[easyazon-image align=”left” asin=”1118203267″ locale=”us” height=”110″ src=”http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51C8Gjes%2BxL._SL110_.jpg” width=”74″]Page 2: David Fitch / Geoff Holsclaw – Prodigal Christianity
A good portion of Prodigal Christianity is devoted to outlining the ways Neo-Reformed and Emergent theologies fail. The problem, though, is that Fitch and Holsclaw caricature their dialogue partners. That Brian McLaren would find real disagreement with their proposal that participation in the kingdom of God requires theologically-informed discernment seems, at best, unlikely. For that matter, can anyone really imagine that Tony Jones or Doug Pagitt would disagree that “missio Dei . . . points us squarely into the middle of this world where God is, discerning where God is working, knowing that what God has done in the past continues into the present—not as something that we must do but as something God is always already doing” (29–30)? Well, apparently Fitch and Holsclaw do, according to whom Emergents have a Christology that tends to reduce Jesus to a “model” we must follow in order to be faithful, which further leads to a reduction of the Gospel to the work of our hands:
McLaren makes the kingdom of God central to the gospel. He helps us all gain a deeper understanding of what God is doing in Jesus Christ. But there’s a subtle danger here as well: McLaren is prone to reducing the kingdom of God to the practice of following Jesus as our model. Whenever we do this, we open ourselves up to making God’s mission into something we must do. Even if we seek the Spirit to “help” us in the same way Jesus did, the Spirit can become something we do (or access) as well. And so if we’re not careful, building the kingdom of God, bringing peace and renewal, and overcoming sin becomes our task, our job, and our mission. The kingdom is no longer the gospel; it is a new legalism. (87).
In all honesty, I am not certain if McClaren actually thinks this or not. I do, however, know that Fitch and Holsclaw’s work in Prodigal Christianity often has a tendency to reduce the power of the gospel and make the kingdom’s power contingent on the work of our hands. I do not, however, believe this is an intentional move on the part of the authors; at points they are quite explicit that the kingdom’s coming is solely the work of God (e.g., 28–29). Yet they repeatedly use language that undermines this key theological truth. Here are but a few examples, (all emphases added):
“The book challenges us to inhabit the world differently than we do now, build relationships differently, and allow God, through Jesus Christ by the Spirit, to bring the kingdom in over the long term until Christ comes again” (xvi). “Sadly [proclaiming the gospel] becomes more about us and our beliefs (the truth) and less about entering into the other person’s life and allowing God to work” (52). “[C]onversations must touch the ground in concrete actions and decisions if the kingdom of God is to break in” (56–57). In the same way that Jesus’s incarnation both proclaimed and made present the kingdom of God, so too the church proclaims and makes present the in-breaking of his kingdom” (104). “And when we gather to submit these places and problems to his kingdom, then indeed, his kingdom breaks in” (112). “In these ways, we open a clearing for Christ’s power to break in” (120). “When we enter the world to be with people, the kingdom breaks in” (143).
I imagine that Fitch and Holsclaw might object on the basis that I am taking their words out of context (perhaps an objection a few of their interlocutors would wish to have sustained as well). Perhaps they would counter that their language points, not to our own agency, but to our participation in the missio Dei as the extension of the incarnation (chapter 3; a missio-christological-ecclesiological claim that is arguably the theological cornerstone of the book). As they put it, “Followers of Jesus are making the kingdom of God present as a continuation of his life, as an extension of the incarnation” (41). They employ a simple formula: Jesus is the incarnated (enfleshed) presence of the God who is always sending and receiving in mission; the church is the Body of Jesus (those sent in mission in his name); ergo, we are extending the incarnation. There’s just one small problem with this formula: the church is not Jesus. Though there are certainly clear passages of the New Testament that stress the “incorporation” of believers into Christ, there is quite a bit more emphasis on how Jesus is uniquely Lord, one distinct from those whom follow. Losing sight of this distinction leads to the kinds of linguistic contradictions highlighted above.
