existence communication
As we begin an exploration into the next element of mDNA…discipleship and disciple-making, I thought we could start our journey by exploring the idea of existence communication…a little piece of Soren Kierkegaard’s weird but wonderful mind. First consider these two quotes from two very different people.
“We can only live changes: we cannot think our way to humanity. Every one of us, every group, must become the model of that which we desire to create.” — Leo Tolstoy
“The greatest proof of Christianity for others is not how far a man can logically analyze his reasons for believing, but how far in practice he will stake his life on his belief.” — T. S. Eliot
There can be no way around the fact that our actions, as manifestations of our total being, do actually speak much louder than our words. There is a clear non-verbal message being emitted by our lives all the time. We are faced with the sobering fact that we actually are our messages.
Søren Kierkegaard, the Danish philosopher, called this “existence-communication” and by that term he meant that our lives—our very existence—is our communication. Our existence as an authentic human being communicates more than what we say or even what we think. Kierkegaard despised the philosopher Wilhelm Hegel who held that all truth could be grasped objectively. With stinging irony he points out that “Hegel builds a magnificent tower but lives in a crappy little hut.” What he meant by this is that Hegel could not live in the real world in the ideological system he had produced. It was all ideas. And that he was not a “player” in that world, so to speak, but a distant observer. In other words, he was not his own message. Living in ideas is the very contradiction to living in actuality, but to live in books is the philosopher’s constant temptation. The only essential sermon one can listen to and appropriate comes not from the pulpit via the minister’s words but from one’s own existence.
This is essentially the message of biblical existentialism. Commenting on Kierkegaard’s thinking, F. Sontag says,
Existence corresponds to the individual, not the concept of the universal. To conceptualize is to dissolve existence into possibility and away from actuality. As far as contact with actuality is concerned, to increase our powers of conceptualization is a step backwards. The aim is to move from possibility toward actuality, that is, to determine a concrete action. For instance, to transform Christianity into “science and scholarship” is an error, since if it succeeds Christianity will be abolished. Its existence lies on another plane of individual decisiveness. Christianity is not a doctrine but an “existence communication.”
This has been the problem of Christendom; the reduction of Christianity into science and scholarship. We need to take seriously the fact the medium of our lives conveys very definite messages, ones that are being read all the time by the people around about us. This is a rather disturbing truth as it has already been noted that “our actions are so loud I can’t hear your words.” So what is the message of my life? Am I being read as a disciple? Do people see a clear picture of Jesus through my personhood?
Comments
62 Responses to “existence communication”
Leave a Reply
Alan,
I am so looking forward to this stage of the discussion…this is exactly what I am about: making the living of every day and every moment about “existence communication”–that everything we do and say is internally and externally consistent with who I believe Jesus is and what I believe God’s mission is and how I believe the Holy Spirit is actively helping and leading and empowering me for that work.
CS is so busy, he may not see this right away, so I’ll deliver this line of his as a way to encourage you and keep him in mind….
Luvyerwork, mate!
This is the essence of why so many people I love have either walked away from church, or have no interest in being part of church.
I have met a few people who really get this on an individual level, but I am interested to hear how this works on the corporate level.
How does a group of people come together to clearly reflect the personhood of Jesus?
I love Tolstoy - his writings move me like few people. When you read the Sermon on the Mount - who can live that without the Holy Spirit. If you act and live “missional” how can that be done without the Holy Spirit who arranges circumstances and allows for opportunity to engage with what he puts in front of our face that are bigger than our abilities. I don’t believe we look for those opportunities - they’re all around us, we just respond. Here is our big mistake - one of them - we think we can will our way into being and doing what God wants - Impossible - it’s just too hard. We’ve come to view the Holy Spirit as optional equipment and as an extra nudge or adrenalin jolt that helps us get over the top. The Holy Spirit is much more than that - to live and practice our Christology we’d better have a ton of pnuematology!
that’s really great stuff! David and I were talking about a few similar things last night. Gotta chew on this a bit.
it is so easy to become intellectual and ignore the emotions or actions. it is equally as simple to forge into the quagmire of emotions and never come out for the mind or the actions. and finally, one can often act a certain way, with consistency, and never truly have your heart into the action.
these obviously are all extremes, but they are all equally viable. i personally tend to intellectualize. my wife tends to emotionalize. etc.
i think this gets to the heart of the issue that kierkegaard is speaking of. you see, it is so easy to think in the head or feel in the heart, with no action. this would create a false “christianity”, because being a “christian” means following Christ as our Lord. this requires action.
however, though action is required, action alone is not desired. almost every minor prophet in the Scriptures speaks of the actions, but lack of heart behind the actions, of israel. therefore, God “desires mercy not sacrifice”.
so you see, it becomes a balance then, of emotions, mind, and actions.
that is why i think Jesus and others found that the Sh’ma was the heart of what it means to obey God. “Hear O Israel, YHWH God is one. Love YHWH God with all of your heart, all of your mind, and all of your strength.” (dt 6:4-5)
when we have the balance of loving God with our heart (emotions), mind (intellect), and our strength (actions) we will find what it truly means to follow Christ.
peter
I’ve been reading for a while but haven’t commented before, so I’ll jump in. First, I have to say this is why I respect your voice and thoughts in this discussion, Alan. You’re not only willing to look deeply into the theological understandings, but you’ve done and continue to do as that theology and the Spirit lead.
Being in seminary and working in a church, I know it’s easy to fall into simply thinking great thoughts about how we should act and leaving it there. Being more of a dreamer/lover of “vision”, it’s something that’s easy for me to fall into. Great ideas. Little of anything else.
We/I need to constantly be reprogrammed to the message that everything is spiritual. Our personhood sends a message. It even helps us. When we run hard, we hunger more. The moment we start moving in our faith, the more we hunger for God’s word and truth.
I love that Jesus’ first words to his disciples were simply “Follow me.”
Hi Alan…
Peggy is right - luvyerwurk…
Can I suggest also that an essence of “existence communication” is that it does not exist in isolation… it involves more than an individual… it can only exist in community. One of the problems, with our westernised mindset infecting Christianity, is that is has drawn away from the holistic nature of God and therefore of the plurality of the image of God which is at the root of human existence.
In a holistic framework, the image of God is not so much the expression of an individual God imposed upon an individual human being, as it is the relationship of the communal Godhead expressed upon the relationships of the community of humanity. The image is in the “relationship” rather than in the individuals themselves - Adam was incomplete because it is not good for human beings to be alone… because alone we do not have the capacity for relationship, for existence communication and therefore we do not have the capacity to fully represent the image of God.
