The Face(book) of My Faith

Is my faith best measured by those who believe like I do, or those who stand outside it looking in critically?

This was the question I asked on a tweet on New Year's Day.  Once my tweet made it across the not so great divide from Twitter to Facebook it turned into a discussion.  The thrusting and parrying of terms turned into a wildly different set of values about faith over the next 46 comments.

The comments can be divided up into four basic responses:

1) Our faith is personal.  No one should be able to judge it.
2) Those on the inside - who believe like we do are the only one's who have a valid judgment point from which to gauge the validity of our spiritual strength, and the stability of our faith.
3) Outsiders (those who do not believe as we do) are a better gauge of our faith than those who think just as we do.
4) a general "neither" with some leaning toward the idea that only God is a real judge of faith.

Then there were some random asides which were bunny trails off the main point.

The group of people responding was a combination of conservative Christians, liberal Christians, a couple Neo-Pagans, and some harder to define people. 

Faith as a personal unjudgeable element was held out as the option by those who were from every position - conservative and liberal Christian, and Neo-Pagan.  Responding "neither" was similarly spread across the demographic.  Responding that insiders and/or outsiders were the better judges came only from the conservative leaning evangelicals, with those who are most missional minded responding that outsiders were the better judges. 

My question was not presented as query about the general validity of measuring a person's faith, as much as a recognition that it happens in this world today whether we like it or not.  In typical missiological (missional for the more trackable pop term) consideration (since that is my bent) I wondered about this as it relates to the betterment of the faith system I value - Christianity - yet, not as a denominational system, but a more as mystical invisible line of demarcation - i.e those who know God generally as I know God, and follow Jesus in living measurable faith.

Off the Facebook grid, someone on Twitter responded that our faith was measured by our works.  Harkening back to our Bible buddy James we know that this is a biblical concept - so it fits into my worldview, but I am still left with the question, who judges those visible works of my faith best?  those who think like I do, or those who are critically evaluating my faith works (from here on out I will create a new word "faithworks") from an outsider's perspective?

The problem with an insider's perspective of my faithworks is that since they think like I do, they are far more likely to have the same blind spots, and myopic evaluations of Christianity that I have.  Their view of my faith will be tainted by the little cultural, western, 20th century, evangelical Christian paradigm I have lived within.  If our faith system has been off course by 2º for a couple centuries we may be miles away from plumb, and not know it, because we have been told we are on the course of the straight and narrow our whole lives.  We have even been given scripture references and proof texts to validate our experience.

Now of course, the problem with the outsider's critical view is that their expectation of my faithworks may be tainted by a cultural bias against my traditions.  Sexual mores, theological misstatements by church leaders, abuse int he name of religion may all play a part in a skewed reference point, and an automatic rejection of my faith system as a completely broken and invalid system of belief.

Since I am missional and driven that way by a deep seated desire to adventure into faithworks I am less concerned with how my cronies view my faith.  This of course is dangerous.  It could get one excommunicated by golly!  But I want my faith to live in places where my "kind of faith" is typically lampooned.

Furthermore I choose (please note the word "choose") to view those who critically look at my faith as people who are typically well intentioned and in search of authenticity.  I tell myself that they have probably rejected Christianity for a good reason.  There are after all a couple reasons to do so.  Maybe a few.  Okay maybe a whole bunch.  If I truly view them as being on an authentic search then I place a mantle of nobility upon them.  In the course of the discussion it was observed that I appeared to place something that looked like the Romanticist's innocent savage moniker upon everyone who criticized Christianity.  I responded by saying that although I did not have a Rousseauan noble savage anthropology, looking for the noble in the savage appeared quite Christ-like to me.  (This will probably become a whole new post at some point soon.)

Now I know that on a person to person basis there will be Christians whose evaluation of my faith is beneficial and valuable.  I also know that there will be Christians who expect me to live up to some culturally established set of unwritten and silly rules.  Similarly these potentials will occur with those whose faith is different than my own, but this I do know:  I more frequently value the critique of my faith from those on the outside of it, more than those from the inside.

Some would say that this could lead to syncretism - that I might adapt my faith to fit their cultural and religious expectations.  To that insider's critique I say:  Do you think that we may have been off a couple of degrees for sometime now?  Maybe our friends on the outside looking in at Christianity have something valuable to say to us.

P.S.  I really liked Marshall's response, "Faith is always measured by ones self and enjoy(ed) or tested with others." I don't think Marshall would call himself a Christian.  Of course, I view my faith as being ultimately tested by God, but Marshall, your response rocks.