CLICK HERE to continue reading on Page 3…
 Reading for the Common Good From ERB Editor Christopher Smith "This book will inspire, motivate and challenge anyone who cares a whit about the written word, the world of ideas, the shape of our communities and the life of the church." -Karen Swallow Prior Enter your email below to sign up for our weekly newsletter & download your FREE copy of this ebook! |
Understanding Christian Nationalism [A Reading Guide] |
 Most Anticipated Books of the Fall for Christian Readers!
|
 Hilarious One-Star Customer Reviews of Bibles |
Reading over the review, I come away with one thing: the Christian Amondson does not believe it is possible for a Jesus follower to act as Jesus would act. Page 3 of the review spends a lot of time discussing how Christians are NOT like Jesus and, therefore, cannot truly act like Jesus.
Additionally, the he doesn’t seem to think that Jesus can shine through a person and so sees the “incarnational” view of things as more “you becoming like me” rather than “we becoming like Christ”.
You see, Anabaptism has a fundamental believe that yes, it IS possible for a person to live like Jesus through transformation. Fitch and Holsclaw write from that perspective.
I think this guy doesn’t see how the witness of a life lived works in proclaiming the gospel. Seems he is too stuck on proclamation by words and critiques the anabaptist view as being a faith of works (which it is not… it is faith demonstrated through what we do).
Uhh, there is no place in this review where Christian suggests not acting like Jesus. Just sayin.
True, he doesn’t say “don’t act like Jesus”… but he implies that the methodology presented by Fitch and Holsclaw is impossible because Jesus didn’t need to be transformed, we do. So, inevitably, the methodology presented will fail.
That is a standard critique of the Anabaptist witness of “faithful presence”, of living out a Jesus centered life, integrating (incarnating) with others, and by doing so transforming the world around us while we, too, are being transformed.
So… you are correct, he doesn’t say that… and I didn’t say he said that. But the implication of the critique given is that the incarnational missiology presented is doomed to fail… and yet, I have yet to see it fail when I’ve seen it practiced faithfully.
He’s not saying such proposals are failing. They are quite visibly succeeding at producing happy middle class churches that aren’t substantially different from the evangelical status quo.
One set of examples in a book does not a pattern make. I know of other communities doing what Fitch and Holsclaw define that aren’t making nice happy middle class churches… for that matter, the context in which they are operating in Life on the Vine isn’t your standard middle class church.
They are telling of their experiences in their context where they are….other folks following the same sign posts might incarnate differently. To incarnage into a middle-class neighborhood, you’re going to look one way… in a lower-class ghetto, differently, and so forth.
Halden, have you read the book yet?
You see, the book is not intended to be read as “you do these things that we are doing and you’re doing it right”… and the authors state so up front. It is more of a descriptive, “Here’s some general ideas, 10 of them, to tell you you’re going in the right direction” And none of those sign posts specifically describes being “happy middle class” but, in fact, one of them talks about being incarnational as Jesus was incarnated… to go in to a place discerned to be on God’s mission and be where they are, as they are… So… in a poor neighborhood, we wouldn’t be having big-screen TV football parties… it would look a LOT different.
No, I wasn’t commenting on the book as such, just on your mischaracterizations of the review.
Have you actually read any books on anabaptism?
Also, I really like “incarnage”. I’m gonna use that.
heh… bad typo.
Oh, boy… have I read any books on Anabaptism? Oh, boy…
I am a Mennonite. I blog at a blog titled “Abnormal Anabaptist”. I administer a website called MennoNerds and help moderate a Google+ hangout called “Anabaptist Alliance”.
So… yeah, I guess you can say I’ve read books on Anabaptism. 😉
That honestly has been the best comment thread I have read in a while
I’ve said in at least one place that I do not consider Hauerwas an Anabaptist. Neo-Anabaptist certainly. I mean by this that one does not understand Anabapism by reading Yoder I Hauerwas. Anabaptism itself is much more centered in radical communities. Neo-Anabaptists are more comfortable in their magesterial traditions with a hint of yoder in their theology.