Jesus’ invitation to “follow me” was not simply the invitation of an individual to another individual to follow that individual, but an invitation to come into community, an invitation into relationship. This is the root reason why in the Old Testament a nation was chosen and in the New Covenant the “ecclesia,” a community of called out people, represents the image of God - and why so much emphasis is on our relationships with one another.
Get hold of a Greek New Testament and read how many times the word “you” is referring to a singular individual - discoubnt the number of times it refers to a town or place, or God Himself. The count how many times “you” is plural, addressing a community; a plurality of people - the New Testament is NOT speaking to us as individuals - it was not written to be read, it was written to be heard, not written for individual consumption, but communication in community…
In essence, should I be so bold, I find I’m disagreed with the quote from T.S. Eliot in particular… I don’t think it quite goes far enough… I’d requote it as;
“The greatest proof of Christianity for others is not how far a man can logically analyze his reasons for believing, but how far in practice he will GIVE UP his life FOR HIS FRIENDS.”
So “the message of MY life” is in reality the message of the life of the community I am called into in Christ… “Do people see a clear picture of Jesus through”… the love we have for one another? You can’t claim to love God if you don’t love your brother/sister!! We can talk the talk and we can find all the right ideas in print and on the internet, we can say all the right things, but our true consistency is measured in the reality of relating to other human beings.
How does a group of people come together to clearly reflect the personhood of Jesus? By the miracle of being equipped by Christ to surrender their individual preferences to Christ’s calling as the head of the body. Bob Roberts notes that we want to “think we can will our way into being and doing what God wants…” it is “possible” while we are reading books and writing blogs about the stuff… it’s impossible once you factor other fallible human beings into the equation… That’s where we truly need the power and the presence of the Spirit of God; to enable us in the process of picking up our cross daily, of consistently dying to self, becoming more Christlike, preferring others over ourselves… authentically serving…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Of course you are right CS. But for Kierkegaard at least, it is a task of ‘the single one’ before God. This task cannot be outsourced to any other agent. He says that Adam hid from God in the garden, moderns hide from God in crowds. And in some way he is quite right. How many people hide from God in the collective of the church. There is a difference between a crowd and a community.
“there is a difference between a crowd and a community” - yeah, that’ll preach.
CS - you’re a very deep and thorough thinker/communicator, you should get your own blog
I agree, Alan, that the task of “the single one” cannot be outsourced to another agent…which is one of the problems with so many church structures. There is, for me, no lonelier place than in a church crowd, where people are hiding from God and from each other.
That is why I resonate with what CS says. Until we prefer other to self, we continue to be a crowd–or, at worst, a mob. There is no worse mob than in the church–been lynched one too many times
(Fortunately, I serve a Lord who rose from the dead…and he keeps bringing me back to life!)
…I’m still processing swarm theory, Alan, so thanks for posting it, even if it didn’t get a lot of “buzz” from others
There is a powerful resonance to this thread…may we take the sticky message back to our “hives” and spread it around!
If our lives, our existence are our communication, then is that another way of saying that what we believe affects/influences what we do and how we live? If we believe that money is ours and people in need are out of luck or should work harder, then that will be reflected in what we do, how we live, how we use/spend money. Our existence, our communication to others is heavily dependent upon what we believe, because what we believe will make us act in certain ways….yes?
Hi Alan…
again I might be so bold as to question your beloved Kierkegaard… it is a HUGE leap to go from “Adam hid from God in the garden” to “moderns hide from God in crowds.” It’s a bit like shelling a peanut with a sledgehammer… Both statements have truth but they are incredibly different in application. I also question the applicability of the concept… Genesis 3:8
says “THEY hid…” Adam does subsequently report that he hid, but the individual response in the garden is one of AVOIDING responsibility, of denying communal accountability… what might have happened if Adam had just said “sorry…”?
The original “sin” was a consequence of breakdown in communication and community… both the man and the woman were present - it was as much relational breakdown between them as breakdown in relationship between humanity and God. That’s not to deny the “task of ‘the single one’ before God,” but to clarify that the task of the single one before God is not as individualistic as our cultural predispositions cause us to believe. Typical of the paradoxical nature of our God, the task of the “single one” is effectively to bring about the death of the single one; to engage in the reconnection to the community of the Godhead - we need to perceive it as an event of and for community, rather than an isolated self-focussed incident.
This is where “perichoresis” is such a powerful image - the risen Christ brings us INTO the communal relationship of the Godhead - we are brought INTO Christ and we then engage in relationship IN the Godhead from Christ’s perspective. So, it is not so much about our own relationship to God as an individual, as it is that we are located by Christ IN Christ’s relationship IN the Godhead as community; effectively the most important relationship that we have is that we HAVE Christ’s relationship with the Father and the Spirit.
The “single one” before God is the engagement in that great dance, where individuality is subsumed in THE community of the Godhead, for the purpose of engaging more holistically in the relational community, in this mortal realm, that God has called us into… The task of ‘the single one’ before God is a means to an end, not an end in itself.It is the action of dying to self, of losing self in the process of being refined and equipped for effective life in community with others.
The statement “moderns hide from God in crowds,” to me is less accurate than saying “people hide from God in individualism.” It’s not crowds that are the problem per se, as much as the choice of the individual to engage only so far as suits the boundaries that they have set… in any environment. The model set in the garden was of complete and voluntary submission and surrender of self to God -clearly it was broken. Jesus came to reset the default, He set before His followers the model of complete connection in community - He refused to live by the “individual response” of Adam in the garden. Rather than avoiding his own responsibilities, he took on the responsibilities of His fellow human beings, rather than denying communal accountability, He denied His own flesh and embraced the accountability of the historical and global community of humanity.
People hide from God in their individualism, and they bring that with them to whatever collective they gather in and whatever they call it… it may be called “church” that doesn’t mean that’s what it is… The collective and the structure is not the enemy that limits humanity from being “ecclesia” our elevation of self is the killer! The Old Testament speaks of the requirement of two or three witnesses to truth, Jesus says, “where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them,” it is in community that the task of the single one - which is the death of the single one - is fulfilled and there is God present!
Hi Makeesha… I appreciate your encouragement. As you can see my contributions to TFW blog are sporadic at best. My primary engagement is with people in the community of faith I serve here. I contribute to this blog when I can, I have great respect for Alan and a number of the contributors here, who seem to bring out the best in me - presently I could not commit to a regular timetable to commit my thoughts to a personal blog… perhaps in the future.
