Spencer Burke :: Weblog

billarnold.typepad.com: Heresy is the New Orthodoxy

Link

August 31, 2006

Heresy is the New Orthodoxy

In A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor define a heretics as "people who will push past and beyond the accepted wisdom of the dominant group and pull us across sacred fences that hold us back and keep us tied to perceived orthodoxies." (xxv) One of the examples they give is Copernicus, who believed that the earth was not the center of the universe:

Not surprisingly, Copernicus had many detractors. Although he was not personally committed to God and saw his work as a way of glorifying God, the powers that be were quick to tell him he was threatening the faith. Tolosani, a Dominican monk, wrote that Copernicus "seems to be unfamiliar with the Holy Scriptures since he contradicts some of its principles, not without risk to himself and to the readers of his book of straying from the faith. (18)

The first chapter of the book is called "Jesus Beyond Christianity." The question is asked: "Is it possible to encounter God's loving goodness outside the confines of religious patterns and practices?" (6) The main thesis of the book is that we need to move beyond religion on a worldwide level.

Unlike Luther, I'm for Protestant transformation, not reformation. Actually, my desire for change  runs deeper. I'm not just in favor of Protestant transformation. I'm for the transformation of all institutional faiths into something new and different. (97-98)

I'm not entirely sure what this "new and different" something is yet, but I'm only halfway through the book! As the authors point out, Jesus never suggested that his followers should start a new religion. (19) They seem to be saying that if Jesus' message is followed in a radical way, we should be able to circumvent the need for religion altogether. The authors make the following comment on fundamentalism:

The rise of fundamentalism is evidence of the desire for reassurance—for ways of fitting a complex world into manageable categories. But religions don't function at their highest and best when they attempt to provide simple answers to life's biggest questions. (20)

Do you think we need the kind of heretic's that Burke and Taylor talk about? Is it possible that we need to get beyond Christianity in order to truly get to Christ?

In A Heretic's Guide to Eternity, Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor define a heretics as "people who will push past and beyond the accepted wisdom of the dominant group and pull us across sacred fences that hold us back and keep us tied to perceived orthodoxies." (xxv) One of the examples they give is Copernicus, who believed that the earth was not the center of the universe:

Not surprisingly, Copernicus had many detractors. Although he was not personally committed to God and saw his work as a way of glorifying God, the powers that be were quick to tell him he was threatening the faith. Tolosani, a Dominican monk, wrote that Copernicus "seems to be unfamiliar with the Holy Scriptures since he contradicts some of its principles, not without risk to himself and to the readers of his book of straying from the faith. (18)

The first chapter of the book is called "Jesus Beyond Christianity." The question is asked: "Is it possible to encounter God's loving goodness outside the confines of religious patterns and practices?" (6) The main thesis of the book is that we need to move beyond religion on a worldwide level.

Unlike Luther, I'm for Protestant transformation, not reformation. Actually, my desire for change  runs deeper. I'm not just in favor of Protestant transformation. I'm for the transformation of all institutional faiths into something new and different. (97-98)

I'm not entirely sure what this "new and different" something is yet, but I'm only halfway through the book! As the authors point out, Jesus never suggested that his followers should start a new religion. (19) They seem to be saying that if Jesus' message is followed in a radical way, we should be able to circumvent the need for religion altogether. The authors make the following comment on fundamentalism:

The rise of fundamentalism is evidence of the desire for reassurance—for ways of fitting a complex world into manageable categories. But religions don't function at their highest and best when they attempt to provide simple answers to life's biggest questions. (20)

Do you think we need the kind of heretic's that Burke and Taylor talk about? Is it possible that we need to get beyond Christianity in order to truly get to Christ?

Tim Samoff // Weblog

Link

August 29, 2008 at 12:45 pm

"A Heretic's Guide to Eternity": Chapter 6...

A short time ago, I was listening to our local public radio station. The host of the show was interviewing a bricolage artist who owns a shop not far from my home. This particular bricolage artist was gaining notariety for a couple of reasons. First, he had gotten a book published about the art of bricolage that was garnering considerable sales worldwide. Second, he had recently started a city-improvment campaign called, Tulips on Troost. The idea was that, over the next few years, this man — along with the help of other small business owners in the area — was going to attempt to plant one hundred thousand tulips along Troost Street, the street that his business resided.

This story, devoid of any religious inuendo of any kind, made my day, My heart was filled with a sense that humanity isn’t so bad after all. In fact, humanity actually did possess enough love to try to change their world. My faith, for a few minutes that day, had been restored.

Coincidentally, Chapter 6 in “A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity,” by Spencer Burke and Barry Taylor, is called, “Faith Remixed: The Fine Art of Bricolage.” In this chapter, Burke talks about displays of faith that aren’t quite orthodox. He also speaks of some of the things that the institutional church might do well in changing — or, at least, reexamining.

Spencer Burke opens Chapter 6 with a story about how his family and friends choose to attend “church.”

“Every month or so, Lisa, the kids, and I meet up with friends at the park for a picnic — except we don’t call it a picnic. We call it church.

“When we get there, my eight-year-old son, Alden, crawls around under the bushes inviting people to join us. “Hey, we’ve got some buckets of chicken and salads over there. You want to come join us?”

Burke goes on to explain some of the many life-giving experiences that his family have had doing church in this way. This idea — where church doesn’t have to happen in a typical manner — is core to a lot of Burke’s writing. But, more importantly, it should be core to how churches think. Churches do a great job at what they do most of the time. But, when others choose to do it differently, churches should be supportive, not critical.

Spencer goes on to point out some of the nuances about Jesus’ ministry that mainstream Christianity sometimes forgets — or, possibly, tries to ignore.

“Jesus didn’t decalre Christianity to be the way; no such thing yet exsisted. Besides, he already had a religion — his own Jewish faith. Yet he critiqued from the inside what he considered a faulty system, incapable of containing the fullness of God’s grace. He could have said, ‘My version of a revised Judaism is the way,’ but he didn’t. He said, ‘I am the way.’...

“Jesus declared his life to be the way to choose — not the way of zealotry or paganism or compromise, but a life commited to God, commited to God’s ways, and commited to grace.”

But, how do we live in the way of Jesus? How do we find a balance amidst the lives we live and lives of grace? One way, Burke says, is by acknowledging that the message of Jesus is living and not constrained by one particular interpretation. Another way is to understand that Jesus’ vision of God is not for the exclusive use of one community, but for anyone and everyone. Lastly, by realizing the holistic connection between humanity’s good works and our capacity to love.

“To balance this view, we need to act out in faith, living the way Jesus lived and standing up for the things he stood for. What counts is not a belief system but a holistic approach of following what you feel, experience, discover, and believe; it is a willingness to join Jesus in his vision for a transformed humanity...

“For most of my Christian life, I have heard people say that it is not enough to do good works or care for the world. There has to be faith in Jesus — which usually means assent to a set of propositions. But actually, the Apostle Paul said it is good works without love — not good works without a belief system — that are empty and worthless.”

At this point in Chapter 6, Spencer Burke shifts from a critique of Christianity as a religion to the Church as a player in culture. While culture continues to evolve, the Church as a whole continues to posture itself as the authority of faith. According to Burke, one of the key issues in the current church is its adherence to rules and propositions. But was this what Jesus was all about?

“Jesus didn’t ask for universal agreement to a set of propositions about himself. He simply invites us to follow him.”

It is true. Jesus was much more interested in having people follow him than answering every question he was presented with. While Jesus chose good times to answer certain questions, most of his life — or at least the life that we can derive from the bible — was pretty mysterious.

Beyond the life that God desires for humanity Spencer Burke points out some of the things that the Church should take another look at: the concept of being “born again,” the “fluidity” of the bible, the current leadership model, and a reconnection with the concept of humanity. To Burke, these are all items that could use a drastic overhaul.

This brings Chapter 6 full-circle to the idea that it was titled after, “Spiritual Bricolage.”

“Faith can be many things — an opinion, a compromise, a rediscovery, a revalation. Right now, faith is an experiment...

“The philosopher Claude Levi-Strauss used the word [bricolage] to describe the creation of new understandings of life from the bits and pieces of ideological thought that already exist. This is the clue to a new spiritual future. Spiritual bricolage is the mining of ideas and concepts about God that already exist in the world and creating a whole new vocabulary, as well as new concepts and understandings of ehat it means to have a spiritual life.”

While this may sound extreme to some people, I’ll bet that if most of you thought back about your own spiritual life, you might see many places where you were your own spiritual bricolage artist. If we can redefine our own faiths when our lives change or grow, then why can’t the Church as a whole?

Burke ends the chapter on a postitive note. One of looking forward to the new fabrics and textures that will emerge through the bricolage of others’ faith. Take it from Conrad Cornelius o’Donald o’Dell, from the Dr. Seuss book, “On Beyond Zebra,” Burke relates:

“In the places I go there are things that I see
That I never could spell if I stopped with the Z.
I’m telling you this ‘cause you’re one of my friends.
My alphabet starts where your alphabet ends!”

Backyard Missionary - A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity - Final

LINK

Tuesday, August 29th, 2006 at 8:59 pm

A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity - Final

Ok here goes… my final take on Spencer Burke’s new book.

I have really enjoyed this whole process as it has moved my mind into gear theologically more than I have had to for a little while. The book is not a hard read by any stretch, but it does call you to think about what you believe and why

The last 70-80 pages are essentially focused on the concept of grace and how it impacts on us.