Josh, I get that Yoder and Hauerwas are not the typical Anabaptists, but is “being more comfortable in their magisterial traditions” really the best differentiation? Surely we know some folks from within Anabaptist traditions who might consider themselves “neo-Anabaptist.”
First, I’m tryin to not define the line between historical Anabaptists and Neo-Anabaptists. I don’t want to continue the sectarin mantra that if one is not Mennonite or Brethren he or she is not Anabaptist. At the same time I find it striking that there are people like Hauerwas who are deemed Anabaptist simply because of their bibliography but continue as Anglicans or Lutherans. Now in terms of Anabaptist self identifying as Neo-Anabaptist I tend to think they are catching something else- such as the Post-liberalism of Hauerwas.
I don’t know how super helpful it would be to narrow down an agreeable definition of what anabaptist is. I do tend to agree with Josh that its more about the community and how we are a body politic together in non-hierarchical and full bodies ways. That is, how we become a people together, and allow that to go all the way down. There are elements in PC that can be likened to this, but there are others, like extending the incarnation language and the focus on eucharist that strike me as much more catholic. I know the authors are very influenced by HWS and company, which is fine! But I think that HWS is not really anabaptist either. He likes to call himself a high church mennonite, but he’s really a Anglican on the way to Rome. Peter Dula had a great essay that teased these distinction out in helpful ways. Primarily to say, that HWS is really only interested in the peaceableness (pacifism for lack of a better word) that he finds with anabaptists. But ultimately is much more concerned with the “practices” and “tradition” of the high churches.
So I would want to think that what separates an anabaptist vision is that it places true mutual transformation ahead of the practices of the church, or that it orders the practices upon those which build a community that is given to a deep and mutual abiding with one another. The table is thus secondary to the work of real reconciliation and forgiveness, which is extremely hard stuff. That is the stuff that gets you killed!
Now, let the debates on this point ensue!
Is starting websites, blogs, and chat groups the same as reading books?
“Christian Amondson does not believe it is possible for a Jesus follower to act as Jesus would act.”
–Robert Martin
As someone who lives, writes and teaches from a place on the discipleship spectrum completely outside the entire argument that this book and the reviewer are engaging, I find this whole enterprising fascinating, in a wheel-spinning sort of way.
I’ve, frankly, never “got” what “missional” or “emerging/emergent” are all about. Maybe it’s because I’ve never been an “evangelical” and my formation has been in Catholic/mainline Protestant writers for the most part. But so much of this argument seems simply to be trendy, postmodern, pop culture way of trying to make discipleship more fashionable in a social media world. Perhaps that’s cynical of me. But what are any of these people saying that hasn’t been dealt with by classic writers like Thomas Merton and Dorothy Day on the Catholic side, or Deitrich Bonhoffer and Martin Luther King, Jr., on the Protestant side?
I’m willing and happy to be shown that I’m missing some essential point that all this “debate” is seeking to address.
I would suggest you read the indicated book then.
I agree, there is that trendy, postmodern, pop culture in some regions of the missional conversation. But from what I’ve read so far in this book (about 2/3 done and loving it), they are trying to cut through the crap of the popculture, attractional stuff as well as avoid some of the propositional junk from other areas and to faithfully seek a way forward into the post-modern/post-Christendom world we find ourselves in. And yes, we are there… some regions of the USA more so than others but its spreading and the church (meaning the community of followers of Jesus) needs to rethink what we have been doing and what we are doing now and figure out what NEEDS to change… and yes, things do need to change in the way we are the “church” in our neighborhoods, cities, and areas…
Let me add that men like John Howard Yoder, Stanley HauerWas, etc., are not nearly as wide read….and that is a travesty as these men, Anabaptist in their orientation, have much to offer to the church today…
Hey Wes! I think that you’re questions are spot on. It seems like an in-house semantic argument, and they would do well to try to use other interlocutors to measure themselves against if they really want to be doing something else. Robert clearly likes the book a lot, which is great. But it’s about as anabaptist a book as it is radical. Which is to say, it’s not.
So… what would make it more Anabaptist or Radical?