On the topic that there is a “difference between a crowd and a community,” I have shared on this theme with our community many times. What tends to happen is that those looking for a crowd don’t hang around too long, and those who hang around are committed to community - at least to some degree. We are all on a journey, all are welcome to join us, all are welcome to stay… not all choose to do so…
Hi John Page… yeah absolutely “what we believe affects/influences what we do and how we live.” Therefore, how we live is a truer reflection of what we actually believe, than what we say we believe. I believe that what we believe is actually a foundation stone of life… check out John’s gospel and see how important the concept of belief is to the life of an authentic follower of Jesus Christ…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
OK guys, let me give you a clue to how CS looks so smart and gets everyones ooaahhs! He writes such dense comments that it is impossible to answer them in less than a thousand words.
Actually the problem is that he is very, very, smart.
CS, like I said, I agree with you, but do defend SK (as if he needs defending) he is right that ultimately only the individual can stand before God and be responsible. We are going to be held accountable for our own freedoms and the misuse of it. No-one can do this for us…we face our death (and thus our judgment) in utter aloneness before God. No one can do this for us. And as for crowds, they are places of escape because the borg mentality does set in. Actually I think our Pentecostalism is particularly prone to this. People will do in crowds what they will never do on their own. A community on the other hand is a different thing as it is made up of responsible, and responsive, people who have owned their freedom.
Perhaps a word from CS Lewis will help here…
“ How then, it may be asked, can we either reach or avoid Him? The Avoiding, in many times and places, has proved so difficult that a very large part of the human race failed to achieve it. But in our own time and place it is extremely easy. Avoid silence, avoid solitude, avoid any trace of thought that leads you off the beaten track. Concentrate on money, sex, status, health, and (above all) on your own grievances. Keep the radio on and live in a crowd. Use plenty of sedation. If you must read books, select them very carefully. But you’d be safer to stick to the papers. You’ll find the advertisements helpful, especially those with a sexy or a snobbish appeal…” - CS Lewis, “The Seeing Eye”
honestly, I don’t read CS’s comments, which is why I don’t respond to them. They’re just way too smart for me and too long for my kids to have the patience for
But I’m glad there are smart people like that out there, which is why I think you should start a blog, or write articles or something…if I understood what you were saying, I’m sure I’d love it 
hi i’m a tfw virgin so please, be gentle!
this quote from thomas merton lines up pretty well with this thread. plus the line “secretes cliches…” is worth the admission price.
…the only justification for a life of deliberate solitude is the conviction that it will help you to love not only God but also other men. If you go into the desert merely to get away from people you dislike, you will find neither peace nor solitude; you will only isolate yourself with a tribe of devils.
The great temptation of modern man is not physical solitude but immersion in the mass of other men, not escape to the mountains or the desert (would that more men were so tempted!) but escape into the formless sea of irresponsibility which is the crowd. There is actually no more dangerous solitude than that of the man who is lost in a crowd, who does not know he is alone and who does not function as a person in a community either.
Mere living in the midst of other men does not guarantee that we live in communion with them or even in communion with them or even in communication with them.
Where men live huddled together without true communication, there seems to be greater sharing, and a more genuine communion. But this is not communion, only immersion in the general meaninglessness of countless slogans and cliches repeated over and over again so without thinking. …He does not act, he is pushed. He does not talk, he produces conventional sounds when stimulated by the appropriate noises. He does not think, he secretes cliches.
Mere living alone does not isolate a man, mere living together does not bring men into communion. The common life can either make one more of a person or less of a person, depending whether it is truly common life or merely life in a crowd. To live in communion, in genuine dialogue with others is absolutely necessary if man is to remain human. But to live in the midst of others, sharing, nothing with them but the common noise and the general distractions, isolates a man in the worst way, separates him from reality in a way that is almost painless. It divides him off and separates from other men and from his true self.
There is no true solitude except interior solitude. And interior solitude is not possible for anyone who does not accept his right place in relation to other men.
- Thomas Merton; New Seeds of Contemplation
Oh, I forgot to say that Cs is not only smart, he’s a really nice guy too.
oh I’m sure he is, I’m just jealous….and snarky…you get used to it if you know me long enough
thanks alan, good chewy post. i see a certain irony in trying to replace one “idea” about belief with another “idea” about actions, which ultimately is using the same system of trying to persuade us to adopt one approach? When it actually hits the concrete of my own life i am left wondering whether this does anything other than allow me to give mental assent to an idea i already agree with and am more wired towards, that actions are at least as loud as words and then go on my merry way, feeling happy that others think the same…
Maybe that is just more crappy hut living in action
then again maybe we are setting up a duality of thought/action but in reality setting up a new ideology of being?
I think we can all think of people who have actualised their beliefs to such an extent that they become identified with them - say mother teresa , good example and hitler, bad example.
For me i live in a tangle in between where my self occasional seems to hit a consistent run of god inspired actions before stumbling back into my own choices - its a mixed bag of good, bad and indifferent, which i suggest is the reality in which we exist.
That is the story of my life, my actions and my words, my thoughts and my deeds… cracked concrete in places with some sprouting weeds and in others some decent deep foundations…
I find CS’s commments intellectually stimulating, so CS, I guess you’re getting at least 3 votes for being really smart and at least one for being nice too….lucky you!
Can we really live what we say, or does our behavior, more often than not, get separated from our “beliefs?” What causes us, makes us live the way we live…beliefs? behavior? something else?
I am also a first timer, having been introduced to Alan recently in Canada.
I do not consider myself an intellectual like many of you who participate in these discussions. I am, however, someone who has a lot of experience in creating activity processes within groups with a goal of creating reproducible events.
This particular discussion is similar to one I had about a year ago in a Theology class. Yes, as CS has said well, the language used in the passages under discussion are plural in their usage since they were written to be read to a group rather than read by an individual. This was inherent in the patterns of the culture.
The area where I differ, at least from my impression of what CS is saying, and agree totally with Alan’s points from the quotes he is using is this…The responses called for are individual, and life changing, to the point of ‘existence-communication’. I believe that the call was to us (plural), and the response called for was to us (individual), calling us to not only believe in a changed life, but to live it, individually first, in community with others who may be functionally different, but target-centered, that is a life transformed by Christ into a tool to be used (individually and corporately) by our master.
Blessings!
density can be a good thing. a very good thing. it offers more open ends than frayed ends for people to consider and reflect on for generations to come, especially in a complexified world.
meanwhile, since we’re talking about dense, intelligent, and stimulating, my friend kathy koch notes that, “It’s not how smart you are, but how you are smart that counts.”
smart is nice, but it’s really only an inherent quality, not a character quality. some of what i appreciate most about Celtic Son is his whole-person stewardship of his gift of smarts - think, feel, reflect, relate, choose, act. (this character quality of maturity applies to many others on these threads as well, and it’s refreshing to read!) ultimately, it ain’t about the IQ but the I DO. if only smart people count, then we’re really gnostics and not Christians.
also, alan, thanx for the kiekegaard quote on hegel: i’ve never been fond of mr. hegel, and soren sure helps put his dialectic into perspectic!