He begins by suggesting Jesus may have been a heretic because he chose to live contrary to Jewish standards. I don’t think anyone would question the fact that Jesus was a rule breaker and status quo annihilator! But a heretic?… Again, this gets down to definitions. What is a heretic?…

Maybe Jesus was a heretic by first century Jewish standards?…

I agree with Spencer that an obsession with the afterlife has dominated much of evangelicalism’s take on salvation. It become a heaven or hell proprosition rather than anything to do with the here and now, a distortion of what the Bible does actually teach. This is pretty tragic and something we starting to move away from.

Spencer’s solution to the current dilemma of religion / institutionalism as he sees it, is a shift towards what he calls ‘mystical responsibility’. He asserts that he ‘is no longer sure if he believes in God exclusively as a person anymore’ p.195 In that he has chosen to incorporate a panetheistic worldview into his thinking so that he now sees us as being ‘in God’ while here on earth, a philosophy he says is more accessible to people who are thinking about faith today.

This is where I tack back the scriptures and the ancient creed which speak of ‘father’, ’son’ and holy spirit as 3 persons.

The very next section is entitled “I’m a universalist who believes in hell”. He goes on to describe what he means by that:

“When I say I’m a universalist, what I really mean is that I don’t believe you have to convert to any particular religion to find God. God finds us and it has nothing to with subscribing to any particular religious view”

That’s a tricky statement!

Because in part I agree. God is beyond religion. Jesus can be met in a Muslim context as well as a Hindu context, but ultimately there is a religious view that Jesus espouses that we are called to conform to. I don’t believe we can follow Jesus and hold the Koran as our holy book. It just doesn’t make sense.

There is definite appeal in universalism because as Spencer says ” there is a certain madness to the idea that members of only one religious group can make it into heaven because they happen to know Jesus or some other religious figure.”

But…

But…

I can’t get away from the biblical teaching on the exclusivity of Christ. I can’t see how Spencer does. Acts 4 is the ‘no other name’ passage and Paul speaks repeatedly of Jesus death and resurrection as our only hope.

Spencer finishes this section by stating that we need to go one step further and realise that ‘grace is bigger than any religion’. Again I would agree, but I am happy to live with the mystery of ‘what happens to those who have never heard?’ rather than choosing the universalist option.

I really appreciate that Spencer tells us where he sits. One of the common critiques of Brian McClaren’s work is that he doesn’t nail his colours to the mast on tricky subjects, but seems to avoid them. Whether we agree or disagree I like to know what it is we are discussing.

Ironically I liked Spencer’s take on evangelism and conversion because it focused on what God does rather than our effort, as well as noting that conversion is a multi-faceted process.

This is already long enough so I will wrap it up.

There is much that I like in Spencer’s book, but there is also plenty that I take issue with (see previous posts). Perhaps one of the biggest concerns is that there is virtually no attention paid to the place of the cross and Jesus’ death & resurrection in his thinking. Perhaps this is congruent with a more universalistic world view?

I feel this is a huge ommission for a book of this nature and one that will come back bite him on the bum. While he does provoke some good thinking, to avoid discussion of the single most critical event in human history does bear some serious concern. The cross was the focal point of much of Paul’s writings and integral to this gospel, so you would expect that in a discussion on eternity it would feature.

It doesn’t.

I still feel a bit fuzzy on terms like grace and spirituality. I ‘get’ religion, but I find the other two a bit unfamiliar and not easy to digest. I sense we may use them in different ways.

So is Spencer Burke a heretic?

He would say so, and if I read him right then I think I’d agree with his own assessment, but it feels like he is talking heretic in the same way that Patch Adams was a heretic.

Is he onto stuff that maybe we need to hear?

I think he says some great stuff, but you do need a discerning mind to read it all. I would be concerned for a young Christian reading Spencer’s book with no faith grounding.

I actually reckon it’d be a great book to put on the evangelism and theology booklists of our Bible colleges because it does get students to think outside the square and it challenges them to weigh Spencer’s point of view alongside their own. It’d do a lot of them good to be faced with a text like this one.

So - thanks Spencer for the opportunity to review your book. I have really enjoyed it, but as you are aware we do disagree on some core stuff. I wish you well in your own journey of following Christ and look forward to reading whatever else you write.

 

ruminations - questioning and doubt

Link

Tue 29 Aug 2006

questioning and doubt

Posted by Simon under thoughts on theology

I firmly believe that there is space in life for doubt and definitely for questions.

Without pumping out scripture references we read of questioning and doubt first up in the garden. God even questions himself about creating man before the flood. Abraham questions God re: changing his mind about destroying Sodom. Moses tries and get out of an important speaking engagement with Pharaoh by doubting his ability to speak and therefore, God’s ability to use him. David takes a census. In the NT the disciples doubt multiple times, including Thomas. Depending on your theology, Jesus even questions God as to his plan for crucifixion in the garden and on the cross. etc. . . .

For me doubt is a hint that I am not privy to all information. It’s not an indication of a lack of faith - rather it is proof that such faith exists, no matter how feeble a condition in may be in.

In some ways I was fortunate in that most of my influencer’s as a person young in faith tolerated my questioning and ,from time to time, flat out doubt. Of course not being reasonable with questions often transforms into being overly critical, argumentative and negative. But I have been in churches where to question is equivalent to being faithless or even reprobate. (see Justin Taylors “An Emerging Church Primer“ for this).

There is a sense, especially as it plays out in ecclesiology, that we have forgotten why we do and say things in church - simply because it has been a long time since anyone asked! Euphemistically then, being reform-ative means to be able to re-cycle lived out truth.

Hamo recently recommended a book that he didn’t totally agree with, for the same reasons that I often do. Because being exposed to ideas and ideologies outside of our normal everyday sphere of influence can not only help us to learn, but also force us to question of own belief systems. That is, they force us to stop and think. Very rarely has this been a negative experience for me. At times it may have caused crisises, but the aftermath is almost always a better place to be in than I was before.

A Quick Very Look At 'A Heretic's Guide To Eternity' - faithCommons.org

Link

Submitted by bill on Tue, 08/29/2006 - 10:26.

A Quick Very Look At "A Heretic's Guide To Eternity"

Here are some quotes from Spencer Burke's and Barry Taylor's just released book, A Heretics Guide to Eternity.

[William Ventimiglia] goes on to quote Jesus' analogy of the Holy Spirit as a wind that blows where it chooses and writes that this element of God's action in the world has “always been a problem for organized religion with its well-established categories of understanding.” (Heretic's Guide, p8)

This reminds me of Reido's use of this same quote. Let's look at it.

A man named Nicodemus comes to see Jesus at night. He recognizes that “we” know that Jesus is from God because of the things he does. But Jesus interrupts him and tells him “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Most Christians leaders will tell you that Jesus is speaking of baptism, but that's pretty simplistic to think that the gospel writer would bother to put such an obvious statement in amongst so much symbolism. Nevertheless, Jesus goes on to say the following.

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (emphasis mine) (John 3:6-7)

Jesus is obviously talking about something way different than believing the right propositions and getting dunked in the hot tub.

Burke and Taylor have already used some of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's letters from prison regarding what he saw as the end of religion as we know it. Bonhoeffer was writing from a Nazi prison cell in the 1940's.

But what if Bonhoeffer was right? What if the last nineteen hundred years of Christian theology and practice were just a temporary form of human self-expression? What if we have now reached the point where we can live beyond religion? Could it be that we will soon see the spirit released in the world in brand-new ways, without the baggage of religion? Could it be that the eventual collapse of current religious systems will in fact prove to be a literal high-water mark in faith—that in fact many of the “fundamentals”aren't fundamental after all? (Heretic's Guide, p8)

What do you think? We've discussed such a change in the wind, a few times here. This looks like another land-mark book. It is not the beginning of a change but an acknowledgment of it. I'll bring more thoughts from Heretic's Guide as I read through it.

What Would it take for One Emerger to call another Emerger a Heretic? A Denial of the Trinity Perhaps? � In Athens - Finding Truth in a World Where Anything Goes

Link

August 8th, 2006 at 11:16 pm

What Would it take for One Emerger to call another Emerger a Heretic? A Denial of the Trinity Perhaps?

There’s an interesting development over at Scot McKnight’s blog, Jesuscreed.org. Apparently Scot is reviewing Spencer Burke’s latest book A Heritic’s Guide to Eternity and has found it lacking not to mention heretical. Spencer Burke is the founder of theooze.com and a leader in the Emerging Church movement.

3 Comments

1. 
   

   Adam J said,

   
   

   August 26, 2006 at 1:12 pm

   
   

   Hey man, I like the new blog address/design, it’s good stuff.

   
   
2. 
   

   AJ said,

   
   

   August 29, 2006 at 1:43 am

   
   

   I was following McKnight’s review as well. Seemed like he was unwilling to be overly negative until he realized that Burke’s take on God is nontrinitarian and nonpersonal. If I’m not mistaken, I think that was installment 4 of the review…when I think about it, it’s remarkable that Burke was able to keep his “heretical” views under the radar that long.

   
   
3. 
   

   spencer burke said,

   
   

   August 29, 2006 at 5:52 pm

   
   

   Sorry I have just got around to posting this now. It has been pretty busy out in the Bloggosphere… I hope the context from Scots blog sheds some light on your question. Below are comments from instalment #4 on JesusCreed. There or over 100 comments so you can read the rest when you get a chance. One of the values of blogging with comments is the give and take on the initial post. Scot was very gracious and I think the dialogue modeled one of the ways we can have interaction, hold our beliefs and be graceful, kind and loving. BTW: I have had great contact with Scot offline as well…

   
   

   YOU SAY -
   “Burke’s take on God is nontrinitarian and nonpersonal. If I’m not mistaken, I think that was installment 4 of the review”
   __________________________

   
   

   I SAID - (http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=1319#comments)

   
   

   May a say up front I do not deny the Trinity as you quoted from the book above “Instead, he is a panentheist — which means that “God is ‘in all,’ alongside my creedal view of God as Father, Son, and Spirit” (195).”

