Chapter 8: A Christian Spin-off

AT: Yes! This is key. It’s really important for us to all admit that we are actually engaging with philosophy, which is culturally conditioned, anytime we are interpreting the Bible and theologizing. The way we read the Bible isn’t self-evidently ‘true.’ In other words, the Bible doesn’t have a specific formula or method that clearly teaches Christians how to read it. It never says, ‘Read it this way and you’ll know the truth!’ There have been a variety of different biblical reading strategies over the centuries, feeding off different philosophical categories. I’ve used words like ‘postmodern’ with you already. I think that the whole activity of proving the Word of God or Jesus’ resurrection or anything else, what you and I have been brought up calling ‘apologetics,’ is kind of a waste of time. Don’t get me wrong, many people, Christians and non, want logical answers to their questions, but at the end of the day, there are compelling arguments on both sides of every theme of theology. Have you recently stopped by Barnes and Noble and scanned the number of books written about the historical Jesus by authors spanning both conservative and liberal extremes—pages and pages and pages written by scholars who are claiming all the right evidence and objectivity! Yoder just doesn’t spend time with these arguments. Most of the time he is concerned with prophetically calling his own Mennonite community, along with every other brand of Christian faith, to be faithful communities that reflect who God is: ‘Transcendence is kept alive not on the grounds of logical proof to the effect that there is a cosmos with a hereafter, but by the vitality of communities in which a different way of being keeps breaking in here and now.’ This is what a lot of younger evangelicals are calling an ‘embodied apologetic.’ They are saying essentially, ‘People don’t care what you say. They care what you do.’ Even the postmodern Batman [Batman Begins] agrees: ‘It’s not what is inside but what you do that defines you.’
RW: Don’t be quoting Batman movies with my kids around. They’ll start believing all of your postmodern heresies!
AT: Yes, exactly. Young people today resonate with this worldview. They won’t believe a word until they are confronted with compelling actions. This, of course, brings us back to my earlier comments about the five practices of our community and why practicing those is our sole evangelistic strategy. So, back to your question: yes, one way to say that I’m different from most conservative evangelicals that we grew up with is that I have different philosophical underpinnings.
RW: Your thinking just seems like ‘relativism’ to me. Have you completely abandoned Absolute Truth?
AT: The concept of relativism is just a ‘spin-off’ from serious Christian mission. Think about it like this. Jesus calls us to love our enemies. This must mean that we listen and seek to understand those who have different convictions than we do, whether Muslim, Mormon or Military.
RW: Good to hear that you are still using alliteration like the rest of us conservative evangelicals!
AT: I know, it’s catchy. So, we listen and seek to understand, but that doesn’t mean that we agree with everything people believe and do. However, the more we listen, the more we might be surprised with how much we do actually agree on. The key is that there isn’t anything or anyone to adjudicate between our positions.
RW: Adjudi-what?
AT: To ‘adjudicate’ simply means to judge between ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’ Take Bible reading, for example. It doesn’t matter how loud or how often pastors tell their flock that ‘the Bible clearly tells us’ how to live. There are probably a few valid interpretations on all of the most cherished Bible passages that we’ve grown up memorizing. Bible scholars, theologians and pastors from different Christian traditions, working in different social locations, are interpreting the Bible differently. How do we decide who has the ‘right’ interpretations? There is no answer in the back of the book.
RW: OK, it sounds like you are glorifying relativism or pluralism.
AT: Not ‘glorifying’ per se, but only trying to describe our culture for what it is and to adjudicate between relativism and the way of Constantine: absolutism. See, absolutism assumes dominance. Those advocating for absolute truth only advocate for their form of absolute truth. Any other perspective is wrong from the starting-gun. Authentic Christianity can never be absolutist. All voices must be heard and none coerced.
RW: But can’t we still know that ours is the absolute truth and not use it to coerce or dominate other people? I mean, say I buy what you’re saying about not being able to know, for certain, the truth of what the Bible is saying—where does that leave us? I mean, Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me.” That sounds pretty absolute to me! Where does that fit with what you are saying about Christianity not being absolutist?
AT: You and I have a strong conviction that Jesus is the way and the truth and the life. It is cherished, it is tenaciously held and it compels us to do all sorts of things in the name of Jesus. On most days, I’m absolutely sure that Christ is actively reigning in our world, but I don't have proof and, on the other hand, my skeptical, atheist colleague can't prove that Jesus is dead and irrelevant. Sure, sometimes I have my doubts—this is a big part of faith—but all I can say is that everything that Jesus does in Scripture—his teachings, actions, death and resurrection—are always interpreted by individuals and communities, most of which are very different than you and I. So my point is simply that there is not a judge, a lower-case-j-judge, who is available on this earth to show us what exactly the truth is, differentiating from different faith traditions and hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian denominational distinctives. Until that Day when our Judge makes himself known ultimately and finally, we must wait patiently and live faithfully and humbly, as our communities own their distinct interpretations: ‘For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known’ [I Corinthians 13:12].
RW: How, then, in this dim, partial time until that Day, do we know what the Bible even says if so many scholars and theologians have so many different ideas about what each passage means?
AT: This is where the community is vital. The 10 of us, meeting in a modest house in Lawrence, KS on Monday nights, participate in what Yoder calls ‘practical moral reasoning.’ This is what the Reformers called ‘the rule of Paul’ 500 years ago after his directives to the community in Corinth in I Corinthians 14.26-33: ‘when you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation.’ Each and every member of the community should have the space and freedom to speak freely in the community and all the words of those who interpret and teach from Scripture must be weighed by the whole community. This method critiques authoritarianism, where usually one man has the say about how the church should proceed on any one issue or how the Bible should be interpreted, and it also critiques individualism, the rampant trend since the Reformation, and gathering steam throughout American history, where individuals have their ‘quiet time’ and interpret the Bible self-evidently or how each was led by the Spirit at that time. Our ‘practical moral reasoning’ seeks to give dignity to all and challenges all to listen to others and consent when convinced of their error.