Define Anabaptist for us Christian
Let’s take each of the criticisms offered in turn:
1. That this isn’t really different from standard Emergent fare: It seems to me that the extensive quoting the authors offer in the book gives us substantive evidence on the elements you mention, the Kingdom of God and Christology. To move from what seems like a caricature of their work in your review to actual engagement with their work, you would need to offer something more than “I’m not really sure what McClaren believes” or asking us “to imagine that Pagitt/Jones wouldn’t disagree.” Without anything more then mere conjecture to substantiate it, your points fall flat. In essence you are accusing the authors of failing to understand their interlocutors and misrepresenting them while at the same time in actuality committing that act yourself.
2. The idea of the church extending the incarnation and the relation of the Kingdom and church are admittedly complex issues and something I returned to again and again to understand what Fitch and Hosclaw were getting at; it makes me particularly nervous to over identify the church and Christ not because of the issue you’ve chosen to tackle, but because it creates issues in relation to sin and the church.
I think what you’ve missed here is the fact that even in the quote you utilize to portray their position on the church extending the incarnation there is some sense of differentiation between the church and the incarnate Christ. These are never simply collapsed into one another. I will admit this might have been made clearer at points, but using the word “extension” doesn’t necessarily mean what you’ve pressed it to mean, a one to one correlation. If I put an “extension” on my house there is some sense in which it is the same as the house itself, but another sense in which it can and must be differentiated from the original house. I would argue the authors have created a sense of seperation, but could have made it clearer.
In terms of the kingdom of God depending on our work there is again a nuance that I think you are missing: God is at work in the world, but until the church, the citizens of the Kingdom participate in that work it cannot be defined as “kingdom” work. We don’t necessarily bring the kingdom into being with our work, but as the church we reveal where God is at work in the world by participating in that work. Fitch has recently blogged on this and made it even clearer than it was in the book. (Personally I would look at texts such as Matthew 13 and argue that the kingdom language can be used in one sense about the whole world as God’s place of rule and more specifically of the church as the place where this rule is acknowledged and citizens are found. Thus the definition depends on the context of the usage and there is a sense in which the kingdom is the whole world and a sense in which the church is closely equated with the kingdom and the instrument that reveals it to those who are yet to be Christ followers )
3. If the prior points are cleared up then your third point becomes superfluous in many ways. The church is not synonymous with Christ meaning that there really is a sense in which we are mutually transformed in our engagement with others.
I sense there is an underlying issue with the fact that these guys self-identify as Anabaptist and that they are middle class and therefore they are missing the Anabaptist point and continuing a posture of imperialism. Maybe I’m missing something there, but that is my general sense. I too am middle-class and self-identify as a neo-Anabaptist. Being middle class doesn’t mean that I am supporting the powers and principalities or that I don’t understand Anabaptism. There are a number of ways the Anabaptist vision has been fleshed out historically (Schleitheim Confession, other early Anabaptist origin documents that show the movement to be polygenetic, Bender’s vision, Weaver’s view, and Stuart Murray’s writings in “The Naked Anabaptist), meaning that today there are a wide variety of ways which it is still lived out. Within these myriad varieties “simplicity” is a key tenet, but simplicity works itself out different for different people and I could argue but won’t that simplicity, in an Anabaptist way, is achievable by middle class Christians.
To turn the review on head, I actually sense a posture of imperialism in your attitude: you’ve sought to force what you believe to be Fitch and Hosclaw’s motivations in their relations with those who are not yet followers of Christ onto them. The whole review seems to be predicated on the fact that because they are middle class men there is nothing they can receive from others and therefore they are simply pressing their own white male, NA Christian views on people while receiving nothing. You seem to subtly accuse them and most evangelicals of imperialism in their nurturing and developing relationships with people. Another caricature and beyond that an accusation of false motivation for mission.
Could it not be that these guys and other evangelicals actually love people from a pure heart and want to see them connect with their Creator with a deeper way and aren’t simply utilizing a hip and cool technique? Your closing statements move from speaking about ideas to questioning the authors’ very character and motivation. And you impose your own views on them; is this not attempting to make them like you in a (not so) subtle way?