   
   

   When Father is used in scripture and prayer, etc. I see God much in the same way as you would - personal, with the best characteristics of a father, Son the same - as a son of the father and the incarnational image of God here on earth as God in Flesh and Holy Spirit as personally guiding me, comforting me and leading / convicting me in truth. I assume this would fit (at least loosely) in your “creedal” view of the Trinity. May I add this is a very dear part of my belief and I thought stating “along side my creedal view” would make that clear.

   
   

   The context for the subsection of the book focuses not on a denial of the Trinity but the question of how do we deal with the passages where God is not identified with one of these personal roles (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) but only as God. Do you equate God as Father, as the default? That is the way I used to think of God, but now I see the potential of both a Trinitarian creed along with a panentheist view. What if when scripture refers to God as “God” we begin to see God not as anyone of the three but wholly and completely all three and other. I don’t believe there are 4 persons to the trinity but I do see 4 ways of looking at the person and work of God - Father, Son, Holy Spirit AND God.
   __________________

   
   

   MARK SAID -

   
   

   Scot,
   How can you conclude that Spencer doesn’t believe God is a person based on the quote you provided? The words “exclusively” and “more than” don’t exclude personhood, they just qualify it relative to other characteristics of God.

   
   

   I have not read the book, so maybe he is more direct elsewhere, I just took what you quoted differently.
   Comment by MarkE — August 8, 2006
   ________________________

   
   

   ALAN SAID -

   
   

   As far as the specific concerns you laid out here, I wonder if some of it, as you have intimated, may be a matter of semantics with Spencer, e.g., the “universalism - inclusivism” thing. Also the “personhood” of God thing. Scripture even says the God is Spirit, but is He not also an ultimately personal being, BEING?
   Comment by + Alan — August 8, 2006

   
   

   ________________________________________

   
   

   I hope we will engage each other and listen not only to the words but also the heart of the person we disagree with. In the end I believe we will be strong for our dialogue.

the Weary Pilgrim: conversation and awareness....

Link

August 19, 2006

conversation and awareness....

This is what I love about the emerging conversation, an author can send his book out into the blogosphere, here, here, here, here, and here and others. We have engaged in conversation with each other, we have agreed, we have disagreed...we have done it in love, and humility. In almost every conversation Spencer has been there to answer questions, or to draw us into deeper questions. I loved it when Spencer said this in his comment to me;

I am not sure I even agree with everything in the book anymore (I like to say if I am not a little embarrassed about what I said yesterday then I probably didn't learn anything new today...). What you have done is engage the "Big Picture" questions and contextualized them for yourself (and I hope you will do that in community too). It is here where we will be able to dialogue about our future. My hope is that this book might be the excuse to have that conversation...

I have been saying the book does not seek agreement but awareness.

We all need to become more aware of the rich mysterious faith we live, and learn to engage with one another in lively conversation in a unity and love, and grace which is beyond us.

This is what I love about the emerging conversation, an author can send his book out into the blogosphere, here, here, here, here, and here and others. We have engaged in conversation with each other, we have agreed, we have disagreed...we have done it in love, and humility. In almost every conversation Spencer has been there to answer questions, or to draw us into deeper questions. I loved it when Spencer said this in his comment to me;

I am not sure I even agree with everything in the book anymore (I like to say if I am not a little embarrassed about what I said yesterday then I probably didn't learn anything new today...). What you have done is engage the "Big Picture" questions and contextualized them for yourself (and I hope you will do that in community too). It is here where we will be able to dialogue about our future. My hope is that this book might be the excuse to have that conversation...

I have been saying the book does not seek agreement but awareness.

We all need to become more aware of the rich mysterious faith we live, and learn to engage with one another in lively conversation in a unity and love, and grace which is beyond us.

Brutally Honest: A review of Spencer Burke's A Heretic's Guide to Eternity

Link

Sunday, August 27, 2006

A review of Spencer Burke's A Heretic's Guide to Eternity

Nearly a month ago I received an unsolicited e-mail from a Mike Morrell, editor of The Ooze.  It began " I wanted to drop you a line today because yours is a blog we keep an eye on."

Well, that intrigued me to say the least.  So I read on. "Spencer Burke (the founder of The Ooze) and Barry Taylor (musician and Fuller Seminary professor) have just written a book that I think you’ll be interested in:  A Heretic’s Guide To Eternity.  We’d like to send you a free limited edition press run copy for review.  Would you be interested?"

A free book?  On things spiritual?  What the heck.  So I wrote back and shortly thereafter I received my very own copy.  I was disappointed to see it hadn't been signed.  I mean, if Spencer were to be burned at the stake, wouldn't it be valuable to have an autographed copy of the book that was probably used to light the pyre?

But I digress.  I've read about half of the book as of this writing and have found points I have no problems with yet I've found more that I find most troubling.  Rather than bore you with where I agree, allow me to dwell on just a couple of items I've come across that need some further exposition if I'm going to buy into the premise being marketed (and perhaps I'll find what I'm looking for once I'm finished with the book... but I doubt it).

In one section, Spencer makes the point that "the message of Jesus is about making connections with each other and rooting the world in the love of God."  He then goes on in the subsequent paragraph: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you.  Pray for those who abuse you.  Treat others as you would have them treat you. These are the kinds of things Jesus said to do, and you don't have to become religious or believe a set of prescribed things about him in order to do them." 

Yet, not two pages later, Mr. Burke is doing what is done often in the book, heaping criticism on the fundamentalists, specifically the "narrow and literal interpretation" institutional Christians tend to have of John 14:6. He then writes: "So how do I interpret this particular Scripture? First, Christianity as a religion didn't exist when Jesus spoke these words.  Compounding this point are two additional facts: no one actually recorded Jesus' words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words, and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into an other language can be taken literally anyway."

I happened to be on the cross trainer when I read those words, words that followed his "love your enemies" soliloquy not two pages before, and I nearly fell off the damned thing.  We are clearly led to believe that when Jesus spoke words that ring true in the ears of the Religious Left, we are all to sit up and listen.  Yet when Jesus spoke words that hint of exclusivity, then we must question whether he said the words at all or that if he did, we must surely not be able to take him literally because Jesus spoke Aramaic and that precludes us from reading his words literally.

Later in the same chapter, Spencer adopts the mantra most often taken by those who see problems with Christianity: "The Crusades were a battle, not just between competing ideologies but between competing kingdoms - the kingdom of heaven represented by the Church and the kingdom of the world represented by all those outside the authority and rule of the Holy See.  The goal was to bring everybody into the church and do away with non-Christian options.  Everybody was to become a Christian.  It was the cultural religion of the Western world, and it aspired to be the religion of the entire world."

Thankfully, I had written on this subject some time ago.  In that writing, I had referenced this Christianity Today piece written by Thomas Madden who would pointedly (and authoritatively) disagree with Mr. Burke as to the specifics of The Crusades and the goal of Christians in that era.

With more than half the book to go, I'm trying hard to keep an open mind on what else Mr. Burke might have to say about Christendom and it's woes but I'm not holding on to the notion that he'll say anything persuasive, which is really too bad.  When he focuses on God's grace, he says things that ring true and that ought to be said.  But when he treads into other areas, he quickly loses me and his credibility and instead displays his bonafide Religious Left credentials.

But I'll read on and let my readers know if something else comes up worth sharing.

Comments

Rick,

Thanks for taking the time to read the book for yourself and then post your insights. Your openness is obvious and your willingness to follow through is refreshing.

I am not sure where the christian right or left are anymore and the lines between conservative and liberal are not as clear to me either, (a little like Republicans and Democrats) they just don't seem to be addressing the real issues with any vision or success.

I think that is why the reviews of the book are all over the place. I hope I am calling us to look beyond the old ways of categorizing each other and try to find new ways of being the Church in our world. I use the metaphor of "Email" and "Postal" as a way of looking at the church from two different perspectives. I don't believe one is better than the other but I do think the future is opening up communications with "email" church. So I am not trying to be hateful or destroy the "postal" church, I think this side of the church will continue even as the "email" church evolves (maybe we will even find ways of creating NetFlix opportunities).

My critique of where we have been and where we might be now as the church, is only to ask the question are we satisfied with the results OR can we look to the future and see possibilities for Grace beyond our present circumstances. I have been posting something that might help...
________________________________

I liken it to other industries in transition.
*The music industry sold vinyl and plastic but that is not MUSIC.
*The movie industry sold tickets but those are not MOVIES.
*The church industry counts weekly event attendance but that is not the CHURCH.

The record companies told us MUSIC would die if the ALBUM died, but they were wrong MUSIC is strong than ever (from .99 downloads to ring tones). The movie industry told us if the theaters went empty MOVIES would lose their funding, but they were wrong MOVIES are stronger than ever (from netflix to youTube). The institutional church says if we propose CHURCH as "Jesus beyond Christianity" or "Grace Beyond Religion" then the CHURCH will cease, but will it be stronger or weaker...

"A Heretic's Guide To Eternity" is a survey of spirituality today and a proposal for a bold new way of approaching the future as the Church.
__________________________________-

I hope this isn't Hateful but rather seen as Hopeful. It is my love of the Church, Scriptures and Jesus that motivates me.