Balancing Precariously Between Depravity and Nobility

This is a topic I have thought and spoken about quite a bit, but have not written about. It was Matthew Ryan at the New Hampshire Streams Internship who generated the sense that I ought to do so.

I am not of a Reformed persuasion, and probably never will be. Yet, I do believe that there is a deep depravity evident in the activity of humanity, and as we simply peruse the adventures of history we find some unbelievably dark moments.

On the other hand, I also find great sources of inspiration and encouragement in history. To match the Hitlers and Dahlmers of the past, I also see Nightingales and Gandhis. Nobility pops its head to the surface in remarkable ways every generation.

To complicate matters both Christians (those who declare their allegiance to being conformed to the imago dei), and non-Christians (who may not follow an example set by religious precepts and God inspired constraints) appear to exemplify both enlightened nobility and dark depravity.

This theological anthropology is extremely valuable to me. It informs my sense of evangelical mission. It teaches me to respect, and honor all people, and yet to be aware that every person still carries the potential to create great harm. I am at once called to be trusting, and yet not too trusting in the resources of other frail and faulty human beings. It also causes me to be self reflecting in a practical manner. I am at once responsible to put the noble foot forward, and at all times must resist the subtle and intelligent designs of my darker side.

Noblesse Oblige Award - and my passing on the Torch of Nobility

Beth Patterson from The Virtual Teahouse has honored me with this blog award for "nobility of spirit." Her words are some of the nicest things which have said about me either on paper, or by word. Beth - you humble me with your grace - thank you.

From Wikipedia comes this extended definition of the French term "noblesse oblige," which means literally "nobility obligates."

""Noblesse oblige" is generally used to imply that with wealth, power and prestige come responsibilities. The phrase is sometimes used derisively, in the sense of condescending or hypocritical social responsibility. In American English especially, the term has also been applied more broadly to those who are capable of simple acts to help another, usually one who is less fortunate.

In ethical discussion, it is sometimes used to summarize a moral economy wherein privilege must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege or who cannot perform such duty. Finally, it has been used recently primarily to refer to public responsibilities of the rich, famous and powerful, notably to provide good examples of behaviour or to exceed minimal standards of decency."

Beth identified well the heart of this blog experiment, which is all it was in its infancy three years ago, and probably all it remains today. Having the same birthday as Martin Luther I identify in far too many ways with the reformer, turned heretic, turned renegade. Square No More was birthed out of the fires of false accusation against myself, and our wonderful little church. The early goals of the blog were to define my faith in the terms of the marginalized, fringe, and alternative elements of our culture - to make it a living faith in a sometimes dead church world, and so I took my Jesus outside the four walls of institution. Okay, that's not accurate. I actually was forced outside the four walls of religious institution, and was hoping that Jesus was coming with me on this adventure into a strange new world. It has been a wonderful mission, a dangerous mission, a sometimes lonely mission, but each time I turn around, I discover that friends are really still there, and they are cheering me on. Those who have traveled with me have sacrificed much as well, and to them I owe my life: My wife Bev, Jeff and Diane Menasco, Jeff the G-man, Steve Pate, and all The Gathering gang who have been with me through the whole story - Mike and Stef, Rennie, Joanne especially, and all our new found friends from those in the church (like Prof CZ), and those outside (John Armstrong - thanks). This award belongs to you as well!

Beth, you have no way of knowing how much I am honored that the word "Noble" in it's highest meaning as you have attached to it touches me. This is the character trait I respect most deeply.

Now I am called to pass the torch onto to three others, and I call the following people my clan of noblemen (and women.)

John Smulo - he has been silent lately. Maybe this will call him back out. John you are the most gracious blogger I know, and in person you are even more gracious. To you I give the title Noble Blogger, and give you the Noblesse Oblige award. See JJ the Smu at Smulo Space - always thought provoking, occasionally gently provoking, and oh so gently too.

Noblesse Oblige number two goes to the prolific, and definitely provoking Jason Pitzl-Waters from Wild Hunt Blog. Now here I go again. A Christian pastor honoring a Pagan. I will probably get in trouble for it - again. I simply have to give this award to a blogger, who despite his significant differences with me on matters of theology, and religion has been gracious in the times he has mentioned me, and always beneficially critical of we Christians. (Yes, Christians it is true. People can be critical of us for our good, and they can be non-Christians who do so.) Thanks Jason. You are cool. I'd love to have you come hang out with us in Salem sometime.

The first award goes to someone who does not blog - my wife, Bev. She is the noblest person I know. She admits her mistakes quick as lightening. She works as hard as anyone living. She puts up with a dreamer like me, and helps to support a terrible churchplanting-missional habit. I wish she had a blog to put this award on.