[once i get moved and resettled, hoping i can jump back into the substance of discussions in near future, instead of making an occasional secondary comments.] [keep prayin!]
LOL - so CS, how do you feel about this thread being about how smart and nice you are?
Hey, welcome to all the new voices in this great discussion! Don’t be afraid of all the smarties here…
Richard, be assured that CS understands the individual nature of responsibility, but that he is focused on correcting the too-often poor (non-existent?) integration of humanity with the communal nature of God and the Body of Christ as is to be found in the New Covenant.
Welcome back, Brad, speaking of smarties
And Makeesha, speaking of smart-alecs…
LOL, indeed!
And I’ll just be the smart-aleck!
Let’s continue with this then for a bit…
Peggy said, “Richard, be assured that CS understands the individual nature of responsibility, but that he is focused on correcting the too-often poor (non-existent?) integration of humanity with the communal nature of God and the Body of Christ as is to be found in the New Covenant.”
The feeling I got from CS is that he disagreed with Alan’s use of Kierkegaard’s thoughts. This may only be in terms of emphasis. My reading of Alan’s logic was that Kierkegaard was basically saying, as many others have, that our actions (individually) speak far louder than our community’s words and intentions. And that our community is and will be judged by those watching us by those actions. Very simply, if our individual lives, as followers of the way, do not incarnate well, than neither will our community rhetoric. Or our good deeds.
Am I reading this correctly, Alan?
Greetings mere earthlings…
I write from my elevated status… which apparently is that I’m soooo smart that I’m dense
Frankly, it’s not smart to be incomprehensible, it’s just poor communication! And Richard I don’t consider myself an intellectual per se - I lead a small community of faith and my first priority is in the journey of life wihin our community. My thinking and writing is a reflective process which comes from these practices and from applying truth to life - academic I ain’t!
Back to the topic at hand… let me add fuel to the fire…
I’ve been reflecting on my underlying concerns about this thread… clearly i haven’t communicated well thus far, so I’ve been digging to get at what the issue is that I’m trying to get to. One of the significant issues is that I question whether the “existentialism” that is at the foundation of this discussion is actually “biblical.” Alan quotes Sontag commenting on Kierkegaard, who has confronted Hegel… but what is the biblical root? Hegel had a more universal framework of existence, which was disputed by existentialism. As Alan’s quote from Sontag bluntly states, the root of the “existentialism” promoted by Kierkegaard is that “Existence corresponds to the individual, not the concept of the universal.” BUT is that the truth?
My question is whether the concept of “individuality” we are using and are programmed to think within, is actually a biblical concept or is it a cultural, philisophical and/or ideological construct that we have simply accepted without actually analysing? Is the root biblical concept, which stems from Hebrew holistic thinking, actually the same as we are presenting it here… and I think not, which is the root of my discontent.
Consider two contemporary examples of the universal-individual existential debate, placing them at opposite extremes… At one end would be the rampant individualistic “me” focussed western civilization in which we live - which is built on an isolated notion of the individual as the core unit of existence. At the other extreme we could place terrorist extremists who have prioritised the universal community as the core of existence. Both are inalterably convinced they are right and they have the truth… Biblically, I believe that both extremes are not truth and that our discussion has embraced a notion of individuality that is a human construct rather than a biblical truth.
If everything I have learned has come from the existence of other people and the existence of God… do I have the “right” to claim anything for “myself?” Consider what you might have in your life that you gained as an “individual” with absolutely no other input… so the question is are we as “individual” as existentialism would have us believe?
Jesus’ followers observe Him praying and ask Him to teach them to pray… “go into a quiet place” He says “where you are not seen” - we impose our notion of isolated individuality on this… but Jesus says to pray “OUR Father” a reminder both that God is plural and that - in God’s image - we are part of a plurality.
The paradox of existence is that we only exist “uniquely” when we are measured against something that is “other” than ourselves… In biblical terms there is nowhere we go that God is not present - we are always in community. At the most fundamental level every one of us was born of another human being. The lie of the devil (and of western culture, based on existentialist thinking!) is that we have the individual right to make an individual decision. That’s the thinking that broke relationship in the first place - and continues to break relationship - doing what is “right” for the isolated individual, rather than what is globally right for the community.
When we are encouraged to get aside to pray, the model is of moving from a place of connection within our mortal community to a place of greater awareness and presence within our eternal community, to humble ourselves, confess and deal with our weaknessess and failures to equip us for life within our mortal community. It’s not a model of isolation and individualism, but of continual moving in community.
So.. what do others think?
Slainte
A Celtic Son
I think it’s a paradox involving both/and… in the West we go WAY over onto the side of individualism… while the entire bible was written into a community context, and we’re likely to misinterpret it with our Western eyes.
However… while we need the correction of seeing life as intrinsically relational (brainwashed as we are with individualism) I believe there are still times where we stand alone… Jesus would have preferred his disciples to pray with him when he agonised in the garden… but it was a profoundly painful “alone” moment. Jesus often “withdrew to lonely places to pray”… is Christ not our example? Jesus words to Peter on the beach after his resurrection were (in effect) when he asked about John… “What is that to you… YOU follow me.” Sometimes… personal conviction and the call of God requires us to do something distinctly different from the crowd, and to do it alone. And as Alan noted… in one sense we die alone… and are judged for what we have individually done… just as nations are also judged.
But I do think we need the “heavy corrective” of seeing the main game as community, not individual achievement… which takes massive reprogramming for us Westerners.
By the way C.S… I’m glad you don’t have your own blog and have time to dialogue here!!!! I think the dialogue with different slants of opinion brings much richness.
Tim… loved the Merton quote. Thank you, and welcome.
well obviously i’m an old hand at this now and i am confidently walking into the room and depositing this gem on the presents table before i move off to the more jovial space of the drinks table. not sure what any of that means, but this article by henri nouwen i reckon speaks a bit to what the honourable cs is getting at in his last jotting. we operate best in community when our beloved-ness is centred in the trinity. well, i liked it at least. just read the article to understand what i’m talking about.
http://www.fbccs.org/resources/papers/soli_comm_mini.asp
thanks janet for your welcome. i feel welcomed.
Now we are come to a part of the paradigm which is difficult. Mission takes place within context. Context means people. However, different people within the context do not all do the same thing(s) the same way, but are influenced and empowered by their ‘individual’ relationship with God, including the gifts that He gives each us in different measure.
Several books I have read recently, including one of yours Alan, I think, has used the three sided triangle with God at the top, the individual at one corner and the community at the other. All three sides are equal. Each must be in balance, but God is at the top. The individual and the community are on the same level.
