"Adventures In Missing The Point" Ch.1 and Other Musings

Tony Campolo (http://www.tonycampolo.org/) and Brian McLaren (http://www.brianmclaren.net/) wrote a book together in 2003 called “Adventures in Missing the Point.” This is the first work by Campolo that I have read, but from what I can tell he seems fairly conservative in his Christian views (he believes in a literal, personal, and very active Satan, c.f. p.29). Brian McLaren is a leading representative of the Emerging Church (http://emergingchurch.info), and even more selectively within this camp, he is a member of Emergent Village (http://www.emergentvillage.com/), which as far as I can tell, is simply a group of people attempting to practice Christianity as they understand it (“in a postmodern context”).

But these associations really tell you little about McLaren. I have read only one of his other books, which I think is his best known, called “A Generous Orthodoxy,” in which he says a lot of things that make Evangelical Christians nervous. One example: Brian McLaren is not very clear on some points of his theology, if you ask him if he believes in Hell, he will probably respond with, “Why do you ask the question?” I think that McLaren’s point with not answering these questions directly is to point out that sometimes Evangelicals have their priorities off kilter. They tend to proceed by “checklist” Christianity wherein they ask you some questions and if you give the right answers then you’re “one of us.”

There is a problem that arises, however, and it’s that sometimes certain Christian authors, speakers, and scholars don’t quite grasp what McLaren is doing. This is probably to be expected, because McLaren has an M.A. in English (http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/about-brian/) and realizes how interactions, scripts, languages, etc., can be used to make a point through much more indirect means than the way that a lot of theological debate is done in seminaries today (i.e. look at the way that Jesus answered questions with questions). Yet, I think it would help McLaren to just come out and actually give a straightforward answer every now and then. So there is room for improvement on both sides.

In any event, I liked the book and think a good presentation of its overall message is “chill out, yo” (if you can imagine a California surfer brushing wavy blonde hair out of his eyes as he says it).

So this other book, “Adventures in Missing The Point,” is apparently about where McLaren and Campolo think that many Christians in the U.S. have missed the point on various subjects. In the intro they claim to be all about seeing their own shortfalls, which is encouraging. And they also plan to proceed by means of a respectful and polite dialogue, without insulting each other, and I believe this could be incredibly instructive to many Christian authors, and even many scholars, who attack and accuse each other, bite and devour, and through doing so gain no nourishment of any kind.

The first chapter to the book is about Salvation (with a capital S indicating being saved from the consequences of sin by Jesus’ atoning sacrifice) – which is a very heralded word in the Christian community. It is written by McLaren, and I think it has many strong points, among which are particularly:

1. That Salvation is more than a point-in-time, moment of conversion (p.26-27 of AMTP). It may indeed include this (or something like it), and this may be a necessary part of Salvation (as Campolo would say), but please people, don’t stop there. Somehow, becoming conformed to the image of Christ is supposed to be thought of as part of one’s Salvation (c.f. Philippians 2:12-13 where Paul, in one of his rarer moment of clarity, says exactly this). Sometimes we use the word “Salvation” to denote “conversion” – or that moment-in-time thing where you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior. But Paul actually uses the word “salvation” (Grk. soteria) here. So whether we used the word “Salvation” to denote conversion, or to talk about both conversion and the subsequent becoming-like-Christ that happens, it seems as though we are supposed to think of them as two aspects of the same thing. I don’t know how exactly, but I think that’s the idea.

1.5 (Because this is really a specifying of point 1): That the something-else of Salvation beyond conversion is about fallen, broken, and corrupted and evil human being becoming God’s true humanity (p.25). This means human beings that have new hearts that love good and hate evil, that put Got first, and that appreciate his creation. There are so many different ways of saying this, actually, and one could go and write some nice poetry about it if they wanted, but that’s the basic idea.