I wrote this but it came up as guest for some reason. I will gladly take credit it for it.
Christian,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful review. I’m honored that you closely read our book and took the time to offer critical thoughts (many of our critics seem not to have read past the introduction).
I just have two responses for now (both coming from the top of page 3).
First, you say that “Jesus requires no transformation,” and use this to indicate that our stance of mutual transformation is exactly not an “extention of the Incarnation”. I want to say two things about this. One, Hebrews seems to claim a transformation in Jesus, that he learned something by taking on humanity and living as a human. For instance:
Heb. 5: 7-9, “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.”
Two, isn’t the Incarnation itself the paradigm of “mutual transformation”? As Iranaeus says, “God become humans so that humans could become like God.” Dave and I are looking at the entire shape of Jesus’ life as the Incarnate One. You say Jesus’ transformation is wholy unilateral as a claim against us, but I just don’t see that in the texts of Scripture (unless you are reading from a hyper-Reformed perspective, which leads me to my second point).
Secondly, you seem to function according to Tillich’s “Protestant Principle” (which many do, whether they are correlationists or not). The Protestant Principle, which the Neo-Reformed in there own way use, is that God/Christ is nothing like the church and should never be identified with the church b/c God is wholly different (you say “unilateral”). The Neo-Reformed use this principle to claim that the Kingdom of God is in the future (or in heaven); the Emergent/Progressives use this principle to claim that Kingdom of God is outside the church (in justice/liberation/etc). But in both cases the church is never thought to extend or express God/Jesus/Kingdom.
So, using this Protestant Principle (and I realize you don’t state this but this seems to be your governing assumption) you says we fail “to properly differentiate between Jesus and his church” (a failure often attributed to Anabaptist/Holiness theology, so I guess we are in good company). Indeed, your review seem to emanate from the theological perspective that excludes Anabaptist/Holiness/Wesleyan theology that actually believe that the church can, should, and sometimes does live like Jesus in all fullness, and that “sin” is not normative for the church and its life and witness. This is the perspective Dave and I are coming from, which we lay out extensively in the early chapters of the book.
When it comes to the Evangelical/Progressive conversation mostly usually only think of Calvinism and it Baptist expressions and its repudiations (the Progressives), never understanding that other options exist (i.e. Anabaptist/Holiness/Wesleyan). It is for this reason (a commitment to a “Protestant Principle” which can express itself as either Neo-Reformed or Progressive) that I think you mischaracterize Dave and I as merely another “re-branded, centrist” Evangelicalism. I think this misunderstands the diversity within Evangelicalism, therefore misunderstands how we are proposing a non-Calvinistic yet Evangelical (which is Anabaptist/Holiness/Wesleyan) alternative.
And for what it is worth, Dave and I see “Prodigal Christianity” as contributing to the larger conversation gathering as “Missio Alliance” (or as I like to call it, all the “Other” Evangelicals (https://www.facebook.com/missioalliance)
Both of these issues take us into metaphysics and ontology which as good Anabaptists we should probably avoid. But I do have a few questions for you Geoff.
I agree that there is some sense in which Jesus grows and is transformed; NT Wright is great on that very point. Is this the sort of transformation you are pointing to?
When you say that the church “extends” the incarnation, would you agree with what I’ve sketched below? If not, how would you flesh it out?
Christian,
Thank you very much for your thoughtful review. I’m honored that you closely read our book and took the time to offer critical thoughts (many of our critics seem not to have read past the introduction).
I just have two responses for now (both coming from the top of page 3).
First, you say that “Jesus requires no transformation,” and use this to indicate that our stance of mutual transformation is exactly not an “extention of the Incarnation”. I want to say two things about this. One, Hebrews seems to claim a transformation in Jesus, that he learned something by taking on humanity and living as a human. For instance:
Heb. 5: 7-9, “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him.”