There is room for both the individual and the community within the missional model. It seems to me that it is typically when either tends to suggest that they control or speak for the other that we loose that balance.
In other words, I do not see this as an either or proposition. How is that for being clear as mud?
However, to get back to Alan’s original post in this thread, when my neighbor lives next to me, he does not see my leader, the bylaws of my chosen community, the good works we do, or the splendor of the meeting place we have…he only sees the result, or the lack thereof, of the transformational process necessary for me to reflect an incarnational image of the one I gave control of my life to; in exchange for an individual relationship with God. I believe this is what Alan was pointing toward, especially with his use of that glorious quote from T. S. Eliot.
Where does the community live in this? I think Alan has done a great job of laying this out in several of his books. Supporting, encouraging, modeling, but not controlling.
Watch the toes, have I stepped on enough yet??
Thanks Tim for the Henri Nouwen quote… I love Nouwen. Merton I’m not so familiar with… I have a little book on community by Eberhard Arnold in which Merton comments - very provocative and challenging - it is a little book in size a HUGE book in content. These are people who preach what they practice and I love them for it… their teachings are much more difficult to argue with because of the weight of who they are and what they have achieved in their community…
Nouwen notes that “solitude” is “being with God” - it is not isolation! When Jesus calls Peter it is into community not isolation… we need to get our heads around a different thinking of the concept of “individual.” Even change for the individual does not take place in isolation but within community; in a sense we are only different because our neighbours notice we are different!
Existentialism leads our culture to see Christianity as just another commodity and when we buy into that as a root of missional living, we end up with a faith that is additional to life - rather than the faith that IS life. When we begin to understand a holistic concept - where is is both/and individual AND community AND they cannot be separated… we can begin to understand that our neighbours already are part of our community, part of our lives. We are not performing Christianity for them, we are embracing them in the love that God has enveloped us and them into… and we as their community have the opportunity to be instruments of God’s revelation… that’s missional living… that’s community.
Our lives are evidence as a BY-PRODUCT of living them rather than intentionally as a model…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
This conversation is just begging for me to talk about the foundational concept of covenant keeping…and the absolute dedication expected of each individual in the covenant to seeking the best interest of each and every other member of the covenant, even at the cost of one’s very life–this covenant, that we each enter individually through accepting God’s offer of adoption through Jesus Christ’s blood, makes us perichoretically inseperable from the triune God and with each and every other member of Christ’s Body…
but I just don’t have the time at this moment! AAUGH…I am certainly dense enough, though, and not only in the way Brad means
I’ll be back….
Whew, I step away from this blog for a day or two and the discussion explodes forward….love it!
Richard C, comment #32, I like what you said about what your neighbor sees in you, that it’s not a matter of what your church/commmunity is or does or how nice their sanctuary is, but more–what has your being in That community/church done to make you more loving, etc. I heard Donald Miller frame it like this: What does Christianity create? What type of person does Christianity create? If our living and believing in community create self-centered, put-up-the-Christian-ghetto-walls people, then the community has failed?
To tag onto CS’s #33 comment, “we as their community have the opportunity to be instruments of God’s revelation,” …do we see ourselves as their neighbor, or more as evangelistic projects to complete. I delight in the way you framed it. Thank you! And thanks for letting me ramble a bit as I try to get a handle on this…appreciate it!
Good morning…at least in my time zone.
In comment 34, Peggy suggests that we are perichoretically inseparable both from the triune God and from each other. This is a doctrinal issue. And I would disagree that this doctrine, which was developed to explain the interrelationships within the triune Godhead (I had to look it up), is applicable beyond that. Specifically, we as members of the body of Christ cannot have the same responsibilities and relationships that the trinity exhibits, and we shouldn’t. This would, if nothing else, suggest that each of us would know and operate as a whole and separate at the same time, and we know this is not the case.
Anyway, I think that Alan is attempting to state a principle of orthopraxy and this discussion is heavily focused on orthodoxy. That is, we should be discussing how we should act, not what we believe. This leads back to a section of Alan’s book called, “The Shaping of Things to Come”, written with Michael Frost.
How do we move forward with this? Alan?
Well, Richard, I would challenge your understanding of my understanding of this doctrinal issue, of course, if I had the time…but I am off to bid goodbye to a beloved brother (his wife called in the middle of my typing) and coworker in the Kingdom and tell him I’ll see him on the other side…
But I don’t believe that we dance the same steps in the perichoresis as Father, Son and Holy Spirit…just that we are in the dance together, all of us….and faithful covenant-keeping is very much an issue of orthopraxy…
I think you will find, Richard, that conversations here at TFW follow a rhythm of their own…and we allow plenty of time for pondering and following of rabbit trails…and Alan lets us graze and ruminate instead of bolt down our food and flirt with indigestion
Hi Richard…
you’re right that perichoresis is a term used to define the relationship within the triune Godhead… If you’re new to the terminology and thinking of perichoresis then it is poor practice to give it up before you’ve ever truly examined it. It has been revived in recent times, but it is a phrase that has stood the test of time as long as the concept of Trinity my friend, so perhaps there is more weight to it than you’ve credited it with. The use of it in terms of believers in Christ is specifically that - we are IN Christ.
Consider the following - there are probably another 50 applications…
1 Cor 1
: 26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that YOU ARE IN CHRIST JESUS, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”
1 Cor 15
: 20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so IN Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
1 Peter 5
: 8Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. 9Resist him, standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.
10And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory IN Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. 11To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen.
While the New Testament does speak of Christ IN me, it speaks much more often of me IN Christ - how often do you hear that preached in evangelical circles?
So, if we are in Christ and He is in perichoretic relationship then we are IN HIS relationship. So, the most important relationship that the believer has is NOT the believer’s relationship with God but that we are included IN the Son’s relationship with the Father, we are IN perichoresis.
In a similar vein orthopraxy and orthodoxy cannot be divorced and discussed in a vacuum. Earlier John Page notes “what we believe affects/influences what we do and how we live…” If we are going to live in orthopraxy, we have to believe in orthodoxy. I cannot discuss how I act without discussing what I believe…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Richard, you are right about what I am attempting to do. I am deeply suspicious of mere orthodoxy. And my own sense is that the perichoresis is a wonderful doctrine, but it sounds awfully gnostic to my little Jewish ears.
Engagement with Jesus must move us beyond being spectators to participants. If we wish to become like him we must learn to actively participate in Jesus, actively applying him and his teachings to our lives. We cannot be disinterested spectators when it comes to Jesus, in fact in the encounters described in the NT, the desire of people to remain neutral observers is in a real sense the real sin (the rich young ruler, Pilate, etc.) It is those who allow Jesus to ‘get at them’ that end up entering the kingdom. The Pharisee want to “check him out”, objectify him, line him up against their understandings of the faith (”is it awful”) and because of this they are judged for their hardness of heart, for holding themselves back from what God is doing in Jesus. Here’s the rub…it is a matter of the heart! And this cannot but be done by ‘the individual’ before and under the searching scrutiny of God.
