http://www.precipicemagazine.com Precipice Magazine is an online Christian resource featuring information, dialogue and opinion about the Emerging Church. Each of the articles and authors featured at Precipice offer perspectives on the Emerging Church and postmodern Christianity. Join our conversation about Emerging Christianity as we explore the interaction between postmodern culture and the Church. Precipice Magazine is committed to reaching out in order to faithfully forge community, proclaim the name of Christ, and serve as a messenger and agent for the already and emerging Kingdom of God. Each month we\'ll discuss the issues pertinent to the Emerging Church as we seek to reach out to anyone and everyone with an invitational spirit of thoughtful faith and faithful thought. en-us Copyright 2007-08. Some rights reserved. Sat, 02 August 2008 15:19:14 -0400 http://www.rssfeedssubmit.com/rss-generator/ http://www.precipicemagazine.com/images/precipicelogo-sm.gif http://www.precipicemagazine.com 144 40 http://precipicemagazine.com/witness-to-evangelical-decline.html#postmodernism_emerges It’s an interesting experience to have someone read or say back to you a list of defining characteristics – characteristics that once helped define you. This is especially intriguing after a certain period of time has passed. One is then able to hear these points with new perspective, new clarity. Do they fit anymore? Yes? No? If not, why not? Part of the reason why this is a telling experience is that when one is actually shifting away from a certain perspective, it tends to happen in small, almost imperceptible steps. It almost never happens in one fell swoop. But in looking back, some time later, one is able to do an apples-for-apples comparison – so to speak. This is what I believed then. This is what I believe now. And sometimes it almost feels like you’re introducing the new you to an old you that you hardly even recognize. Hardly even relate to. Many of the people portrayed in Christine Wicker’s book are like this. Some move from evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity towards liberal Christianity. Some move all the way from Christian fundamentalism to atheism. Most though, land somewhere in between. Still believing in God, but with much more nuance and mystery stirred into the pot. Of course, any defining group is going to have hooks to hang its hopes on. For many of the evangelicals that Wicker documents, a defining hook is a belief in biblical literalism. A the Bible says it, I believe it, that does it, kind of thing. On the other end of the spectrum are the Christian liberals – those who can’t take the Bible literally because it contradicts their scientific, modern worldview. While these two perspectives do define the typical 20th century American response to the modern dilemma, I don’t feel that they fully cover what’s happening now. That is to say, these two options: Fundamentalism and Liberalism, both belong in the modern milieu. But, for many of us, the assumptions of Modernism have been found wanting. And that trend has been growing since the 1970’s. Hence: postmodernism. Wicker describes in some detail how the ongoing march of modernistic science is leading more and more people away from traditional Christian perspectives. However, I was a little surprised that there wasn’t more discussion on how many people find not only Christian traditionalism wanting, but also the bold, unchecked claims of Modernism... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/faith-church-fathers.html This summer I have been doing some reading about the history of the early church. In particular, I read a book written by Bryan M. Litfin called Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction. The term church father does not mean Father in the Roman Catholic sense—i.e., these were not Catholic priests! When they lived, the Roman Catholic Church as we know it did not exist. So for a church father to say that they were catholic would simply mean that he or she was part of the universal family of believers of Jesus Christ. This particular book considered ten writers, all of whom lived before 500 AD—Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Perpetua, Origen, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and Cyril of Alexandria. Some of those names might be vaguely familiar to us, but I personally didn’t know many details about any of them before I read this book. I now know a little bit more about this cloud of witnesses that lived out their lives in God’s presence almost 2000 years before I was even born. They were real men and women who wrestled with what it meant to be a Christian in their day just as we do today. The difference is that they had less to go on than we do. As I read the stories of the various church fathers, I am struck by the fact that they were not unlike the pioneers who settled the American West. Those settlers faced dangers as they traveled west forging a trail across North America, and likewise these men and women risked much, sometimes even their own lives, to forge a theological trail across the Roman Empire that others would later follow. Theology simply means talking about God, and in those early days, there was much discussion over what represented