second, the brethren are to embrace the mutuality-in-equality modeled by Jesus -- within the Trinity as well as within the disciples/the 120.  As wild as this freedom was for the sisters, it was a real twister for the brothers.

Paul finally gets around to speaking it explicitly in Ephesians 5:29-30, where he shows that nourishing and caring for his Body is what Jesus is about. As Alan and Michael say so clearly:  lets not tame Jesus and make him the opposite of what he said and is.  I say the same about Paul:  let the wild apostle of the wild Messiah be set free from our image of his message!

...stay tuned, there will be more about UNTAMED and reJesus from Abi!