I think CS mistakes what I am saying here for individualism. What I am saying is that we are responsible actors in the faith equation, and this we cannot outsource to other agents.
I’ll post an advance on this topic tomorrow. Over to you!
Well, Alan, what can we do to help your little Jewish ears hear what we mean…which isn’t at all gnostic…hmmm….
I will let CS speak for himself (he’s the smartie, after all
), but I know that my perspective is right with in line with yours–as I think I understand it! 
It is a very helpful thing, however, to remember that there is a mysterious spiritual reality that informs our physical reality–that we are connected in the Body of Christ with all others who are in Christ. But the process of first getting “in Christ” is one that each person must choose personally…
…so I’ll have to wait and see what Alan advances with tomorrow!
The key for perichoresis is understanding the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is among us, with us, through us, moving us, pushing us, guiding us outward and inward, in unity and diversity. The Spirit works in the dance and so relates to the community of the divine persons. This same Spirit, which is used to the dance of the divine persons brings us all into that same kind of movement. Perichoresis is, after all, a term meaning movement and dance.
If we are drawn into a deeper relationship with God we are drawn into this dance, pulled in, and we begin to share the movements of God and draw others in around us to participate in this movement.
And I know enough Jewish culture to know there’s definitely a love for dance. That’s the trick for a word like perichoresis. It can be adopted and dried out by those with a gnostic bent, but the idea behind it is absolutely participatory and sensual.
God is in eternal movement. God wants us to resonate and join in with this eternal movement.
Patrick, that’s useful. And guys, don’t get me wrong; socila trinitarianism, and the perichoresis in particular, are wonderful ways at exploring the mysterious intra-trinitarian dynamics within God himself, and I think there are ways to make it ‘accessible’ to the mere human player. We are drawn into the life of God by the Holy Spirit. I especially like CS Lewis’ description of the perichoresis in Perelandra (a must read book if ever there was one.) My concern remains however, that in practice this is another form of ontological/mystical mumbo-jumbo when it comes to following the Way of discipleship that Jesus set out for us. And it can seriously detract from the mission that Paul started. It becomes ‘opiate’ very quickly in the minds of dualistically bent Christians–which sad to say seems to be our default mode. Which actually is the point I am trying to make in the post itself. We easily fly upwards to ontology, when the task is to become like Jesus existentially.
This is good. I really like what Patrick has to say as well. My unease with the term is due to its original use in seeking to explain how the trinity can and does think and act in lockstep. This ideal does not translate very well to the activities and processes associated with different roles assigned and assumed within the temporal kingdom for Followers of the Way.
It is fine to say that we are in Christ, and to talk about the Holy Spirit at work in us and through us, but when we start attributing Triune characteristics to the church, I have some very serious reservations. This is the area of my concern along with, as Alan, has so eloquently stated, the need to move from ontology towards a more existential process of acting like Jesus wants us to act, not just thinking similar thoughts.
Blessings to all!
I think it is important for all of to step back and remember that we are each sensitized to different forms of “mumbo-jumbo”–some word-based, some action-based, some material-based, some spirit-based–and that can sometimes lure us into leaving out part of the ingredients to the pie here.
Ever have pie without that pinch of salt? What about one where the salt measurement was confused with the sugar (as in some clever child switched the cannisters as a joke)?
If we want to “taste” like Jesus to those starving without him, we must be careful to include all the ingredients, not just the ones we resonate with. And one of those critical ingredients is the awareness that we are all mysteriously part of each other–that what affects one affects all. Especially that how we treat each other is how Christ is treated. And we are the very Body of which Christ is the head. Where he is, we are–and that includes material as well as spiritual dimensions.
If we were to remember this more often, and let it truly sink into every cell of our being…down to the very DNA, it would transform everything.
Ignoring this little iceberg tip will sink always the ship….that it is frequently inconvenient to have to deal with the mystery won’t let us off.
I do love T.S. Eliot. It makes me happy that you’ve quoted him along with Tolstoy.
When I was a little one, someone wise used to say, “Your life may be the only Bible someone reads today.”
It is far too easy to hide behind a mask of piety. But it feels so much more natural to let the armour fall down and try our best to live Jesus. Even if we skin our knees and look terrible doing it.
You’re so right Janelle. So right. Welcome.
Hullo-o-o
I’m surprised… there are a number of unexpected, unsupported and unfounded statements in this thread… it’s not what I’ve come to expect here… I’ve just re-read all the comments to see if I missed something, but still much makes no sense to me…
“perichoresis is a wonderful doctrine, but it sounds awfully gnostic…”
In his book “The Christian Doctrine of God: one being, three persons” Thomas F. Torrance credits the development of the concept of “perichoresis” to Gregory Nazianzen - one of the three Cappadocian Fathers, who are in essence the foundation of orthodoxy. And of all three Fathers Gregory Nazianzen is titled the “Trinitarian Theologian.” The concept was developed by him alongside the foundational concepts of homoousion and the hypostatic union… you could not get closer to orthodoxy and further from gnosticism!
The comment “ontological/mystical mumbo-jumbo” is likewise an unexpected naivety. Ontology is neither mystical nor mumbo jumbo… to dismiss such significant fields so frivolously is poor form. It is unfair also to suggest that mysticism is simply “mumbo jumbo” - there may be some “practitioners” who have lost authentic focus, but that no more classifies mysticism as mumbo jumbo than a “poor excuse for a Christian” defines Jesus Christ as “mumbo jumbo.”
Alan, I’d suggest that I haven’t so much mistaken what you are saying for “individualism” as I am concerned that “biblical existentialism” is a misnomer leading to an unbiblical understanding of the “individual.” In re-reading this thread I’ve found the progress of your argument, from the initial post, curiously discordant.
“We easily fly upwards to ontology, when the task is to become like Jesus existentially.” I’m not completely clear what you mean here, because it comes across as presenting “ontology” and “becoming like Jesus” as opposing values, which is clearly not accurate! The clearer my understanding of ontology is, the more accurate is the resulting action. How do I do the right thing with the right heart and motivation when I don’t know why I’m doing what I’m doing, and I don’t know who I’m being? Isn’t it our loss of ontological understanding; our loss of the fundamental understanding of the basis of our reason for being, that’s got the church into the religious mess we are now in?