orthodox theology—i.e., what is the “correct” or “acceptable” way to talk or think about the nature of God... http://precipicemagazine.com/witness-to-evangelical-decline#mega_church_appeal There is something unique and valuable about the degree to which one can understand, and thus critique something, having been within it at some point. That's true whether that be in regards to a church, a movement, a worldview, even an idea. I think many people wonder how the idea of a mega-church can even get off the ground. Those who've never spent time as one of the faithful within those very expansive four walls might think the whole thing seems like one massive, impersonal form of groupthink - without even the promise of heart-felt community. File in, file out. Right? What's so appealing about that? Listen to what Christine Wicker has to say about the experience one can expect to find in such a "mega" setting: Although the American conservative evangelical interpretation at Lake Pointe Church is one among thousands that have put forth since the Bible was written, Lake Pointe Church ministers call their interpretation the truth, sometimes the simple truth, and often they call it God's truth. I don't know whether it is the truth or not. I do know that calling it the truth is a good idea if you want to build a strong, motivated group. I know that accepting it as truth is better for many people than tying themselves up in knots that constantly asking "What's the truth?" puts them into. I know it lets people get on with the business of living a good life, as the Tauzins (a newly evangelical Christian couple mentioned in the book) are doing. I know that if you ever accept it as truth, you will move to a place of security that nothing else on earth can offer. I know all these things because I've been where the Tauzins now are. I can relate. And not just to the part about the fruit that comes from blind evangelical faith, but specifically the kind that is born of a mega-church experience. In the early 90's I attended just such a mega-church in the Houston, TX area. Like Lake Pointe Church (the one Wicker mentions in the book) this particular church I attended was part of the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, if I remember correctly, at the time I was there the senior pastor of this church was also actually the president of the Southern Baptist Convention. So we're talking the center of the lion's den here... http://precipicemagazine.com/witness-to-evangelical-decline#evangelical_myth_influence Once in a while I’ll hear about a book that hasn’t been forwarded for review in Precipice, but that definitely peaks my interest. That happened recently with a book titled the Fall of the Evangelical Nation: the Surprising Crisis Inside the Church, by Christine Wicker. Having acquired a copy I'm now happy to say that this book is an excellent read: insightful, probing, well written and well-documented. According to the research doe by Wicker, the true story of the state of Evangelical church in America is a troubling one – at least for the people who believe in the cause. According to Wicker, not only have the exisiting numbers been greatly inflated, but furthermore, growth rates suggest that the Evangelical movement is not growing, not even holding steady- but actually shrinking. And shrinking fast. Wicker opens her book thusly, Evangelical Christianity in America is dying. The great evangelical movements of today are not a vanguard. They are a remnant, unraveling at every edge. Look at it any way you like: Conversions. Baptisms. Membership. Retention. Participation. Giving. Attendance. Religious literacy. Effect on the culture. All are down and dropping. It’s no secret. Even as evangelical forces trumpet their purported political and social victories, insiders are anguishing about their greater losses, fearing what the future holds. Nobody knows what to do about it. A lot of people can’t believe it. No wonder. The idea that evangelicals are taking over America is one of the greatest publicity scams in history, a perfect coup accomplished by savvy politicos and religious leaders, who understand media weaknesses and exploit them brilliantly... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current#perspective_and_illumination So yesterday Serena and my two kids, Autumn and Ezra, and I stood out on our backporch and watched as a bulldozer finished off the last of what had been a large workshop building on the property behind our house. Of course Ezra, being 2 ½, loved it merely because he got to see a tractor, which he pronounces, “shadoo”, working some delightfully intoxicating destruction. What Serena and I were impressed with was how much the view changed once the heavy machinery finished the job. Suddenly the vista from our backyard was completely different. Only a day earlier, and ever since we had moved in here almost exactly two years ago, that workshop building had been a large part of our view. We didn’t see it as an obstruction at the time. But now, after the fact, I certainly think about it that way. All of a sudden we can see an open field populated by trees, horses, and donkeys, where before there was only aluminum siding. In fact, we can now see beyond the field, all the way to the highway, and beyond that to another field, another row of trees, and houses on the other side of the highway. So, you’re thinking, “nice story, Darren… but where are you going with it?”