Two, isn’t the Incarnation itself the paradigm of “mutual transformation”? As Iranaeus says, “God become humans so that humans could become like God.” Dave and I are looking at the entire shape of Jesus’ life as the Incarnate One. You say Jesus’ transformation is wholy unilateral as a claim against us, but I just don’t see that in the texts of Scripture (unless you are reading from a hyper-Reformed perspective, which leads me to my second point).
Secondly, you seem to function according to Tillich’s “Protestant Principle” (which many do, whether they are correlationists or not). The Protestant Principle, which the Neo-Reformed in there own way use, is that God/Christ is nothing like the church and should never be identified with the church b/c God is wholly different (you say “unilateral”). The Neo-Reformed use this principle to claim that the Kingdom of God is in the future (or in heaven); the Emergent/Progressives use this principle to claim that Kingdom of God is outside the church (in justice/liberation/etc). But in both cases the church is never thought to extend or express God/Jesus/Kingdom.
So, using this Protestant Principle (and I realize you don’t state this but this seems to be your governing assumption) you says we fail “to properly differentiate between Jesus and his church” (a failure often attributed to Anabaptist/Holiness theology, so I guess we are in good company). Indeed, your review seem to emanate from the theological perspective that excludes Anabaptist/Holiness/Wesleyan theology that actually believe that the church can, should, and sometimes does live like Jesus in all fullness, and that “sin” is not normative for the church and its life and witness. This is the perspective Dave and I are coming from, which we lay out extensively in the early chapters of the book
When it comes to the Evangelical/Progressive conversation mostly usually only think of Calvinism and it Baptist expressions and its repudiations, never understanding that other options exist (i.e. Anabaptist/Holiness/Wesleyan). It is for this reason (a commitment to a “Protestant Principle” which can express itself as either Neo-Reformed or Progressive) that I think you mischaracterize Dave and I as merely another Evangelicalism. But for me, this just means you don’t understand the diversity within Evangelicalism, nor how we are proposing a non-Calvinistic yet Evangelical (which is Anabaptist/Holiness/Wesleyan) alternative.
And for what it is worth, Dave and I see “Prodigal Christianity” as contributing to the larger conversation gathering as “Missio Alliance” (or as I like to call it, all the “Other” Evangelicals (https://www.facebook.com/missioalliance)
The Rebel Alliance! I like that.
Again, I have no problem with the perspective you lay out here. I don’t even have problems with the claims you guys make, I just don’t think you follow through on them.
And the only thing I would disagree with (other than that you “extensively” lay out the Anabaptist/Holiness/Wesleyan perspective in the early chapters, which you don’t cause you never use these labels nor unpack these specific ideas) is that sin still would not be a normative part of the community. Sin is a part of the body, always. If it weren’t then reconciliation and forgiveness would not need to be central practices.
Perhaps we should look at Nouwen’s interpretation of the prodigal parable as an insight into who we are in the story.
Anyone who has read me elsewhere knows I refuse the church-kingdom
identification. I would have thought a reader like Christian would have
had a broader awareness before makes these kind of critiques. But,
admittedly, there is a move here in the book off Catholic ecclesiology
that, when combined with Anabaptist ecclesiology, rips apart any
possibility for imperialist colonialist posture without losing the
reality that we are “sent.” But the common mistake made by modern
Niebuhrian protestants is to be phobic about any connection at all
between the church and the Kingdom, which I also reject. To me,
Christian Almondson appears to be falling into this kind of
ekklesiaphobia. Nonetheless his review is helpful in that it does point
to a few common critiques of the book from the “progressive” side which I
would very much enjoy exploring. I’d like the opportunity to show how
Almondson’s own received church/culture assumptions and epistemological
commitments have done to our book what many of my evangelical
fundamentalist friends have also done (from the other side) and in the
process the point of the entire book has been entirely missed. Blessings!!
David,
I enjoyed your book and think your pushback here is warranted.