1.7 That part of the reason for this Salvation is so that human beings live with the joy and absence of evil that God originally intended for them (p.20, I think this point can be seen where McLaren gives Paul’s answer to the question about going to heaven, because McLaren thinks that Paul primarily wanted people to experience the joys of salvation). The fact is that evil has destroyed the goodness and joy to be found in God’s created order, and the reason that God intends to set the world to rights is for the benefit of his people (and I would add for his own sake as well, and perhaps throw in some stuff about punishment and justice, but I am mainly focusing McLaren for now).

Two Weak Points:

1. That emphasizing the experiential-benefits of Salvation seems to detract from the responsibility or task-structured nature of Salvation. I think that Paul, in his letters, is very concerned to see his congregations living appropriately (c.f. all of 1 Corinthians, but some nice illustrations can also be found in approx. Phil. 2:1-4, 2:12-15, 4:3-9). Paul seems less concerned about people experiencing a joy that accompanies them following their responsibilities and gaining new hearts (c.f. Ephesians 4:17-32), than he is with these changes actually taking place. Also, I think that Jesus is very insistent that he is the issue – not people or their joy or happiness. It is what people do with Jesus that matters most, not anything else (c.f. Matthew Ch.10 for a lot of material along these lines). It is not that joy is unimportant, or not to be sought after, but I think that an independent notion of “Christian responsibilities” which comes with the very idea of being a “Christian” provides two additional things: 1) a motivation for acting and 2) a moral standard.

2. Not enough said about individual responsibility before God and Salvation from the consequences of sins. I am not accusing McLaren of not believing in these things, only that they are essential to an accurate understanding of Salvation, and that I did not find them in Ch.1. Perhaps, however, I am not the greatest sleuth when it comes to reading McLaren’s views, and it is all there in some rather subtle language. I am open to that possibility.

So I think that McLaren is much better on this issue than many Evangelicals would give him credit for, but that there were a few elements

This Alien Thing, This Stranger in Our Midst

I'm going to try to write briefly about love and what a strange thing it is.

Here is the NIV text of 1 Corinthians 13, the “love” chapter of New Testament:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

I think these verses show that love is a very difficult thing, and a very strange thing.

It is obviously difficult to do all that is here: 1) To keep no record of wrongs; 2) To be slow to anger – especially at something unjust that happens to ourselves; 3) To be patient and kind; 4) To not rejoice at evil (especially evil directed at someone who has wronged us and therefore made us angry); 5) To protect, hope, persevere. The most difficult thing, though, is that love never fails in these things. If you act otherwise, then you are not acting in love. This, to me, is the hardest thing about love.

But love is such a strange thing as well. What kind of thing is love that I can give all my possessions to the poor, and surrender my body to the flames, and not have love? Am I not following Jesus by taking up my cross daily (Luke 9:23)? Or if I give all my possessions to the poor, what more could be asked of me (Matthew 19:21)? Such devotion, commitment, and courage – how is it possible without love?

What more is it that love asks? Self-sacrifice is not love. Devotion is not love. Trust in God is not the same as loving God. So what is love?

I can take up the cause of Christ, I can defend Christ, I can evangelize and speak with all wisdom, and yet lack love.

Insofar as I know anything about love – and I only claim to have a vague idea of what it is, and to only practice it on rare occasion – I think one of the chief things it requires is self-honesty and openness to others. How can I love someone if I will not listen to them, and see myself in light of how I affect them?

I may not know what sort of thing love is. But, based on 1 Corinthians 13, I still think I know what love does. I think that it is love which stays an indignant tongue when its words would be just but harmful. I think it is love that seeks to love others in the ways that they feel loved. I think it is love which puts others first, even when they don’t appreciate it. I think it is love that doesn’t require appreciation (even if it would – at the risk of being redundant – be appreciated). I think it is love that keeps anger from hurting others. Love is the heart that breaks for the pain of others. And I think that if I fail in these things, then I fail to love.

(And, for my brethren in the academic community, I think it is love that stops ink from spilling insults on the printed page that wound others in the body of Christ).

So I see now that though I may love someone, I will never act in perfect love. I can never fulfill all these things. Such is God’s domain alone.

In the end, I find that Love is strange, love is hard, love is compelling.