. Well, as the dust cleared and our new view came into focus, I couldn’t help but think about how this experience is similar to the revelations that dawn on us as Christians, when we clear out some of our own obstructions. Do you follow? When, for instance, we remove some of the obscuring blocks of modernism, the liberation we experience is not just a result of the blocks being gone - constructions that we always somehow knew, on one level or another, were a little too heavy-handed and one-dimensional to really do the gospel justice - but also part in parcel with the expanded view we now gain as a result. With a new view now available, offering greater perspective, new implications dawn on us; illuminating our experience of God and of the world... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/current#postmodern_worldview Over the last few days I’ve been taking part in the discussion over at the Out of Ur blog regarding a recent dual-review of Tony Jones’ the New Christians and Mark Driscoll’s Vintage Jesus. Now, in my opinion, the review itself was both paltry and unfair – especially to Tony’s book. It was one of those situations when you ask yourself, did this reviewer and I even read the same book? Evidently we did. Which just goes to show how much what we bring to the table can bias our view. That’s true for all of us. What is clear to me, in reading through the various responses to the original article, is that there is still quite a gap between those who are "postmodernly-informed" and those who are not. Now, please understand, I don’t mean to say this with a superior air- or something like that. I know it can come across that way- at first glance. All I’m really saying is that the reason why so many of the responses to this review in question fall to one extreme pole or the other, has much more to do with one’s underlying worldview than the subject matter or writing style of the two books in question, or anything else. In the comment section of this article/review/vent someone asked if emergents think "conversation" rather than "special revelation" was our way to understanding God. My response was, well, friend, it’s just not that simple. It’s not that we (emergents) don't believe in revelation. But we understand that it is always filtered through our lens of understanding (which it turn is a bi-product of many factors - our culture, our familial background, our faith tradition, our personality, etc.) And that leads to the second point: this knowledge leads (at least, should lead) to a humility of approach in explaining God and His ways. Humility is not just an outward posture. It’s an understanding that under-girds our entire approach to God and to the world. One could say that humility involves a right understanding of our place in the Cosmos. It just makes no sense to claim humility and then exemplify pure bravado in one’s certainty over one's understanding of God. None. Even if you claim (again, falsely) that this certainty comes from God Himself. You can't separate the two. You can't say "I'm weak, and biased, and the worst of all sinners”, but “my hermeneutic and my theology is spotless”. Either humility touches all areas of one's life and understanding, or it’s not really humility at all... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/andrew-perriman-interview.html One of the hallmarks of the Emerging Church is its desire, it commitment, to move beyond traditionalism, to examine various aspects of Christian faith with an openness to new answers- and new questions. While critics often (unfairly) accuse the movement of a "rejecting the Bible", the reality is that those immersed within the EC conversation are often willing to embrace the complexities of the Bible in ways that are unfamiliar to others. And embracing the Bible means entering into the story, understanding the journey as it was for the earliest believers, as part of the process in receiving it as our own. Andrew Perriman is actively engaged on that quest. His book the Coming of the Son of Man: New Testament Eschatology for the Emerging Church offers penetrating insight into the apocalyptic tradition and the circumstances in which it was written. Grounded in history and textual tradition, Perriman's book takes our understanding of New Testament escahtology in some - what may be to many - very surprising directions. I recently had the chance to speak with Andrew about his book... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/diving-into-mystery.html In his article a few years back Jason Z. wrote, "Here’s a strong statement: most evangelicals… are addicted to church culture. Take away their Sunday service, their bible studies, prayer meetings, and five-song worship teams and they start having withdrawals quickly. I would suggest a time of at least a year of not doing the ‘normal’ church stuff. For us, during that time of detachment we only did a few things together ” ask hard questions and eat. Those were our corporate disciplines." This subject comes up every month or two in conversation or via email. I've learned to make an immediate connection to liminality. When we are in a serious transition we are always in liminal space, and detox is a serious transition, sometimes by choice, and sometimes by circumstances beyond our control. Previously I've done some reflection on this under the subject of "maps for transition and change." In other places it was more confessional, like "Leaving the Church to find the Church." Various blog posts have considered more specific aspects of detox. But after a conversation downtown yesterday, I want to frame detox as a deepening in the Spirit, a greater dependence on Jesus, and a step away from the enmeshed and codependent dynamics so common to leadership cults within evangelical circles... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0608#biblical_interpretation Recently someone commented on a friend’s blog about the need to hold on to a view that sees the Bible as central – as both inspired and authoritative. This friend of mine responded by saying that, if we’re going to be consistent, then we need to refer to the Bible as the Bible refers to itself. In other words, does it make sense to claim for the Bible things it doesn’t claim for itself? This one person responded by suggesting that while this claim may not be made directly, it is certainly there implicitly. He wrote: The passage in I Tim 3 is one where I would say that scripture’s inerrancy is implicit. If all scripture is God-breathed, and God is without error, then one could come to the conclusion that scripture is without error. To not come to that conclusion would say (to me, at least) that one either isn’t confident in the current christian canon as the proper scripture, or isn’t confident in God’s ability to transmit the scriptures to us successfully. My response to this post was as follows: When you raise the issue of “God-breathed” scripture, you’re leaning very heavily on one particular interpretation of that term/phrase. I think if you were to study what “inspiration” (being God-breathed) and “authority” meant to the early Christians, you’d realize it is a far-cry from how some fundamentalists/foundationalists read it now. In the life of the early church, even letters that were not later included in the Canon were referred to with this same quality of "God-breathed" inspiration. Why? Because they were understood to be God-breathed in the sense that someone with the Holy Spirit (in other words, a Christian) had penned the letter. And the question of authority was all about whether or not a certain Church Council recognized the pragmatic usefullness of a particular work for the entire Church. So which interpretation should we favor? It seems to me we should rely more heavily on the earlier interpretation. Otherwise we’re calling the Bible central but making it out to say whatever we wish it to. And that’s neither historically accurate nor intellectually honest... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0608#dobson_critiques_obama Recent criticism of Barack Obama from conservative Christian commentator James Dobson sounds much like the rumblings of fading tyrant. That might sound harsh, but I do think Dobson has increased his rhetoric over time- not simply because he has seen the political landscape in America change – and not to his liking – but also because his influence over that landscape has weaned greatly. My guess is that Dobson still believes he speaks for the vast majority of Evangelicals in America. This is despite recent research that suggests otherwise. When a recent poll suggests that 57% of Evangelicals do not see Jesus as the only way to God, it’s clear that these people are not likely listeners to Dobson’s Focus on the Family program. So take the remaining 43% of Evangelicals, what percentage of these Christians do you think really see Dobson as a voice who speaks for them? Maybe half that number? I’d say, probably even less. Regarding Dobson’s recent critique of Obama’s biblical interpretation, I find it disingenuous. Obama stated, in a 2006 speech, that one cannot simply lock the Bible in as the rule book for a nation. Why not? Well, because within the broad population of people who see the Bible as either useful or fully authoritative, or somewhere in between, there is a great diversity of opinion regarding both interpretation- and subsequently, application... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/understanding-apocalyptic-tradition.html If you’re a regular, or even sporadic reader of Precipice, you may have noticed that we often return to this issue of apocalyptic literature and its implications for New Testament eschatology. N.T. Wright, a former university professor and current Bishop of Durham for the Anglican Church, has served as a great influence in these matters. Prior to Wright, many scholars assumed that all that apocalyptic talk by Jesus (and others) was referring to the end of the world- even more, the end of the space-time universe as we know it. And this assumption not only affected (and, unfortunately, continues to affect) our envisioning of ”ultimate things”, but it has also led to some very unfortunate policy decisions, not only amongst (primarily) Evangelical pastors, but even in terms of pressure exerted on the U.S. government itself. But more on that