Law v Grace

Law gives us something to manipulate for our advantage, and gives us some sense of control. Grace doesn't have such a "handle" on it.

The Pharisees upheld the law because it gave them a means of control. But as was said by someone around the campfire this weekend, you can't balance rules, control, and rigid formal structure with grace. 1% law and 99% grace is still legalism.

Law permits us to restrict in many ways. Not only freedom, but it also allows us too much discretion where law doesn't speak. Grace as a way of life knows no such bounds. Law would require us to give a fixed set of our income to an institution. Grace demands from us to love until it hurts -- which may require none of our income if we are poor, or the majority of it if we are wealthy.

Law requires debate of rule interpretation, grace demands us stop debating when anger or condemnation is interpreted in our words.

In the process of detoxing from four wall church, I'm finding how the rigid ritual of "church" reinforces the idea of keeping law -- whether an old one, or re-interpreting the New Testament in a way to derive a new one. As Alan Hirsch writes, the "medium is the message". What message does the medium of ritual express? That of form, of format mattering. Our medium often gives off the message of law. What would a grace-filled gathering look like?

Community

This past weekend, I went camping with six other guys and six boys. Thirteen of us all together, all the adult men disciples. We shot guns and rifles on a makeshift rifle range, had campfires, a couple of us went white water rafting et al.

In many ways, it was more of a church than what happens on a Sunday.

If church is a community that is centered on Christ, then what was experienced was more of a church than what is typically labeled as such. We challenged each other, we had some deep theological discussion (including a rousing one on if it is 1% law and 99% grace, it's 100% legalism), we encouraged each other, we spurred one another on to doing good afterward, we sympathized and comforted one in our crowd who's facing having to get a legal separation early this week, etc. And I believe God was more glorified in it than if we had stared at the back of each others' heads singing with one of us giving a talk somewhere along the way.

That, my friends, is what I'm learning a church to really be, as intended. We glorified God in our interaction, we had fellowship, we had times of discipling one another, we ministered one another, and we were sounding boards for one another in how we will be about the God given missions of our lives. Moreso, I believe, than the churches of four walls and a pulpit.

Some thoughts on post-modernism

By definition, almost, if I consider myself a post-modern, I'm not. So I won't claim to be, or not to be, one. I do find myself increasingly rejecting much of modernism, while holding on to other items of it. In many ways, I belong to a "bridge" generation -- I'm very late in the baby boomers generation, what some have labeled a 'tweener (those late in the baby boomer cycle or early in "generation X" or whatever the next generation is called).

(click here to see more about my exposure to postmodernism and some previous thoughts on the topic)

I do find much to be appreciated in both modernism and postmodernism.

The clip above (http://www.youtube.com/v/9RA-JzVxGTg for those who get this imported into Facebook or the like) illustrates one of the supposed differences between modernism and postmodernism -- belief in objective truth vs belief in relativistic truth. What a load of crap this is, at least as a "defining" difference. It is characteristic, but not a part of the definition. In fact, there really is no good definition of postmodernism.

Do some postmoderns belief in relativism? Yes, they do. But this is at best characteristic of postmodernism, not defining. In fact, a flaw of moderns is their need for clear definition. And in defining postmodernism, they find a cause to reject everything about it. Modernistic thinking, which dominates Churchianity too often, is setting up a kind of cultural war. Rather than comparing and contrasting the two schools of thought (though it is actually only one, as only one builds walls), they defend and more often attack.

And if they aren't attacking, moderns are busy defining postmodernism in modernistic terms. As the "expert" moderns teach other moderns about postmodernism, they perpetuate the division, the misconceptions. So the moderns end up trying to convert postmoderns to modernism, rather than trying to bridge the gap.

To me, postmodernism represents a great opportunity for the church. At the beginning of the modern era, modern thought corrupted the movement of Christ and so much of discipleship became about knowledge and discerning truth. Postmodernism is characterized (not defined :-)) by an emphasis on experience, on doing. Modernism seems to be characterized by a thought that you are how you think. Postmodernism, to quote a character from Batman Begins, "it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you". There is opportunity to swing the pendulum back, but if modern thinkers persist in thinking in terms of walls, they miss a chance to influence and the pendulum will swing (in some ways, is swinging) to far the other way.

Exclusion v Inclusion

I know there are some that reject anything from the "emergent" thought, but there is much valuable there to appreciate. (Just test the fruit before accepting it).

One thing that I've heard from it which is beautiful is the view of membership that accepts and loves all, and deals with sin after. It is a realization that Jesus adds to his church, so membership is to our individual "communities", not a church. The church belongs to Jesus, not us. We welcome them into our community, then as we help them journey with Jesus, confronting sin comes later.

And as Greg Boyd writes in The Myth of a Christian Nation, we are never once called to be the moral guardians of anyone outside our fellowship, but rather we are instead called to love people the way that Jesus did, by meeting their needs and loving them even if they kill us in return. If sinners and tax collectors and prostitutes aren't coming around our community they way they came around Jesus, then why not? Do we love them like He did?

Now, my qualm with this viewpoint is in wanting "guidance" on when challenging sin is to be done. When along the way? But I'm starting to see that as my hangup, not a reason not to live and love and accept.

Atheism as a moral choice

Did the title get your attention?

Some may know that for a few years, I was at Brian McLaren's church. He is a great guy, who asks great questions, though he and I may disagree on many of the answers that arise. Though I left the church to move, like many around the time that did leave because of a "revisioning" of the church under his successor, I would have left as well anyway.

Still, I came across this video and found it very intriguing. I knew early Christians were often labeled atheists due to not following the state gods, but casting modern atheism as a moral choice, to think of it as not believing in "this god" or "that god". To me, it sparks some questions on how to view evangelism, and creates some sympathies for atheism. How do we introduce people to a god they don't know, the one revealed in Jesus Christ? How do we separate the view of the true God from the one that bears a resemblance to him, but is one of war?

I know a great many Christians who have much of the doctrine, theology and dogma right, but their god is not one of love. It is one of moralistic judging. of rules. of separation rather than community.

Such a view does not necessarily mean a kind of universalism about things. We can love, and welcome others to our communities, and in those communities introduce them to the God of love. When we intrigue them with this God who is love, then we can talk to them about what separates them from relationship with him. But first, we need to reject the false gods who faith in justifies war and hate. That's not to say that war is not sometimes necessary to rescue many from a few oppressors. But the war and violence spewing from judgment and condemnation ... this is not from a God of love.

God is a god of love ... and redemption.

More admin stuff

Rethinking the name of the blog. markwinstead.blogspot.com just isn't cutting it.

Suggestions welcome. Right now I'm favoring repackaging a name I already claim, restoringheart.blogspot.com.

Edited: I've decided to repackage restoring heart.

Reboot

In order to simplify, I'm merging my blogs into one spot.

Old blog posts and new ones within the themes of Restoringheart.blogspot.com have a label "Restoring Heart". Those from redemptivecommunities.blogspot.com, old and new ones in that theme have "Redemptive Communities".

This new merged blog will also contain thoughts from various other topics as I journey.