A question though, one that this reviewer did surface: what about the limitations of your position on the church as an extension of the incarnation. Many have criticized this position in the past. Two examples:
(1) Roman Catholic theology moved away from this position at Vatican II (it was predominant after V1), partly because it over-institutionalized the church. V2 favoured instead a sacramental view of the church as God’s presence. Given Catholic theologies of the Eucharist, perhaps this leads us back to the church as an extension of the Incarnation anyway. So, the question arises, do you take the limitations of the ‘extension’ view into account? How might your own understanding of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist inform your view?
(2) Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s early work (over-)stressed the identification of Christ with church (the church is ‘Christ-existing-as-community). But, Bonhoeffer came to abandon this phrase as his christology developed . . . notably from 1932-33 onward. He never abandons an incarnational model of church, but also insists on Christ’s transcendence. The church simply as an extension of the incarnation seems to miss this dialectic.
(3) O.K. One more question: Some (Pentecostals and others) have suggested that the church is better understood as an extension of Pentecost, rather than an extension of the incarnation. What do you make of that?
Thanks!
Patrick, I’ll try to get a few posts us this week over at http://www.reclaimingthemission.com . Good questions. Any drawing on RC ecclesiology (von Balt, deLubac, and patristics) has to be met with Yoder to truly overcome the colonialist impluse. I thot this was clear in PC and am surprised that someone like Almondson could totally miss (or overlook) it… Thanks
Sounds good. Looking forward to it!
Hey David, I’d be keen to hear from you about “Almondson’s own received church/culture assumptions and epistemological commitments.” Like, seriously, this would be fun to read. Oh, and that isn’t how my name is spelled, but you can call me almondson if you want; it will be like an inside joke or nickname : )
Oh, and I would be very eager to hear what it is that you think the purpose of the book was that I completely missed.
Ouch! Well I haven’t read the book and I can’t claim to be an expert on anabaptism (neo, evangelical, hyper-reformed, or whatever, so y’all will have to sort that out). But I know Brother Amondson and if he says the book is crap that’s good enough for me (my Roman Catholicism makes me susceptible to authoritive personalities, plus I know Amondson and doctrinal disputes like this one come and go, but personal relationships and loyalty trump doctrinal hairsplitting). Oh, I’m not as bothered by Fish and Coleslaws inconsistentcies as Amondson is, heck, insisting on too much rigorous consistency has often led to some pretty big body counts by incarnagical Christians. Still, if your going to write a whole book about something I reckon it’s worth double checking your personal B.S. meter to see where your thesis is at odds with examples and arguments before peddling your ideas on Amazon (better yet, next time let the excellent editors at Wipf and Stock have a crack at it first–and this is an unsolicited comercial).
Geoffh, David, I’m sure y’all are fine fellows and are (probably) going to heaven and I wish you well on your ‘faith journey’ (do folks still say that? I’m kinds out of loop these days). Heck, my own Pope just more or less said that even the un-believing good-deed-doers are saved as much as good Catholics! (but if I was Francis I’d watch my back and I wouldn’t eat or drink anything given to me by a Dominican!). However, I’m not going to read your book mostly because I just don’t have the time, or energy, (and probably the smarts) to engage with every protestant dust-up that comes along as y’all try and figure out just how thin you can slice the already sliced prosciutto and still wrap it around a piece of cantaloupe. I will say this though, the neologism “incarnage,” alone was worth the read of the review and comments (and did y’all invent “ekklesiaphobia,” too? That one sounds familiar to my RC ear, I’ll bet some abused altar boy came up with that). Now to be honest I have sort of a….critical opinion of “evangelicals,” as a whole, for a variety of reasons. Yet I have a hunch that your book may very well add something positive to evangelicalism, or at least the potential good may outweigh any potential harm (after Ronald Reagan and George Bush is there anyway to go but up?–and I’m not eliding the fact that Nixon was a Quaker either!). These days if ‘christians‘ can just keep from starting wars and blowing up the world and maybe keep from lynching, raping, exploiting, and crusading, etc, well hell that would be a great start on finally figuring out what this gospel is all about; and then what y’all call ‘the world‘ just might get a glimpse of this Jesus we’all been harping on about for 2000 years! Every blessings y’all and C A that is a trenchant and insightful review but if I ever write a book is it ok if I get someone else to review it? Obliged.
