I picked up this book while we were wandering through the Mennonite Information Center in Lancaster, PA waiting to enter their life scale version of the Tabernacle. The subtitle is what caught my eye. I've felt challenged of late, both from Scripture and from the course of culture to wonder if there is not something more that God has for the Church, and for individual Christians, than what we are teaching or experiencing.
Personally, I believe the desire for more of God is supernaturally imposed on the believing heart as a direct result of the indwelling Holy Spirit's love for the Father and the Son. True love can never get enough of the beloved, I think. So when Scripture says that the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts, I think that that love must first and foremost be God's love and desire for God since it makes sense to me that God would love and desire God more than anything else, there being nothing of greater worthiness for love than God.
So, upon the heart redeemed by God and loved by God, there is imposed a hunger for God by the Holy Spirit. But the world acknowledges no hunger for God. The hunger is there, but it is refused, rejected, denied, dismissed, and overrun. The world rebels against the hunger for God which God built into creation ("he has put eternity in their hearts"). Too often, as I engage in the individual lives of Christians and continue in ministry in the local church, I perceive that that God-hunger dissipates when human beings satisfy their spiritual hunger with the world's vacuous sugar rather than God's substantial meat.
The idea of a "radical Christianity" intrigued me on those terms. I have encountered the phrase before, many times, but not in the context of a "rebellious world." I was hoping for a contrast of authentic Christianity and authentic worldliness. Often before, the contrast, when speaking of radical Christianity, has been between whatever the author or speaker meant by "radical Christianity" and whatever they meant by "non-radical Christianity." It was a Christian vs. Christian discussion that typical left me bored and unsatisfied. My expectation for this book is that there will be some description/definition of "rebellious world," and that that will form the backdrop for understanding "radical Christianity."
Halfway through the book now, I'm finding it interesting, but we're still dealing more with Christianity than world, but we are seeing how the world has impacted the "development" of Christianity into something that might not even ought to be called Christian.
Camp's ideas are an extension of those of one of his mentors, John Howard Yoder, who was his initial dissertation director at Notre Dame (the school, not the church.) I have not taken the time yet to Google Yoder, but a Lutheran friend of mine did, so I know the information is out there if we want to bring it into our conversation at some time.
I'm thinking to post a chapter at a time, discuss that chapter, then move to the next (and back, if necessary). Moving too far ahead and I suspect I'll lose track of the thread. I'm open to other suggestions.
Here are thoughts from the first chapter:
p. 16 "the genocide demonstrated--in graphic and horrific way--that the Western Christianity imported into the heart of Africa apparently failed to create communities of disciples."
Camp lumps all expressions of Chrisitanity in Rwanda into one category: "Western," and that category also seems to be predominantly Catholic. I would expect that Catholic theology would not create Christian communities, since there is little emphasis on personal spiritual transformation in Catholic practical theology. Does this categorization, which seems to ignore evangelical theology in mission, weaken the foundation for Camp's impending argument?
p. 16 "The proclamation of the 'gospel' has often failed to emphasize a fundamental element of the teaching of Jesus, and indeed, or orthodox Christian doctrine: 'Jesus is Lord' is a radical claim, one that is ultimately rooted in questions of allegiance, of ultimate authority, of the ultimate norm and standard for human life." This, I perceive, is the mission statement of the book, which he must now expound and apply. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Dale,
My book just arrived! So I'll plunge in soon and have more intelligent comments.
As for non-radical Christianity - this is a contradiction in terms and I much prefer churchianity and have used it in many a sermon.
As for losing our radical saltiness, Constantine's death blow to the church has been plaguing us for 1400 years now. We're still struggling to recover.
I agree with Camp's contention that "Jesus is Lord" WAS radical in the era that "Caesar is lord." But it doesn't seem radical today. Today folks just think someone who proclaims that is a religious Bible-beating fundy nut. In the early church it meant off with one's head (or fed to lions or burned alive or whatever)
So what is the gospel presentation today that is radical enough to make us FINALLY worthy of picking up a cross and getting crucified? Hmmm... in pluralistic western industrialized countries, I'm not sure. In Muslim countries or atheist or Hindu... no problem! Easy to pick up the cross there.
And as for what kind of radical lifestyle is worthy of being called "disciple of Christ," this indeed doesn't look a whole lot like several of the church contexts I've been a part of. Folks are nice, Jesus really does help them become better people, but it doesn't seem to result in radical love for the poor, the marginalized, the hurting, the imprisoned. I see pockets of this certainly, but not on the whole. On the whole there seems to be a lot of spiritual milk to go around. Or sugar I believe was the metaphor you used.
Thoughts?
REV
Don't get me started! No, wait, I already started this didn't I?!
I don't like the "churchianity" word even though I understand and appreciate what you mean by it. I perceive it as a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" type word, and that's not what I think radical discipleship does. True discipleship doesn't dismiss the church, instead it prepares the church for an eternal marriage as the Bride for the Bridegroom.
Certainly many of the expressions of the church that exist as local fellowships are off track, off based, and some are even off their rocker, but among them may be people who are truly church, and I would not want to add the burden of churchianity to their faithfulness in a difficult religious and social context, personally. I'd rather look for a word that provides a bit more hope than "there's nothing you can do unless you abandon those whom God has called you to love and impact," which is the feeling I get from "churchianity."
That being said, there are glaring deficiencies between the life practice of present day Christians and those of Christians in the gospels and Acts. Granted, the world has changed, and some measure of change should be evident in Christian practice as the context changes. The question is, what is the nature of change that allows discipleship to remain authentically Christian while remaining contextually significant?
I think Jesus was contextually significant and he proved that by challenging in life and word the false assumptions about God that had multiplied in Israel. So, in what ways would authentic discipleship challenge the false assumptions about Christ in our present day, post-modern, post-Christian, post-industrial context?
That's what I want to know from this book.
Dale,
First, I'm guessing you must be reading the first edition. Mine is the second edition and the quotes you pulled from chapter one seem to be pages 19-20 in mine. To compensate for this I'll note my references throughout our blogging as 2nd ed. p. 19 (for example) and let 1st ed. readers find the corresponding page (presumable 3-4 pages earlier if the pattern holds).
OK, onto "Does this categorization, which seems to ignore evangelical theology in mission, weaken the foundation for Camp's impending argument?"
Dale, perahps your evangelical context is much richer and deeper than mine and so I'd love to hear about your experiences with discipleship. My experiences outside of my initial being discipled in college (which were more NT-like) have been much more like what Camp is saying: reliance on church history, tradition, rituals, symbol, and even civil religion. Having served as pastor in two churches I've found my own desires to disciple AND the ability of my congregation to disciple to be woefully inadequate.
So could you shed some light on some of the rich evangelical tradition to which you're referring?
Thanks
REV
OK Dale onto your second question, "This, I perceive, is the mission statement of the book, which he must now expound and apply. What do you think?"
It works for me for now. I'm on page 57. There may be others I could pull from too, but lets run with that for now, sure.
REV
Post a Comment