Richard you wrote; “It is fine to say that we are in Christ, and to talk about the Holy Spirit at work in us and through us, but when we start attributing Triune characteristics to the church, I have some very serious reservations…” If we are IN Christ and the Holy Spirit is working through us, in what way are the character of at least those two members of the Triune Godhead NOT attributed to the church?
Paul writes to the Corinthians; “whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord’s glory, are being transformed INTO HIS LIKENESS WITH EVER INCREASING GLORY, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” It is not we who attribute the characteristics of God to the church - it is He who is so transforming us.
I understand a general concern on this thread seems to come from a concern that “faith without works is dead” - and, of course, theology without practical application is deader still! However, that’s not where I am coming from… these concepts - ontology, perichoresis etc - are foundational tools that help frame an understanding of God’s will for the faith community that I am part of. We are all about action… there is recognisable growth in our community as people take hold of foundational aspects of truth and apply them to their lives and also as new people are added. There is also a continually growing relationship in our wider community as we serve in various aspects of everyday life.
In fact, contrary to the comment; “ontological/mystical mumbo-jumbo” does not in fact “detract from the mission that Paul started,” in our case it helps to define the boundaries of the pathway…
I have other thoughts and questions, but pressing issues call me away…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
“The cohesiveness of community comes from each one’s being a single individual.” Kierkegaard
Hullo-o-o Douglas,
This is a real conceptual challenge - we are so programmed by our culture to consider ourselves “individual” that there are mountains of quotes from great thinkers that can be applied. Concomitantly there are very few from any other perspective… My concern is that the discussion is focussed on our experience and the teaching of great thinkers and seems to react strongly againts a challenge to base things on orthodoxy or on a biblical basis! I read that someone’s opinion is “THIS” and someone else’s is “THAT” the question surely is “what is the Biblical basis for our opinion?” Sure we may disagree on interpretation of the Scriptures, but I’d find that discussion more progressive than opinion - even if it is Soren Kierkegaard’s.
Consider Kierkegaard’s quote alongside Romans 12
particularly to verse 13… what is the Bible saying about the individual, within the framework of the body of Christ? It seems at odds with the statement you’ve quoted… is there a broader context for it? The notion of being a single individual does not immediately imply cohesive community…
As I read the Scriptures I see a call beyond the notion of “being” an individual into being part of the community of God’s people. Jesus calls people to follow Him, to engage in community with Him, to submit their own personal desires and affairs to connect in His community. Paul frequently calls us to actions that reveal the submission of our personal desires, to the cause of the greater good of the community of God’s people.
One of the key passages Alan has referred to is Ephesians 4
- read it in the context that it is addressed to the church, not to an individual, consider Paul’s directives on how our behaviour is continually related to the community. How do you relate Kierkegaard’s comment to that passage…?
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Good, this is going to go on for a bit. I think it is a worthwhile discussion. For all of us.
CS, you say that the biblical basis for the discussion is needed. I agree. And, I think a basis for understanding even the text of the Bible is understanding more of the culture to which it is written. Alan does a very good job of laying the foundation for this with Mike Frost in one of his books.
I agree with you when you say that our current culture (I would lump most of us into the western european descendents here) tends to emphasize individualism over conformance. That is very much a tenant of the post-modern mindset, my truth being as valid as your truth and all of that.
However, I would also say that Paul talks equally about personal (read that individual) responsibility versus group responsibility. Romans 12
opens with a cry to individuals to take the whole thing a little more seriously in their walk with God, to not be just a group member and go along with the Joneses, but to step out and go into a serious individual training process with a sacrificial attitude.
The other cultural piece in the New Testament is the process (for the first time in Jewish history) of mixing non-Jews into the culture of the church and formulating a new community culture, some of which was typically Jewish, like hospitality, and much of it not, especially as Paul is writing in Ephesians to some not originally Jewish. This is also true of Romans. Their ethic was much more individual than that of the Jews and they did not tend to band together ethnically as the Jews did.
Much as the diversity of our cultures today tend to make cross-cultural ministry difficult, due to different practices and societal issues. Paul is speaking to a similar set of problems, in a violent time. Many of the sub-cultures present in the 1st century church did not mix with other cultures. They were even more class conscious than we tend to be and this was of course detrimental to the process of creating a cohesive story to tell.
Each of us has a context. Mine is of a group that is so comfortable within the group that they do not act. The leadership is so cognizant of supporting the group that they are unwilling to allow people to leave the group willingly, even for a missional purpose. This then is a group which is out of balance with the individual calling. We need balance…and leaders willing to be servants of others rather than directors of others. Shepherding is different than discipling. Being an apostle to a culture is not a group activity. Both are critical, and not at cross-purposes within the bigger picture.
Firstly Richard,
I agree with some of the essence of what I think you are getting at, my concern is NOT that there is no such thing as an individual, but that it is rare in the Bible and it is the ONLY reality in our culture. I disagree that “Paul talks equally about personal (read that individual) responsibility versus group responsibility,” his writings are vastly adressed to people in plurality - the Greek terminology is plural with very few exceptions. If we are to be Biblical we need to redress the imbalance and I don’t see that happening in much of the discussion going on anywhere in Christian contexts. We are being sucked away from what the Bible is saying.
As an example, I don’t understand how you can consider that Roman 12 begins “with a cry to individuals to take the whole thing a little more seriously” it is the continuation of a letter to a church community - it addresses people plural in their plural context. The only way this can be viewed from the perspective you suggest is if we read that into it, which is what I contend we are all guilty of and it needs to be addressed if we are ever going to effectively develop authentic ecclesia int he 21st century.
We will not build the church of Jesus Christ, if we do not seek to understand the concepts of community that the church is intended to be built upon, and do not address the rampant unbiblical individualism that we read into the Scriptures. In Ephesians 4
Jesus gave “some apostles, some prophets…” again there is not the individualisation that we impose on the text - I would contend that there is much more support biblically to consider that apostleship IS a community venture, since you cannot apostle without apostlees. Leadership does not exist without followers… there is a whole communal context that we are missing and I’d suggest that is one reason why the church in the western context is dying.
And Richard I was once part of a culture you describe… I felt that God called me out precisely because I was unable to be who He created me to be. Seven years ago we started a small community of faith with two other families and we continue to journey as a community. I could not be who I am and I could not do what I do without the community that God has built me into…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Ahh, CS is on fire! And I am way too jetlagged to respond meaningfully at all. Actually, I am not quite sure it can be easily settled in a blog setting. And actually, I am not quite sure how we quite got to this point, but I am too tired to care right now. I will try have a go some time later. Please forgive me.