later… First, to the issue of the apocalyptic tradition… The assumption I just referred to – that the apocalyptic tradition describes the end of world as we know it – led to two responses: one defensive, one offensive. For many Christians, who felt they couldn’t help but acknowledge that this is indeed what Jesus was on about – the conclusion to be drawn was that all of this talk was coded messages for a time that had not yet come – even now, some two millennia on. And this is despite clear biblical references attesting to the fact that this was all to take place within a generation. Now the so-called “Liberals” on the other hand, took a different posture. They claimed that since Jesus was predicting the end of the space-time universe within a generation, and since it clearly had not gone down that way, that Jesus was simply wrong. He was either deluded, or confused, or arrogant, or a little bit of all three put together; kind of like a 1st century David Koresh. What Wright, and others like him have done – from a perspective clearly grounded in history – is demonstrate that the problem was not that Jesus got it wrong, but that we had got it wrong; primarily because we drew some very unwarranted conclusions about the apocalyptic tradition. More precisely, we drew the wrong conclusions because of our vacuum of understanding in regards to the genre of Jewish Apocalyptic... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0608#church_basement_roadshow I was one of what looked to be a couple hundred people that packed themselves into an overheated old sanctuary building at 1st Presbyterian Church in Bend, Oregon last night, to partake of some church-basement-road-showin’. A good time was had by all at this rollin’ gospel revival. By a miracle of nature the show featured six personalities, three of which: Brother Duke, Professor Hawthorne, and Preacher Withee, are (were?) revivalists from the turn of the century- the last century that is. The other three were their great-great-grandchildren, a.k.a. Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, and Mark Scandrette, fellows associated with a missional movement which is gaining momentum some 100 years after their forefathers charted a somewhat different path. Each of the latter-day prophets were sharing thoughts from their books: A Christianity Worth Believing (Doug), the New Christians (Tony), and Soul Graffiti (Mark). I spoke briefly with Professor Hawthorne, with his mandolin in hand, just before the show began. I asked him if the rumors were true, that he and the other two revivalists had come across a time machine. I suspected that the super-charged DeLorean (the car used by Michael W. Fox in Back to the Future) was the device in question. But the professor, sweating heavily (as if under pressure), denied it, claiming he had simply aged well under a great cloud of glory... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/interview-brian-mclaren-2.html In this, the second part of my interview with Brian McLaren, we discuss some of the ideas expressed in Brian's book, Everything Must Change, as well as some of the helpful and hopeful conversations that have arisen since then - both during Brian's recent Everything Must Change tour, as well as in cooperative action groups from all around the world. Darren King: Brian, I wanted to touch base a little about Everything Must Change and the tour that supported it. What was your overall impression of the tour? Was it what you expected? Were there some surprises? How has it gone in your opinion? Brian McLaren: It has been such a rich experience that I’m still finding it a little hard to talk about. Especially this last week, we were in the Bronx and we were in the most multi-cultural and diverse context we’ve had - and it was such a rich experience. Each city has been unique and each has been wonderful. It’s kind of like, if you advertise that you’re throwing a party for people who care about the world’s most serious crises, a really high caliber of person comes to that party. Just the quality of people has been so inspiring. I can’t even find the words for it. Darren King: Did you notice differences regionally – in terms of what people’s concerns were? Issues they most wanted to address depending on what part of the country you were in? Brian McLaren: Yes. For example, when you talk about the environment, and you’re in the Bronx, you know, the Bronx receives the garbage of Manhattan. So, its one of these classic examples of the poor having to live with the waste of the rich. As a result, Asthma rates are still unexplainably high in the Bronx. So, when you talk about the environment, this issue with Asthma comes up really fast there. Lead paint in your building is a big issue there. Now, that’s not an issue in a new subdivision where they haven’t used lead paint. So you see differences of that sort. But overall, one of the surprises for me has been how many people who have come to these events who describe themselves either as ex-pastors or ex-church-goers, or even ex-Christians – who have been burned out or disillusioned somehow. And somehow, these weekends have felt like a safe place for people to begin some sort of rapprochement with their faith and with the Church... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/environmentalism-and-worldview.html Your worldview answers four questions, the last of which is, "Why?" Your understanding of humanity -- and therefore of politics, religion, and science -- is shaped by where you locate the source of value, and what you think other things must do to tap into that source. Since value flows outward from its source into those things which support, serve, enable, further (etc.) that source, it's more proper to call the source a "valuer" than a "value." But since humans are "valuers" too, it is most proper to call it the "prime valuer." In many (though not all) religions, the role of prime valuer is played by a deity. This is why "God is love"; love is valuation, and God is the prime valuer. But this does not mean the atheist's worldview has no prime valuer. Every worldview locates the source of value somewhere. It's just that the role of prime valuer is not played by a deity in atheism. Rather, atheists follow the prime valuers prefered by Plato (the Good), or Descartes (Truth), or Kant (Reason), or Camus (Humanity), or Mussolini (the State). The atheist's options are wide open (which may be why Chesterton says the atheist believes "in anything"). But nowadays, atheists and non-atheists alike are converting to environmentalism above all. Peter Wehner, recently returned from London, reports that environmentalism has become "a kind of proxy for religion in a continent that is increasingly secular." And it makes sense... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0608#coming_son_man For quite some time now, I’ve been thinking, praying, talking and writing about the implications that arise from a realization that much of what Jesus was getting at, predicting, and preparing his disciples for, were events that were about to take place in and around him in that particular setting. In other words, in that particular time and place. There are numerous implications that arise from this understanding. And these implications not only expose the all-too-familiar Left Behind theology as missing the mark (and no, I’m not referring to three sixes on the forehead here!), but also raise questions about the way in which we tend to lift Jesus-sayings and doings off the biblical page, and apply them to our present context without even considering if they’re really relevant – in light of the difference in setting. And here I’m not just talking about cultural differences between 1st century Palestine and 21st century Western society, but also the fact that Jesus was there, at that time, for a very specific act in history- one that required words and actions that don’t necessarily make sense (at least not in the same way) outside of that context. This historically-located understanding rescues the floating-three-inches-off-the-ground, universal-truth-teller Jesus and places him back in his cultural setting. In other words, it brings Jesus back to earth- in a way that is not only much more likely to be historical, but in a way that would have made sense to the early disciples and others in that setting. N.T. Wright, of course, has written pretty extensively on this subject. And following in those footsteps, and breaking off in new directions at the same time, is Andrew Perriman. In his book the Coming of the Son of Man: New Testament Eschatology for an Emerging Church, Andrew takes time to really draw our attention to the fullness of the implications that arise from the argument first postulated by Wright and others... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/preparing-for-mission.html At recent meetings I and others discussed the founding of a missional order. One of the pillars of any order is special people whose role is to guard the ethos. This is less about skill or competencies than it is about a special kind of person. Both Henri Nouwen and Gordon Cosby talk about this role, and Bonhoeffer names something similar in Life Together. Abbots and spiritual directors are nothing new, just something old that we misplaced. In the early days of the church elders were given honor and authority through their sacrifice and their care for the flock. During the industrial age this role was increasingly awarded to competent managers, because churches were increasingly run as corporations. As a result, those whose gift was to guide, shepherd and care for people found themselves marginalized, and the communities in which they lived were increasingly a kind of soil that did not produce mature and healthy spiritual leaders. Consequently, leaders who attempted to function as spiritual guides often lacked either the wisdom or maturity necessary. We have continued to have spiritual elders among us, but they are too few and have often gone unrecognized and have rarely occupied official positions. Even when office and person were congruent, systemic issues have limited healthy functioning. The body has suffered as a result... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/interview-brian-mclaren.html Recently had the opportunity to speak with Brian McLaren about his new book, Finding Our Way Again: The Return of the Ancient Practices. In part 1 of my interview with Brian, we discuss the role that the spiritual disciplines have played in his life, and why many 21st century Christians - as well as spiritual seekers of all kinds - are opting for this ancient-future dimension of faith. Darren King: At first glance, Finding Our Way Again might seem like its going in a very different direction from your last book, Everything Must Change. At the same time, I can see how the message of one book very much feeds into the other. Coming off of Everything Must Change, what made you want to write a book like this? Brian McLaren: I don’t see it as another direction. I see it more as the other side of the coin. When we talk about changing the world, it always has to begin with ourselves. And, so, for example, if we say we’ve got a problem with the environment, and the world’s external ecology, in order to really deal with that we’re going to have to address our internal ecology and the state of our soul. So that’s what I’m trying to do with this book. In many ways, hit the personal side of transformation that corresponds to the global side... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/blessing-the-cursors.html After writing an article on the way principle and emotion spark political debate, I warily read through some responses. Things were going well till I opened the third e-mail. The writer was highly-credentialed and not at all pleased. I can’t remember the last time I was called the name he used; and being commanded to recant was no less painful. How was I to respond? Given what so many others go through, I knew I should be grateful that this was the worst kind of “enemy” I had to face. But I was under a proverbial attack that didn’t feel proverbial in the least. Though I tried to remain calm, I couldn’t stay quiet. Jesus had a practice for even situations like mine: “Bless those who curse you.” And I needed practice. Since Jesus gave that command — along with “love your enemies” and the rest (Matthew 5.44, Luke 6.27-28) — people have been arguing over His rationality. Is He or isn’t He proposing the most radical principle ever. Is it or isn’t it crazy? When you read John (e.g., 1.50-51, 6.48-58) you start to think maybe Jesus is crazy. He even claims His yoke is easy and His burden light (Matthew 11.30)! Only someone who hasn’t lived with other people could honestly expect humans to bless when they are cursed, and love when they are threatened — much less think it would be easy. Why does Christ demand the impossible? For the frustrated Christian the only answer can be, “It’s not impossible, I just haven’t figured it out yet.” And so we turn for help to writers like Foster and Willard, who teach us about “the Spiritual Disciplines.” But the Disciplines take work. You have to develop habits. How is that “easy” or “light”? This is where St. Thomas Aquinas comes to our rescue. In his Summa Theologiae (I-II.51.3) he says some habits involve seeing truth, and can be acquired instantaneously. In other words, you see some truths all at once and are convinced forever. They affect the way you think and live from that point forward... http://www.precipicemagazine.com/christian_current_0608#postmodern_presidency Before I begin this post on George Bush and the complex, multi-faceted difficulties that arise from over-simplification, let me begin by saying that I do not generally fall easily within typical Republican/Democrat or Conservative/Liberal branding. If a software bot were tagging Precipice, my guess is that it would have a very difficult time knowing how to do so. Seemingly contradictory keyword phrases would no doubt keep it guessing. And maybe that’s true for the human beings prowling this site as well. No doubt a southern Baptist would call Precipice a trashy attempt to serve the vast, left-wing conspiracy. But likewise, my good Presbyterian friends would no doubt consider some of the thoughts expressed in Precipice as outdated and predominantly law-based, hung up on arcane “rules and regulations”. In addition to being a postmodern Christian, perhaps the fact that I was born in the UK, raised in Canada, and now call the United States home, has something to do with my tendency to confound typical definitions- specifically of the home-grown American variety. Now, with that caveat aside, let me just say that, while George Bush appears intent on trusting future historians to put his legacy in its right perspective (he assumes history will one day vindicate him), it seems that reality suggests otherwise. If anything, the historical record is heading in the opposite direction from what George Bush would prefer. Besides, even if it were not, the Bush administration’s seeming failsafe belief that the ends justify the means, is not only foolhardy and unsustainable at a policy level, but also highly “unChristian”. I know that’s a rather strong statement. But on this one I think Jesus and Marshal McLuhan are on the same page: “the medium is the message”, more often than not. But the question that arises is: Why would one grow unconcerned, laxidazicle, and even dismissive - on the question of the justness of methods and means? Especially when one considers themselves a follower of Jesus Christ- as George Bush clearly does? Well, according to the following book tackling these issues, it comes down to an overly simplistic view of the situation – and one’s own role within it...