Christian, I don’t question your motives in this review, but if Dave and Geoff are guilty of any emergent caricatures in PC (and I’m not sure that they are), you are guilty of ten times more here. The points you choose to highlight are strange, while what you choose to omit is glaring – namely, the ecclesiological heartbeat of the book, thumping throughout and on display most clearly in Signpost 7 – and the result is an oddly lopsided account that actually gives your reader something like a malformed, botched mini-clone of the original work.
I know reviews are summations with opinion, but this just heads off in a weird direction. You seem convinced that PC diverges little from the views of McClaren and Jones, but then also accuse it of imperialistic entrenchment, while still questioning whether it is clearly biased against progressive gay issues enough or too little or something. I think you are saying PC is confused, but I think it’s actually you. That PC presents a radical middle for the missional church in light of movements within North American Christianity over the last 10-15 years is not hard to understand, and not nearly as complex as you reconfigure it here.
Further, if an incarnational ecclesiology is bothersome to you, I cannot for the life of me understand why. If I’m just slow, forgive me. But if you want to attribute all incarnation to Jesus whom we merely follow as Lord (and not embody in any way – cuz the NT Body metaphor is too confusing and Paul was an imperialist), fine, but I’m guessing that means people who come into contact with the ecclesia will be invited to become more *like him*, yeah? Because that’s what following entails? Amirite? So then, this is semantics because incarnational church is simply an imperfect, transforming group of followers inviting others to follow as well, with a different (and more powerful) metaphor guiding the process.
Also, the poor – like, being friends with them, feeding them, clothing them, helping them along towards jobs/homes, etc., isn’t imperialist but the thing that Jesus did and wants his followers to do (i.e., the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who is filling everything in every way).
Lastly, if you just have a different view from the authors on LGBT issues, you know, you should just come right out and say that you do. (A parenthetical note would be fine…wink.)
Hey, thought I’d try to address a little of your comment head on: as noted above, I have zero problem with us being “like” Jesus. I’m all for that. I just want to slow things down so that we don’t start using language that makes it seem like we aren’t just being like him (which, btw, sounds a lot like the imitation/model idea that they don’t like in McLaren et al.) but ARE him. When we start using language to the effect that we “allow” the kingdom to break in, or that “when” we do certain things, “then” the kingdom breaks in, then I worry we’ve lost sight of this very significant distinction.
Also, if you can’t see how saying something is mutual but then ONLY offering examples of how the “other” person’s life is transformed is not really mutual but unilateral, then I don’t think there is anything I would have to offer in response to what you’ve written. We’re clearing not going to have a common ground to connect on. And if you can’t see how redemption looking like helping a homeless person get a vision for being a productive member of society is maybe belying a certain set of middle class values and assumptions (one’s that are deeply shaped by capitalism and the protestant work ethic) then we probably won’t get very far in a discussion about this topic either. Better just to reduce it down like you’ve done to “hey, Jesus did things for poor people, so we should, too.” As if somehow that was what I was getting at.
And w/r/t your last paragraph, your capacity to miss the point seemed to grow as the comment progressed. This final paragraph was completely beside the point I was getting at.
Christian, the point is that it was an unusually harsh review, and while I don’t question your motives, I simply wanted to challenge your harshest accusation/snarkiest remark.
I’m open to that. I’d welcome a more thoughtful rebuttal, cause just saying it is weird doesn’t seem to get us that far. If you’d care to explore some of the points above, just let me know!
The rebuttal is in the original comment, but it amounts to the fact that you deny the authors really offer *mutual* transformation because they demand *unilateral* change (to their incarnational identity), but then you also call for a very distinct category of the church following of Jesus alone as Lord (as an answer to incarnational/embodied ecclesiology). My point is, how does the latter not become even *more* unilateral (as in, changing toward JESUS)? Likewise, how does the recognition of incarnational identity and an invitation to kingdom life differ in any way with what Christians have always believed and which you seem to offer no alternative to?