But I will say tha I did not mean that perichoresis rightly understood is mumbo jumbo, but it certainly can lead there. I think it is historically sound to say that that has been the western theological trajectory. And I have to say CS that it DOES sound gnostic to me. I am happy to be in the wrong about this, but I have spend a whole day chatting to Baxter Kruger and I fail to be convinced. But that’s me…
Hi Alan,
I have thought that this discussion did not reflect your usual clarity and hope that you recover soon…
I have listened to Baxter Kruger teach and in fact debated him on his conclusions - I questioned him on his concept of “belief” in John’s gospel and his answers were very unsatisfactory. I concluded that he draws his argument beyond its limitations and it has led him to universalism.
I’d suggest instead of relying on Baxter Kruger’s perception of perichoresis, that you’d find more legitimacy in the way that Barth refers to perichoresis, Moltmann refers to perichoresis, Pannenberg refers to perichoresis, Torrance refers to perichoresis… I’m not surprised that it may sound gnostic from discussions with Kruger, but rightly understood it doesn’t lead to mumbo jumbo… by every legitimate measure it is orthodoxy my friend.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
I hear what you are saying CS. And I do not disagree with some of the emotions and issues that you have experienced have brought you closer to Christ.
I am coming from the other end of the spectrum. I have been a part of a community for the last 25 years. I have been told that what we had was the top of the heap for the Christian experience and that community was what God had for us. And the Holy Spirit has made me miserable! Because the community is ‘us four and no more’. And since I do not happen to be part of the leadership of the ‘community’ since I do not have a theological degree (getting one now), and am not on staff, it is do what we say and we will lead you to the right stuff…
There is a growth ethic. But, it is not personal except to the degree to which you are ready to go where they want you to go. If you have a teaching gift, that is nice but you only teach the basics. The do the rest, maybe.
My issue is this: community as the goal of the Christian life looks and sounds a lot like the epistles of Paul as he teaches them how to survive when they are together. But, it does not look and sound a lot like the Gospels. When Jesus was with them, there was a modicum of community, as He taught them, then He sent them out. The last command He gave was a sending and building command, not a stay and pray command.
This process does not totally take place just in community. The learning and training part usually does, but not the rest. The current church options (except for some that are not as well known) do not seem to offer good answers. They are too numbers minded to get to the meat. I want meat!
Richard,
I hear your pain and it resonates. I was once at your end of the spectrum… perhaps more than you’d think. Ten years ago I was a staff pastor in a large church, which my wife’s father had been instrumental in starting. I came to the realisation that where the church was heading was not consistent with what I was reading in the New Testament. I tried to redirect things, but it created conflict for me with the Senior Pastor. Like you I had been told something and now I knew it was not true…
With my wife expecting a baby I chose, with her support, to give up my salaried position, all the kudos that goes with that, and to leave the church I had come into when I was first caught up into Christ and that my wife and her family had been in for 30 years of her life. After a few months of sporadic part-time work, having turned down offers from a number of other churches to join their staff, I took on work as a self-employed audio visual consultant.
I spent two years processing my anger and disappointment, including revisiting the Senior Pastor and discussing my concerns with him - not particularly successful, but I could then lay it down. Towards the end of that period two close friends and their families joined with my wife and I and our baby, as we began a journey to follow Christ as a community. Without salary or all the rigmarole of denominational church, we sought to be a missional community and have been on that journey now for seven years. There have been many challenges, but a great many blessings… and we have been able to be a blessing to our broader local community in many ways…
The passion in my posts is something that I have fought not to lose and that I fight to maintain. Despite the pain and disappointments of church life, I remain committed to living in community…
Eberhard Arnold wrote;
“we have been overwhelmed by a certainty – a certainty that has its origin and power in the Source of everything that exists. We acknowledge God as this Source. We must live in community because all life created by God exists in a communal order and works toward community.”
He wrote that as a man who preached what he practiced, I attempt to do likewise. I pray that the Lord clarifies His purpose in your circumstance and His plan for your life…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Richard,
I think you will find many here who have the same experience…I join CS is sharing that my own circumstance was the same–and it doesn’t necessarily get easier when you are on the pastoral staff…even if you are the Senior Pastor!
And so I have also left “paid” ministry and have followed our wild and free Lord out into the liminal edges…and in the chaos communitas is forming.
I join CS in his prayers for clarity in your circumstance–confident that God’s grace and mercy are sufficient….
Be blessed.
Alan, I so much agree. This is hauntingly good. We can say the good, right words, yet our lives for one reason or another may be saying quite something else. I find this true in my own life.
Alan,
You quoted F. Sonntag:
“As far as contact with actuality is concerned, to increase our powers of conceptualization is a step backwards. The aim is to move from possibility toward actuality, that is, to determine a concrete action.”
I was just thinking that up to a point, conceptualization of a change can be very helpful, especially if that change involves a paradigm shift. But beyond a certain point we can specify numerous parameters and come up with endless “meaningful” variations of our concepts that we are compelled to think through as we also try to account for the impact of many “significant unknowns.” This process becomes a step backward when it slows us down from acting or even causes us to freeze up with indecision.
I was thinking that a good metaphor for this need to transistion from conceptualization to actualization is the relationship of a car engine and its starter motor. The starter motor is of vital importance to the functioning of a car. But after a certain point, if you leave the starter motor engaged, it severely limits the usability of the car. I am not suggesting that at a certain point we disengage our brains! Rather, that at a certain point we transition from conceptualizing an idea to actualizing it. As we then adjust our concepts based on actualizing them, they will become more usable by more others than if we continued to try to universalize them in our heads.
The Bible was never meant to be a source of universal principles such that if we were to identify and think through the ideal system of principles, we could then act on them without ever having to think again. In the end, it is a very subjective, lazy, undemanding way of thinking that can be used to justify self-righteous, judgmental, and wayward actions. I know because I am guilty of having done this. How could I have been so blind. By God’s grace, I am beginning to see things differently now. By God’s grace, not all my efforts in the past have missed the mark.
Wasabi, Kierkegaard is given to radical overstatements. That is juts part of his style. And part of the reason why people react to him so fiercely (as we have seen)
He sees himself as a ‘corrective’ to the sins of his age. And for him this meant dealing with the intellectualization of the Christian faith. He has been read as being anti-intellectual, but I don’t think this is the case…he is against intellectual-ism.
I’m going to be simple here. I already have a headache. In America we do a great job believing the truth, but few actually live it. We say we believe the truth about our role in kingdom expansion but rarely act on that belief.
If our belief results in not action than our belief is just a passing thought. (I can’t believe I just came up with that.)
Bob,
I like your statement, “If our belief results in not action than our belief is just a passing thought,” in addition to being thought provoking, it is quite biblical:
“Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.” (James 1:22-24
)
The point is, if we forget what we look like after looking in a mirror, why bother looking at all? If our belief is just a thought that immediately passes out of our mind, what good is it to believe at all?