I know your user-id is Brutally Honest and I respect your insights. I also hope we can ask the hard question "if we stay the course with our present trajectory of the church what will be the affect and effect of our institution 50 years from now on our world?"

Posted by: spencer burke | Monday, August 28, 2006

Nearly a month ago I received an unsolicited e-mail from a Mike Morrell, editor of The Ooze.  It began " I wanted to drop you a line today because yours is a blog we keep an eye on."

Well, that intrigued me to say the least.  So I read on. "Spencer Burke (the founder of The Ooze) and Barry Taylor (musician and Fuller Seminary professor) have just written a book that I think you’ll be interested in:  A Heretic’s Guide To Eternity.  We’d like to send you a free limited edition press run copy for review.  Would you be interested?"

A free book?  On things spiritual?  What the heck.  So I wrote back and shortly thereafter I received my very own copy.  I was disappointed to see it hadn't been signed.  I mean, if Spencer were to be burned at the stake, wouldn't it be valuable to have an autographed copy of the book that was probably used to light the pyre?

But I digress.  I've read about half of the book as of this writing and have found points I have no problems with yet I've found more that I find most troubling.  Rather than bore you with where I agree, allow me to dwell on just a couple of items I've come across that need some further exposition if I'm going to buy into the premise being marketed (and perhaps I'll find what I'm looking for once I'm finished with the book... but I doubt it).

In one section, Spencer makes the point that "the message of Jesus is about making connections with each other and rooting the world in the love of God."  He then goes on in the subsequent paragraph: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you.  Pray for those who abuse you.  Treat others as you would have them treat you. These are the kinds of things Jesus said to do, and you don't have to become religious or believe a set of prescribed things about him in order to do them." 

Yet, not two pages later, Mr. Burke is doing what is done often in the book, heaping criticism on the fundamentalists, specifically the "narrow and literal interpretation" institutional Christians tend to have of John 14:6. He then writes: "So how do I interpret this particular Scripture? First, Christianity as a religion didn't exist when Jesus spoke these words.  Compounding this point are two additional facts: no one actually recorded Jesus' words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words, and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into an other language can be taken literally anyway."

I happened to be on the cross trainer when I read those words, words that followed his "love your enemies" soliloquy not two pages before, and I nearly fell off the damned thing.  We are clearly led to believe that when Jesus spoke words that ring true in the ears of the Religious Left, we are all to sit up and listen.  Yet when Jesus spoke words that hint of exclusivity, then we must question whether he said the words at all or that if he did, we must surely not be able to take him literally because Jesus spoke Aramaic and that precludes us from reading his words literally.

Later in the same chapter, Spencer adopts the mantra most often taken by those who see problems with Christianity: "The Crusades were a battle, not just between competing ideologies but between competing kingdoms - the kingdom of heaven represented by the Church and the kingdom of the world represented by all those outside the authority and rule of the Holy See.  The goal was to bring everybody into the church and do away with non-Christian options.  Everybody was to become a Christian.  It was the cultural religion of the Western world, and it aspired to be the religion of the entire world."

Thankfully, I had written on this subject some time ago.  In that writing, I had referenced this Christianity Today piece written by Thomas Madden who would pointedly (and authoritatively) disagree with Mr. Burke as to the specifics of The Crusades and the goal of Christians in that era.

With more than half the book to go, I'm trying hard to keep an open mind on what else Mr. Burke might have to say about Christendom and it's woes but I'm not holding on to the notion that he'll say anything persuasive, which is really too bad.  When he focuses on God's grace, he says things that ring true and that ought to be said.  But when he treads into other areas, he quickly loses me and his credibility and instead displays his bonafide Religious Left credentials.

But I'll read on and let my readers know if something else comes up worth sharing.

A review of Spencer Burke's A Heretic's Guide to Eternity

Nearly a month ago I received an unsolicited e-mail from a Mike Morrell, editor of The Ooze.  It began " I wanted to drop you a line today because yours is a blog we keep an eye on."

Well, that intrigued me to say the least.  So I read on. "Spencer Burke (the founder of The Ooze) and Barry Taylor (musician and Fuller Seminary professor) have just written a book that I think you’ll be interested in:  A Heretic’s Guide To Eternity.  We’d like to send you a free limited edition press run copy for review.  Would you be interested?"

A free book?  On things spiritual?  What the heck.  So I wrote back and shortly thereafter I received my very own copy.  I was disappointed to see it hadn't been signed.  I mean, if Spencer were to be burned at the stake, wouldn't it be valuable to have an autographed copy of the book that was probably used to light the pyre?

But I digress.  I've read about half of the book as of this writing and have found points I have no problems with yet I've found more that I find most troubling.  Rather than bore you with where I agree, allow me to dwell on just a couple of items I've come across that need some further exposition if I'm going to buy into the premise being marketed (and perhaps I'll find what I'm looking for once I'm finished with the book... but I doubt it).

In one section, Spencer makes the point that "the message of Jesus is about making connections with each other and rooting the world in the love of God."  He then goes on in the subsequent paragraph: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you.  Pray for those who abuse you.  Treat others as you would have them treat you. These are the kinds of things Jesus said to do, and you don't have to become religious or believe a set of prescribed things about him in order to do them." 

Yet, not two pages later, Mr. Burke is doing what is done often in the book, heaping criticism on the fundamentalists, specifically the "narrow and literal interpretation" institutional Christians tend to have of John 14:6. He then writes: "So how do I interpret this particular Scripture? First, Christianity as a religion didn't exist when Jesus spoke these words.  Compounding this point are two additional facts: no one actually recorded Jesus' words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words, and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into an other language can be taken literally anyway."

I happened to be on the cross trainer when I read those words, words that followed his "love your enemies" soliloquy not two pages before, and I nearly fell off the damned thing.  We are clearly led to believe that when Jesus spoke words that ring true in the ears of the Religious Left, we are all to sit up and listen.  Yet when Jesus spoke words that hint of exclusivity, then we must question whether he said the words at all or that if he did, we must surely not be able to take him literally because Jesus spoke Aramaic and that precludes us from reading his words literally.

Later in the same chapter, Spencer adopts the mantra most often taken by those who see problems with Christianity: "The Crusades were a battle, not just between competing ideologies but between competing kingdoms - the kingdom of heaven represented by the Church and the kingdom of the world represented by all those outside the authority and rule of the Holy See.  The goal was to bring everybody into the church and do away with non-Christian options.  Everybody was to become a Christian.  It was the cultural religion of the Western world, and it aspired to be the religion of the entire world."

Thankfully, I had written on this subject some time ago.  In that writing, I had referenced this Christianity Today piece written by Thomas Madden who would pointedly (and authoritatively) disagree with Mr. Burke as to the specifics of The Crusades and the goal of Christians in that era.

With more than half the book to go, I'm trying hard to keep an open mind on what else Mr. Burke might have to say about Christendom and it's woes but I'm not holding on to the notion that he'll say anything persuasive, which is really too bad.  When he focuses on God's grace, he says things that ring true and that ought to be said.  But when he treads into other areas, he quickly loses me and his credibility and instead displays his bonafide Religious Left credentials.

But I'll read on and let my readers know if something else comes up worth sharing.

my Velcro Heart: Fundy vs Pomo... next on UFC!!!

Link

2006/08/20

Fundy vs Pomo... next on UFC!!!

Over the last few months, I've been brought to question my behavior several times in the light of seeming somewhat heretical to some. Are they just getting over zelous with their fundamentalist weapons of mass judgment? or am I throwing my call to holiness to the wind in favor of some postmodern idealistic sentiments? And contrary to popular beleif, this isn't something that I pretend to have completely figured out yet.

In typical Reid fassion though, I will call to a quote I read recently that sheds some light to my internal conflict.

While the holiness movement has put a great emphasis on the Christian’s need to live an righteous life—a life worthy of the calling they have received--I think perhaps we need to remind ourselves that our only true righteousness comes from Christ. If we’re really serious about doing the things Jesus did, then maybe we need to focus more on the incarnation, and less on its imitation.

- Spencer Burke

Two words stick out to me here, and those are imitation and incarnation. How often do we simply try to imitate Christ by acting out holiness in our actions? How different is that from what the pharisees did? They did everything right and then felt challenged when the possibility arose that there was more to it than being "right." Do you act like the pharisees did when you are confronted with someone who acts acording to a different set of standards than you? Is imitation of Christ or the incarnation of Christ our end goal?

posted by Delbert at 4:39 PM   

7 Comments:

Markimus said...

Great post... taking the pressure of being accused as a heretic ... simply means you are willing to grow and establish your faith in a real way... on another note ... fundamentalism has its own heresy.

8/21/2006 10:26 AM  

 

Lauren said...

I think how you're breaking out of the typical, and checking out stuff outside the boundaries is really good. It was sweet seeing you.

8/21/2006 8:58 PM  

 

jeffro said...

yah. man. its a interesting walk.
a good one though.
keep sharing your insight man. you have so much to offer.
jef.

8/22/2006 10:41 PM  

 

Anonymous said...

Spirituality vs. Religion.
God doesn't want the empty ritual, God wants our hearts.
This verse may be way off to what your thinking about, but I like it anyways:
Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. ..... For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship.
(Romans 8:5-16)

PS. this is ali! :)

8/25/2006 9:59 AM  

 

Anonymous said...

you inspire me.

8/25/2006 6:52 PM  

 

Rob Petkau said...

When you follow Him with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, you find little need to defend yourself.

Coffee? When?!

8/27/2006 12:58 PM  

 

spencer said...