RW: Anthony, don’t get me wrong, I trust you, but all I can think of is communities large and small taking this ‘practical moral reasoning’ seriously without any sort of theological training. There’s only one word for something like that: a cult.
AT: Sure, I understand your fear. But I do have faith that men and women will take this kind of worship seriously, and study it theologically and that they will have the patience and humility to help start these types of communities and facilitate them in the power of the Spirit. A movement like this has got to start springing up because I talk to a lot of younger 20-somethings and 30-somethings who want to be a part of a community, but don’t want to just go to church and do the same old cha-cha. They want to know people a lot more intimately and they want to actively participate in complex discussions about the Bible and their lives. And, sure, I know that a lot young people who complain about church for bad consumeristic reasons or who just want to sit at home and watch NASCAR or the NFL.
RW: Or Joel Osteen.
AT: Don’t get me started. I do, however, think that there are many Christians who want to be a part of something different, to really participate in something that is more like a town hall meeting or an underground movement or political campaign than a concert or social club.
RW: I can’t believe it is 2am already. Can we continue this conversation over cinnamon rolls and coffee in the morning at, say, 8:30am?
AT: You bet. Time to check in at the Holiday Inn. See you back here at 8:30!

As Ryan lay in bed, he thought about some of the things they talked about and about how he had been doing a little reading on the side lately, getting book recommendations from various friends: ‘Oh, you’ve got to read McLaren’s new book’ or ‘Have you seen Rob Bell’s NOOMA DVDs?’ or ‘I couldn’t put down Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz…you’ve got to check this out!’ All of these authors were proposing a little different Christianity than he was accustomed to and a lot of it resonated with him, but some of it was a bit abrasive. However, this Yoder stuff that Anthony had just sprung on him over the past few hours seemed to be completely re-writing what it means to be a Christian. It was a complete overhaul. But the way Anthony presented it made a lot of sense to me. Or maybe it was just because it was Anthony who was presenting it.