Graham,

Great questions and it looks like you are willing to seek after answers no matter where you might find yourself during your journey. That is a faith adventure and I am glad we can travel together...

8/27/2006 5:10 PM

bittersweet life blog - comments re post

Link

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Dialogue with Spencer Burke

A couple days ago I noted that an article I'd submitted to Spencer Burke's emerging church site, The Ooze, had finally been posted. I had a little fun with the topic, since about a year had elapsed since I'd submitted my article, and in that interim Spencer Burke had published a fairly controversial book, A Heretic's Guide to Heaven. Now I could add to my literary resume the interesting distinction of being published on "a heretic's website."

To be fair, however, I'm posting this response that Spencer Burke appended to my earlier post (Oozing into the Blogosphere):

Ariel,

Thanks for submitting your article.

TheOOZE is a community site and you will find people, message posts and articles from all points of view. In the last election I think we were one of the only christian venues where real honest and open discussion about the candidates and the issues could be discussed without feeling like you said something wrong (be it too conservative or liberal).

I hope difference in opinion opens the dialogue deeper, wider and richer for all to learn from. Although I am finding that might not be as true as I once assumed...

Got to say I'm favorably impressed by the gracious nature of Spencer's response. I'm a little out to sea regarding the fallacies in his theology, because I haven't read his stuff myself. Moreover, my being in school and having several additional books by C.S. Lewis on my "to-read" list makes it unlikely that I will do so in the near future.

Anyone interested can find a brief overview of his Heretic's Guide to Heaven over at theologian Scott McKnight's blog. Burke's theology does seem problematic. In closing, I'll say again that I appreciate Spencer's humility if not his theological acumen. In an interesting contrast, I've commented on the writing/thoughts of any number of theologically orthodox bloggers without receiving feedback/commentary of any kind in reply. Could there be a lesson there?

Tim Samoff // Weblog - "A Heretic's Guide to Eternity": Chapter 5...

Link

August 27, 2008 at 1:50 pm

"A Heretic's Guide to Eternity": Chapter 5...

I must apologize for the long delay in this next chapter review. It was a busy week. Aside from that, Chapter 5 of “A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity,” by Spencer Burke, is a pretty long one, chalk full of things I’d like to quote. Needless to say, I can’t quote everything, so I’ll try my best to give a good overview of the concepts held within.

Chapter 4 continues on the theme of grace and is called, “Grace Held Hostage.” But, as it turns out, according to Burke, grace is not the only aspect of today’s Christianity that is being “held hostage” — according to Burke, any number of faith-related subjects have been twisted and redefined by the institutional side of the church in order that the church retain its stake on religious authority.

Beginning Chapter 4, Spencer Burke recognizes that some people are attempting to reclaim church for themselves, but may not have the right idea.

“Some people insist that the church simply needs a makeover. In fact, saving religion seems to be what many people are attempting to do today by making it relevant, contemporary, and appealing to a largely disinterested public. They want to reform the church.

But, to Spencer, this reform is not really what the “disinterested public” wants.

“Last time I checked, people weren’t rejecting institutional religion because they didn’t like the ambience; they’re rejecting it because they don’t relate to the message, the ideas, or the concepts it advances about God and life.”

What the church needs, claims Burke, is that the move beyond institutional faith is not about being cool, but about acknowledging that the church’s current restraints are inhibiting God’s grace in our world.

Spencer goes on to say that another one of the issues in today’s church is its tendency towards hate (something completely opposite to the teachings of Jesus Christ).

“Time and again, institutions seems to use their religious views as a pretext for an aggressive and adversarial posture against the wider culture. The issue of gay rights is just one of the many issues where this tendency emerges. The beauty of the message of Jesus often gets lost in a destructive symbolism that rants and snarls at the world but seldom inspires longing for newness or a finer way of being human...

“Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you. Bless those who curse you. Pray for those who abuse you. Treat others as you would have them treat you. These are the kinds of things that Jesus said to do, and you don’t have to become religious or believe a set of prescribed things about him in order to do them.”

Chapter 4 continues with a shoft towards the context of the bible — it talks about how most Christians might not quite get what the bible is really for, especially when dealing with our faith in Jesus. Instead of looking to the bible as our source of faith or a set of answers to all of our questions, we should look to Jesus. Jesus, Burke says, is the living word that the tradition of our faith is built upon.

“Real tradition is not an institutional form of faith or the artifact of a past that is never to return. It is alive — a force that anticipates and informs the present. We ask questions of the Bible that our ancestors would not have conceived, questions about nuclear technology, global capitalism, genetic engineering, and a host of other issues that make life challenging. As we approach Scripture with these questions, the Bible changes. It changes because we read into it and it forms new issues, new questions, and new challenges. It grows, and so do we. We approach it as a living text, believing that it can speak to our lives today even though it was written long ago, and then we attempt to set its meaning in stone. But you can’t have it both ways.”

If you’ve known me for a while, you most likely know that this concept is something that I often try to explain — but often come up short of a good definition of my thoughts. Thanks to Burke, I now have a very finely put summation that I can look to. The idea that the bible is living and changing is not something (in my mind) that undermines God’s power, but rather, something that proves it. Jesus was not sent as someone who would die and then be forgotten. He was sent to die and live again.

As the chapter progresses, Burke begins to point out that the church is one of the few institutions that attempts to forego change. In a primarily capatalist world, most business models realize the ebb and flow of culture, but the church doesn’t seem to care. Some traditionalists would tout this as a success for the church but, like the bible, the church is a living organism. Without adaptation and growth, it will most likely be killed by something stronger.

”...the present-day church often still looks and functions much like it did in the Middle Ages. The church still wishes to be the final authority in matters related to faith and belief. It still wants everyone to convert to its particular understanding of salvation and the divine. It still wants to make belief ordinary by compacting it into a simple matter of accepting predigested concepts.”

After a brief history of various institutional models and, in particular, where hierarchy came from (and how hierarchy is perceived today), Spencer Burke describes one of the key “models” that the Christian church is communicating in the wrong way.

“Churches assume their role is about eternity when in fact eternity is God’s business. The landowner in Jesus’ story [Matthew 13:24-30] is very clear that his workers cannot separate the wheat from the weeds, for they might pull up perfectly good wheat in their zeal to remove the wayward weeds. When explaining this story to his followers, Jesus makes it clear that the task of determining who is in or out is not the responsibility of humans, no matter how qualified they believe they are. I would likewise argue that the church should not be so focused on eternity. The church’s task is to help people follow Jesus here on earth.”

This section deals with two prevailing subjects within Christianity’s collective mind: judgment and eternity. How much good wheat has been torn out of the field in religion’s haste to judge in God’s place? At the same time, the Christian church I have experienced focuses much on eternity and little on interacting with the world around us. Jesus was all about communing with the world he lived in and while he may have spoken often of God’s kingdom, his actions pertained to those whom he encounted. If we are to live like Jesus, then shouldn’t we also be concerned with that which surrounds us? Shouldn’t we leave the judgment of those we commune with up to God?

Burke’s take on current day religion is stark, but very truthful. Too many Christian leaders throughout the years have conformed a fairly simple faith into a ruleset that limits God to a human-understandable being. The last paragraph of Chapter 5 sums this up nicely
with a quote from the singer Sinead O’Connor.

“Rescuing God from religion is how I’d put it. All these rules and regulations and locked doors keep God a prisoner who cannot be shared unless we do this, or do that, or the other.”

Backyard Missionary - A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity Part III

A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity Part III

Pages 100-150…

Page 107 ” No one recorded Jesus words at the time he spoke them, so we have no proof that they are indeed his words and what he did say, he said in Aramaic, which means that nothing in the Bible as translated into other language can be take literally anyway.”

If I could summarise the content of this section in one sentence it would be ‘we can’t know anything for sure’.

Much of what is here is both a critique of the institutional church described as ‘a post office in an email world’ (I like the analogy) as well as a questioning of how we arrive at our epistemology.

As Spencer notes in his comment on the previous post it is easy to pull out random quotes and make him say things that maybe he didn’t intend, or make him look even more of a heretic than he declares himself to be. Always poor form to do that to someone!

However that said, he does certainly push the boundaries in these 50 pages and I am not satisfied with his conclusions. I will try to be fair to him as I write and I’m sure he will feel free to interact if he feels misrepresented.

As well as ‘we can’t know anything for sure’, (my interpretation see page 140) Burke also seems to be arguing that the main game is following Jesus and we don’t need to be Christians to do that. I can buy that, with no problem at all, because my overseas missionary friends will speak to me of ‘muslims’ (culturally) who follow Jesus (a C5 on the contextualisation spectrum) but I am not sure just what Spencer means by following Jesus…

This is where the dissection of language can be used both ways. If we don’t know what Jesus really meant by ‘I am the way truth and life. No one comes to the father but thru me’ then how can we know what he means by a more vague statement like ‘follow me’?

Does he mean, ‘be like me?’ Does he mean ‘do the things I do?’ Does he mean ‘admire me?’ And if we aren’t sure which parts of scripture are reliable (and scripture is our guide for following Jesus) then how do we know which bits to act on?…

I believe there is much good in the concept of ‘following Jesus’, but divorced from a commitment to the authority of scripture and the truths we have gleaned from Christian history in the form of the creeds it becomes a very nebulous statement in my opinion.

While I agree with Spencer that modernism has been overly propositional in its understanding of the gospel, a pendulum swing in the opposite direction is not what I would see as the answer. Paul seemed quite concerned to articulate his theology and if its important enough for him to do this then it would seem that at least some basic form of theologising would be important to us also.

Just for the record Spencer also says ‘he doesn’t not believe the Bible, it informs his faith in Jesus’ (p. 109) and he ‘does not believe all roads lead to God’. (p. 127)

Some other thoughts:

P.126 “When Jesus was talking about being the way, I don’t think he was talking about religion” Fully agree!

P. 131 - Spencer addresses the atonement question… and I’m not quite sure what he thinks. He states that an over-emphasis on substitution negates the other aspects of the atonement. But does he see substitution/penal atonement as acceptable? Not sure

P. 142 in relational to ’spiritual bricolage’, i think the concept has some merit, but I am concerned that Spencer ditches the potential to be able to know and describe anything with certainty.

In this section Spencer calls us to think outside the box - to go ‘beyond Zebra’ - which is good - but, I think there is plenty within the box that is good also. I am less reticent to view the institutional church with such negativity.

To be honest, at times I do see it in a very negative light as it hinders much of what is central to the gospel, but by the same token it seems that everything has a tendency to go this way and there is also much good accomplished (think Tsunami aid) by institutions.

My concern here is less the critique of institution and more the question over the place and value of scripture which I see as integral to shaping faith and discipleship.

This entry was posted on Sunday, August 27th, 2006 at 8:21 pm

2 Comments

I appreciate your comments about this book (I just read it as well). I didn’t feel that Burke/Taylor were moving outside of scripture. I also feel they would say there is still positive things “within the box.” I just think they are really trying to focus on moving outside the box and to make their point they are going to extremes.

I also really like their comment comparing “the institutional church” to the “post office.” In some ways I think this shows they do believe there is still value “within the box.” We are still need the post office but it is no longer the only way of written communication. We can affirm the good of what is “within the box” while also encouraging others to move to new things as well.

I hope this makes at least a little sense in the context of your comments.

Blessings.

Comment by Adam — August 28, 2006 @ 12:08 am

Thank you for being so open with the book, you are a gracious reviewer.

One thing that pops out that needs a little clarification is

YOU SAID
“Just for the record Spencer also says ‘he doesn’t not believe the Bible, it informs his faith in Jesus’ (p. 109)”

THE CONTEXT IS
“It is also worth remembering that the Bible is not the source of Christian faith; Jesus is. The living word, not the written one, is our foundation. This doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the Bible—it informs my faith in Jesus. As a friend recently said, we have to embrace the Bible as the wild, uncensored, passionate account of people experiencing the living God and not view it simply as a legalistic and static document.”

Another question you had was: “But does he see substitution/penal atonement as acceptable? Not sure” - I would think more in terms of a rescue, remember the story of my son and the “floatie”?

Your comment “P. 142 in relational to ’spiritual bricolage’, i think the concept has some merit, but I am concerned that Spencer ditches the potential to be able to know and describe anything with certainty.” - I think that certainty will come with experience and confirmed in community. I am just at the beginning of this journey so I have less certainty than I may have in the future…

Also you say “I think there is plenty within the box that is good also. I am less reticent to view the institutional church with such negativity.” - I agree and disagree (just like you). I have been thinking of other industries that are in the midst of transition. I posted yesterday this context for my thoughts…

I liken it to other industries in transition.
*The music industry sold vinyl and plastic but that is not MUSIC.
*The movie industry sold theater tickets but those are not MOVIES.
*The church industry counts weekly event attendance but that is not the CHURCH.

The record companies told us MUSIC would die if the ALBUM died, but they were wrong MUSIC is stronger than ever (from .99 downloads to ring tones). The movie industry told us if the theaters went empty MOVIES would lose their funding, but they were wrong MOVIES are stronger than ever (from netflix to youTube). The institutional church says if we propose CHURCH as “Jesus beyond Christianity” or “Grace Beyond Religion” then the CHURCH will cease, but will it be stronger or weaker…
__________________________

I try to resist commenting on others views of the book because I think there is plenty of room for variety view points, but Andrew I see what we are doing here as a dialogue not a debate.

Thank you for taking so much time with the book…

Comment by spencer burke — August 28, 2006

If God is Love: Reading "A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity", Part 2

Link

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Reading A Heretic’s Guide to Eternity, Part 2

First of all, the term “heretic.” I have no problem with this term because I do think they define it at the beginning of the book - “people who will push past and beyond the accepted conventional wisdom of the dominant group and pull us across sacred fences that hold us back and keep us tied to perceived orthodoxies.” Sounds good to me. Isn’t this needed in the Church? Too many people seem to be hung up on Burke/Taylor using the term “heretic” because it is not in line with past understandings of the term, etc. To that I say, “I don’t care.” They define it at the beginning of the book in a way I can live with – now it’s time to move on.

Ok, it has been a couple weeks since I read the book so it is a little removed from my mind at this point. However, in some ways I think that is good because I will mainly discuss what I really came away with from the book, rather than just a summary. These are the thoughts I have been working through since reading the book.

So, one point the authors seem to be trying to make is about “religion” (another term people are getting upset with – though I am not). I couldn’t agree more on this point. I don’t think Jesus came to establish another religion. He came to show us God – to show us the Grace and Love of God. Burke/Taylor seem to agree with this in many ways. They propose that Jesus came to show us Grace, which is beyond religion, and to draw us into a relationship of following Jesus (which is what Jesus calls us to do). They talk about “spirituality” a lot. Sometimes their discussion of spirituality gets a little grey for me, but I think they are really just calling us to move out of religion and into this great Love of God revealed in Jesus Christ (maybe I’m wrong, but this is what I came away with). I think this is right on. Christianity is stuck in a lot of unnecessary religious baggage that has accumulated over the past couple thousand years – a large percentrage of it doesn’t seem to have much to do with the person of Jesus.

Another aspect of this idea of moving past religion, is that this Gospel of Jesus is all-inclusive – everyone is included unless they decide to opt-out. Burke/Taylor seem pretty fed up with the current-day idea of heaven and hell proposed by many in the Church. Here again, I tend to agree. I think the Love of God is for everyone, and working in everything. We are all included. Burke/Taylor make a particular effort to extend this to people of other religions. Again, this is another area that seems a little hazy at times. Burke/Taylor are not proposing the nice easy idea that everyone is right and going to heaven. I think instead they are pointing out that we as Christians have greatly abused these ideas of heaven and hell. By saying “we are in” and those of other religions are out, we have missed the point of the gospel. The point is not that other religions are “out" (or even that we are "in"), rather, the point is to move beyond religion, to Jesus Christ and how he reveals to us the God of Grace and Love. I believe our God must be working beyond the borders of the religion of Christianity – don’t you? We don’t have to affirm other religions as Truth to believe that God is at work in all places, with all people – and that he is working to bring all people into this Grace and Love expressed in Jesus Christ. I don’t think God’s work is to bring all people into the “religion” of Christianity.

Alright, so all of this was a big part of Burke/Taylor’s book from my perspective. However, there is certainly more. One other aspect of the book is that in moving beyond the religion of Christianity, Burke/Taylor seem to be saying pretty clearly that the institutional Church, the way we Christians do church for the most part, is in bad need of some rethinking and reorientation. I couldn’t agree more. However, at the same time they seem to affirm that the institutional church is not all bad, but in fact still does a lot of good for many people. But for many people, especially younger people, the institutional church is no longer attractive, it does not fit with today’s world – it has become, and is becoming, obsolete for many. I really like the following quote, which I have on my “quote of the week.” Burke/Taylor write, “Basically, I see the institutional church as the post office in an e-mail world.” This resonates with a lot of my recent thoughts about the big picture of the Church. I can’t help but say that the institutional church is still needed and that God works in it (just as the post office is still very much needed in today’s “e-mail world”). But I also don’t see a place for me in the institutional church anymore (and I think the number of people in this category is growing and will only continue to grow). I think the Church is moving beyond the borders of the institutional church – and this is a good thing. Many will see the Love of God in Jesus Christ because of this happening. However, the institutional church still has a place and I wholeheartedly bless those who are growing by following Jesus in the institutional church.

With all that being said, I do wish Burke/Taylor would have spent some additional time discussing how this all might work out in today’s world – how expressions of church can move beyond the institutional form and into this new world. Burke/Taylor would probably say they did discuss this in the book, but I just didn’t think it was adequate. I was really excited after the first two-thirds of the book but then it seemed (at least for me) to wander. I would have liked some additional discussion about how the kind of faith and church Burke/Taylor were talking about works out practically. But at the same time, I am content with what the book does. I think it brings out some important ideas for discussion. I think the Church needs to be talking about it’s lack of relevance to many, and how it can move beyond the borders of the current institutional church religion. I am also very appreciative that Burke/Taylor are fully committed to Jesus Christ. This is the central defining characteristic of their faith – the person of Jesus. I hope there is more exploring to come about what it means to be committed to Jesus Christ in today’s world, in a way that does not hold to the boundaries and constraints of religion, but dares to be “heretical” by moving more fully into the Grace and Love of God expressed in Jesus – no matter how much it goes against traditional ways of doing things.

Spencer, is there anything I have completely missed that you were trying to convey in this book? I know I probably saw it differently in some ways than you did, but is there anything I just missed?

What do the rest of you think about all this?

posted by Adam

2 Comments:

SteveW said...

Interesting blog Adam. We think alike on much. I will read more as I get time. It is always nice to meet new brothers on the journey.

peace,
SteveW

spencer said...

Adam,

I think you held the "big picture" of the book well. I too like the way you think and I hope there will be more opportunities to interact in the future.

This book was written to open the conversation about "Jesus beyond Christianity", "Grace beyond religion" and introduce "opt-out" universalism...

I do hope there is interest in expanding the possibilities AND what is being done presently with the Church in this transition (email world). But that is probably another book...

Thanks again for taking the time with the book and I like the way you left space to "percolate" before you wrote your review.

Re-Blogged A Heretics Guide to Eternity - visionary notes

Link

A Heretics Guide to Eternity

I just finished reading Spencer Burke’s book A Heretics Guide to Eternity. It was an enjoyable and easy read overall. His thesis could probably be summed up in a few sentences found on page 61…

“Religion declares that we are separated from God, that we are ‘outsiders.’ Grace tells us the opposite; we are already in unless we want to be out.”

If the book does one thing, it assures anyone worried about getting into heaven after they die that they don’t have anything to worry about and that they should just focus on following Jesus here and now. The entire book is saturated in grace talk and Burke’s journey of understanding exactly what this grace looks like and how it fits into his theological understandings. While I’m not much of a Theo-buff, I know a lot of the things that he is saying flies in the face of what I grew up understanding all through my church upbringing and Christian university experience. This isn’t a bad thing. I think it takes books like Spencer’s to challenge what we take for granted in our theology and our lifestyles. So I won’t critique his theology, I’ll leave it up to the theologians to do that. Either way, I love his heart. I love that he is trying to take his understandings of love and make it work with the scriptures that he loves. I love that he can say universalism, and question it and tip his toes into it, because when it comes to loving people, which you can tell he’s doing, it is an option that makes sense. You can really see how his love for people clashes with the institutionalized church and the clash is necessary.

I would however make a few changes of the book if I had a say in the process. For the most part I feel like his message is good and his heart is good but he draws it out way too long. I think everything he had to say probably could have been written in one solid chapter (maybe two). The book may have been more beneficial to write his original plan of “stand-alone heresies” that he believes as each chapter. Another issue still as I believe (which I think Bob Hyatt pointed out a bit ago) is the use of the word heretic. While a lot of though as obviously gone into it, because it’s in the title, red flags go up when I think of trying to be a heretic. He says that everyone should be a heretic, but in my understanding of heresy, that would mean that no one is a heretic. I agree though that Jesus definitely was a heretic, heck I spent half my life in the Pentecostal church being accused of heresy whenever I challenged them and I never would have changed a thing. I think it is exactly because I challenged what was thought as normal I am where I am today, but I wouldn’t encourage people to challenge what is normal just because it is normal. I think society and religion has gone a long way and some things that are normal are where they should be. Instead, I would encourage people to challenge what doesn’t look like Jesus, and if it means going against the status quo, then do so, if it means the opposite, then so be it. So I understand Burke is resisting a long history of religion and probably experiences where heresy was the only option, I would be careful of being so quick to the word heretic because being a heretic can also be just as harmful in other circumstances.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is trying to understand eternity and grace and how the two work together. Spencer does a great job of trying to reconcile a loving God with religions understanding of hell and punishment. It is definitely a book that needs to go on a reading list for this subject because he is very honest and shares his journey not just what he thinks you will agree with him on the right answers.

Christian Universalism- The Beautiful Heresy: A Heretics Guide to Eternity

Link

August 26, 2006

A Heretics Guide to Eternity

I was surprised and honored to have been asked to review Spencer Burke's new book "A Heretics Guide to Eternity".  I had been scoping out the book with the intention of buying it.  Spencer is one of the leading voices in the emergent movement.  He is the founder of the website "The Ooze", a great website for interacting with fellow travelers on our spiritual journeys.  I'm so wishing that someone in emergent will step forward and declare himself a universalist.

I thought Spencer's book was primarily about universalism. The back cover focuses on this aspect of the book.  But, frankly, I thought universalism was a fairly small part of the overall book.  The book is primarily Spencer's observations about the current state of religion and the church in a world that is rapidly passing both by.

Overall, I found the book quite enjoyable even though it was reminiscent of other works I've read by Rob Bell and Brian McLaren.  That's fine though.  I think that we who are not afraid to think outside the box might come to similar conclusions.  Sometimes in our efforts to be original or individualistic, we shun anything that might appear like conformity.  The thing that some people need to keep in mind when it comes to being "emergent" is that we don't shun tradition or community or even thinking alike just for the sake of being "original". 

Now on to the review...

The book begins with a foreword by Brian McLaren. Brian points out the controversy that could be associated with the title.  After all, who wants to blatantly identify himself as a heretic (besides yours truly)?  I don't think the title is a great risk though.  Those who would be willing to listen to Spencer are most likely fine with reading a book with heretic in the title. Those who would be freaked by the word would probably be spending their time better by reading something else.  The book is full of ideas that some will find to be quite "dangerous".

Spencer begins and concludes with the idea that we live in "interesting times".  Religious traditionalists will probably greet this with a big "Who cares? We're not supposed to be influenced by the world.  We're supposed to influence the world."  I'm sure they'll quote the verse that says not to be conformed to the world.  But, the thing they don't recognize is the church has already been influenced by the world (culture).  For some reason though, in religion, there seems to be this big thing that the past is better.  It's the only field where because an idea is old is it is automatically seen as better.  New ideas are dangerous and yes, even heretical.  Churches tend to cling to the distant or recent past to prove that they can't be influenced by culture.  The problem with this idea is that if the church is not willing to meet people where they are, the church will become irrelevant.

In the introduction, Spencer says:

To reflect on religion is fraught with danger- this I readily admit.  To mess with people's beliefs is a precarious venture, riddled with hazards.   I acknowledge my own imperfections in these matters.  Nevertheless, I think it's worth exploring what the Christian faith could look like if we took some risks, pushed some tired old perspectives aside, and looked at the gospel with twenty first century eyes.

At this point in my life, I am happy to live with uncertainty and in precarious freedom, rather than hunker down in the false security of institutions and recite doctrines that no longer feed my soul.  I have faith, and it is this faith that sustains me. 

Asked where he would stand if he were excommunicated by the church, Martin Luther is said to have answered "Under the sky."

I'm glad to be standing under the sky with people like Spencer.

Spencer then goes on to discuss Dietrich Bonhoeffer's idea of "Religionless Christianity".  I like it.  But, frankly, I struggle with what religionless Christianity looks like.  Extricating essential Christianity from the 2,000 years of crap we've piled on top of it is no easy task (I know, I've been trying for about 20 years).  Spencer calls on us to move beyond religion and makes an excellent point that religion separates while spirituality brings people together. 

Spencer then talks about how grace is bigger than religion and cannot be contained in the religious constructs we try to bind it in. While traditional Christianity with its trite sayings like "It's not about religion, it's about relationship." claims to be all about grace, we put a very works mentality by making faith a prerequisite to receiving grace.  And faith in certain things (the Four Spiritual Laws for example).  We've simply exchanged "faith" for "works" in this transactional view of what it requires to receive God's grace.

Other thoughts worth noting are Spencers' definition of Spirituality 101, how spirituality is not confined what we do in church (we can touch the spiritual in so many ways every day now). His story of going to the park on Sunday to feed the poor there rather than sitting in a church service really resonated with me (now if I could get my wife to go along).  He talks about the importance of this life rather than focusing solely on the next.  All very emergent ideas and all really touched me.  Basically, his thoughts on universalism were more about how God's grace is much too big to confine to religion in general and to Christianity in particular. If you're looking for a book on universalism, I'd recommend others. 

There's a great chapter on "Jesus the Heretic".  This will not be news to a lot of us.  I've realized there are so many Jesuses depending on how we look at Him.  I think each of us projects (or extracts) the Jesus we want to see.  To me, Jesus has always been a heretic, a rebel.  I had a discussion several months ago with two evangelical, white, Republican friends who had never seen Jesus as a champion for social justice before.  I was shocked.  How could you not see this in Jesus?  IMO, I could never picture Jesus as a conservative or a Republican.  But, their view was the exact opposite.  It was a very interesting lunch.

Spencer talks about his view of God.  He describes himself as a panentheist.  That is one who doesn't believe God is completely transcendent, but immanent.  God is in the universe with us.  Spencer describes it a little differently than I would.  But, I think we basically agree. I think a balance has to be struck between the transcendence of God and the immanence of God.  Christianity is way of of balance with the emphasis on a God who is "out there".  A God who we have to reach up to and beg to come near to us.  I have found the view of God in me (and me in God) to be much more useful.

In terms of universalism. Spencer says he is a universalist who believes in Hell.  However, he believes that God's grace is something we have to opt-out of, not opt-in (as Christianity has taught).  Spencer believes God gives people the freedom to opt-out of God's grace.  Whether this is an eternal thing, Spencer doesn't say.  I can't say I vehemently disagree with Spencer.  I believe that, for some, God's presence will be a burning fire that will be painful.  I believe this will be their "hell".  But, I do not believe in Eternal Conscious Torment.  I think Spencer goes farther than McLaren has gone on the subject of hell and universalism.  Spencer used the word universalist to describe himself.  But, he's not overly dogmatic about it and leaves room for doubt.  The real emphasis on the book is on how we shall live in the here and now and putting our trust in God's grace rather than in religion.  On that point, I agree with Spencer, completely.

Overall, I'd say it's a very good book.  It caused me to think and it encouraged me to take even more chances than I'm already taking.  I don't know that I'd call it my guide to eternity.  But it's a pretty good handbook for the here and now.

I was surprised and honored to have been asked to review Spencer Burke's new book "A Heretics Guide to Eternity".  I had been scoping out the book with the intention of buying it.  Spencer is one of the leading voices in the emergent movement.  He is the founder of the website "The Ooze", a great website for interacting with fellow travelers on our spiritual journeys.  I'm so wishing that someone in emergent will step forward and declare himself a universalist.

I thought Spencer's book was primarily about universalism. The back cover focuses on this aspect of the book.  But, frankly, I thought universalism was a fairly small part of the overall book.  The book is primarily Spencer's observations about the current state of religion and the church in a world that is rapidly passing both by.

Overall, I found the book quite enjoyable even though it was reminiscent of other works I've read by Rob Bell and Brian McLaren.  That's fine though.  I think that we who are not afraid to think outside the box might come to similar conclusions.  Sometimes in our efforts to be original or individualistic, we shun anything that might appear like conformity.  The thing that some people need to keep in mind when it comes to being "emergent" is that we don't shun tradition or community or even thinking alike just for the sake of being "original". 

Now on to the review...

The book begins with a foreword by Brian McLaren. Brian points out the controversy that could be associated with the title.  After all, who wants to blatantly identify himself as a heretic (besides yours truly)?  I don't think the title is a great risk though.  Those who would be willing to listen to Spencer are most likely fine with reading a book with heretic in the title. Those who would be freaked by the word would probably be spending their time better by reading something else.  The book is full of ideas that some will find to be quite "dangerous".

Spencer begins and concludes with the idea that we live in "interesting times".  Religious traditionalists will probably greet this with a big "Who cares? We're not supposed to be influenced by the world.  We're supposed to influence the world."  I'm sure they'll quote the verse that says not to be conformed to the world.  But, the thing they don't recognize is the church has already been influenced by the world (culture).  For some reason though, in religion, there seems to be this big thing that the past is better.  It's the only field where because an idea is old is it is automatically seen as better.  New ideas are dangerous and yes, even heretical.  Churches tend to cling to the distant or recent past to prove that they can't be influenced by culture.  The problem with this idea is that if the church is not willing to meet people where they are, the church will become irrelevant.

In the introduction, Spencer says:

To reflect on religion is fraught with danger- this I readily admit.  To mess with people's beliefs is a precarious venture, riddled with hazards.   I acknowledge my own imperfections in these matters.  Nevertheless, I think it's worth exploring what the Christian faith could look like if we took some risks, pushed some tired old perspectives aside, and looked at the gospel with twenty first century eyes.

At this point in my life, I am happy to live with uncertainty and in precarious freedom, rather than hunker down in the false security of institutions and recite doctrines that no longer feed my soul.  I have faith, and it is this faith that sustains me. 

Asked where he would stand if he were excommunicated by the church, Martin Luther is said to have answered "Under the sky."

I'm glad to be standing under the sky with people like Spencer.

Spencer then goes on to discuss Dietrich Bonhoeffer's idea of "Religionless Christianity".  I like it.  But, frankly, I struggle with what religionless Christianity looks like.  Extricating essential Christianity from the 2,000 years of crap we've piled on top of it is no easy task (I know, I've been trying for about 20 years).  Spencer calls on us to move beyond religion and makes an excellent point that religion separates while spirituality brings people together. 

Spencer then talks about how grace is bigger than religion and cannot be contained in the religious constructs we try to bind it in. While traditional Christianity with its trite sayings like "It's not about religion, it's about relationship." claims to be all about grace, we put a very works mentality by making faith a prerequisite to receiving grace.  And faith in certain things (the Four Spiritual Laws for example).  We've simply exchanged "faith" for "works" in this transactional view of what it requires to receive God's grace.

Other thoughts worth noting are Spencers' definition of Spirituality 101, how spirituality is not confined what we do in church (we can touch the spiritual in so many ways every day now). His story of going to the park on Sunday to feed the poor there rather than sitting in a church service really resonated with me (now if I could get my wife to go along).  He talks about the importance of this life rather than focusing solely on the next.  All very emergent ideas and all really touched me.  Basically, his thoughts on universalism were more about how God's grace is much too big to confine to religion in general and to Christianity in particular. If you're looking for a book on universalism, I'd recommend others. 

There's a great chapter on "Jesus the Heretic".  This will not be news to a lot of us.  I've realized there are so many Jesuses depending on how we look at Him.  I think each of us projects (or extracts) the Jesus we want to see.  To me, Jesus has always been a heretic, a rebel.  I had a discussion several months ago with two evangelical, white, Republican friends who had never seen Jesus as a champion for social justice before.  I was shocked.  How could you not see this in Jesus?  IMO, I could never picture Jesus as a conservative or a Republican.  But, their view was the exact opposite.  It was a very interesting lunch.

Spencer talks about his view of God.  He describes himself as a panentheist.  That is one who doesn't believe God is completely transcendent, but immanent.  God is in the universe with us.  Spencer describes it a little differently than I would.  But, I think we basically agree. I think a balance has to be struck between the transcendence of God and the immanence of God.  Christianity is way of of balance with the emphasis on a God who is "out there".  A God who we have to reach up to and beg to come near to us.  I have found the view of God in me (and me in God) to be much more useful.

In terms of universalism. Spencer says he is a universalist who believes in Hell.  However, he believes that God's grace is something we have to opt-out of, not opt-in (as Christianity has taught).  Spencer believes God gives people the freedom to opt-out of God's grace.  Whether this is an eternal thing, Spencer doesn't say.  I can't say I vehemently disagree with Spencer.  I believe that, for some, God's presence will be a burning fire that will be painful.  I believe this will be their "hell".  But, I do not believe in Eternal Conscious Torment.  I think Spencer goes farther than McLaren has gone on the subject of hell and universalism.  Spencer used the word universalist to describe himself.  But, he's not overly dogmatic about it and leaves room for doubt.  The real emphasis on the book is on how we shall live in the here and now and putting our trust in God's grace rather than in religion.  On that point, I agree with Spencer, completely.

Overall, I'd say it's a very good book.  It caused me to think and it encouraged me to take even more chances than I'm already taking.  I don't know that I'd call it my guide to eternity.  But it's a pretty good handbook for the here and now.

Comment to David

David Asked;

My question is what is the differentiator between heretical and emerging church ideas?? what's the authentic difference between the two???

________________________________________

David,

The way I would think about the book is "future thinking". The Emerging church may come and go but the Church will remain (even if we don't recognize it as we do today).

This book asks very core questions about the "institutional church" / religion and how these have interfaced with doctrine, dogma and grace.

In my opinion this book is heretical in the same way Jesus, Galileo and Luther were. It dares to call out assumptions that have been given more status then they perhaps should. It is there that I find the critics focusing on the details rather than engaging the destabilizing "Big Picture" questions and proposals of the book.

One way this book has broken with most of the emerging church literature is in the strong reaction and open debate among the leading voices in the movement (Brian Mc took so much criticism from so many early on, but, people like Scott McKnight never questioned his orthodoxy). This book has dared to call the "institutional church" (the way we think the church operates - established or emerging) into question and that has power, professionalism and perceived needs all up for grabs.

I liken it to other industries in transition.
*The music industry sold vinyl and plastic but that is not MUSIC.
*The movie industry sold tickets but thoes are not MOVIES.
*The church industry counts weekly event attendance but that is not the CHURCH.

The record companies told us MUSIC would die if the ALBUM died, but they were wrong MUSIC is strong than ever (from .99 downloads to ring tones). The movie industry told us if the theaters went empty MOVIES would lose their funding, but they were wrong MOVIES are stronger than ever (from netflix to youTub

Comments

[spencer burke]

Rick,

Thanks for taking the time to read the book for yourself and then post your insights. Your openness is obvious and your willingness to follow through is refreshing.

I am not sure where the christian right or left are anymore and the lines between conservative and liberal are not as clear to me either, (a little like Republicans and Democrats) they just don't seem to be addressing the real issues with any vision or success.

I think that is why the reviews of the book are all over the place. I hope I am calling us to look beyond the old ways of categorizing each other and try to find new ways of being the Church in our world. I use the metaphor of "Email" and "Postal" as a way of looking at the church from two different perspectives. I don't believe one is better than the other but I do think the future is opening up communications with "email" church. So I am not trying to be hateful or destroy the "postal" church, I think this side of the church will continue even as the "email" church evolves (maybe we will even find ways of creating NetFlix opportunities).

My critique of where we have been and where we might be now as the church, is only to ask the question are we satisfied with the results OR can we look to the future and see possibilities for Grace beyond our present circumstances. I have been posting something that might help...
________________________________

I liken it to other industries in transition.
*The music industry sold vinyl and plastic but that is not MUSIC.
*The movie industry sold tickets but those are not MOVIES.
*The church industry counts weekly event attendance but that is not the CHURCH.

The record companies told us MUSIC would die if the ALBUM died, but they were wrong MUSIC is strong than ever (from .99 downloads to ring tones). The movie industry told us if the theaters went empty MOVIES would lose their funding, but they were wrong MOVIES are stronger than ever (from netflix to youTube). The institutional church says if we propose CHURCH as "Jesus beyond Christianity" or "Grace Beyond Religion" then the CHURCH will cease, but will it be stronger or weaker...

"A Heretic's Guide To Eternity" is a survey of spirituality today and a proposal for a bold new way of approaching the future as the Church.
__________________________________-

I hope this isn't Hateful but rather seen as Hopeful. It is my love of the Church, Scriptures and Jesus that motivates me.

I know your user-id is Brutally Honest and I respect your insights. I also hope we can ask the hard question "if we stay the course with our present trajectory of the church what will be the affect and effect of our institution 50 years from now on our world?"