The Paris Project

Gluttony

Katie brought me Post-Rapture Radio this morning, and then I read it for four or five hours, and now it’s done. I’m not much of a food glutton, but I devour books and then feel sort of stuffed. Russell Rathbun (from House of Mercy in St. Paul) is the author – I actually thought it was the other male pastor from House of Mercy, but apparently I’ve forgotten his name. The book is worth a read.

The book is sort of like A New Kind of Christian – the author using a fictional character to express and explore his own views. I’d prefer to hear directly about the author in more of a memoir genre, but that’s just my preference. Rathbun points out on one of the first pages that the main character will not be attending the emergent:SEE gathering, and that he feels he “can no longer emerge.” That seemed like some kind of strange inside comment that I didn’t really understand.

I think I was confused by parts of his theology, but the main message is clear. The Gospel is not about you creating an individual salvation pod for yourself, to keep yourself safe in the future. Many announcements of Good News in the Bible are not about you at all; rather, they are about what God is doing. You are invited to participate. He refers to what I’ve understood as a paradigmatic statement of Jesus – the restatement from Isaiah about setting captives free, letting the blind see, and bringing peace to everyone. Stop being so selfish and squinty-eyed about who God is and what life means. Open your eyes, and contribute to the spread of the Good News. I've heard this message preached at House of Mercy, and it's a wonderful way of retelling the 'old old story' in language and with metaphors that fit their context.

I’m left with a few questions –
1. I really don’t know whether or not this is the same understanding of the Gospel as held by most in emergent. I do think, however, that Rathbun is restating the Gospel as Jesus said it, and as the prophets said before him. This message is clear even within contemporary evangelicalism – it is a minority view, spoken and shouted by prophets. I just don’t have the expectation that the mainstream ever gets it right, even if we replace the old mainstream with a new one. I don’t think very many people really want to live the Gospel, whether it is voiced by older 20th c. prophets (Sider, Campolo, etc.) or new postmodern folks. Has the Gospel ever been accepted by the masses? Seems to me it is always present in every era, and always clouded by a different veneer of bullshit.

2. I almost always feel confused by theology. If you tell me something about culture or research methods or something I’m expert in, I can extrapolate out meanings far beyond what you actually said (understanding the implications of what’s said, not just the literal meaning). Theologians seem to do this a lot, but I’m generally unable to get it. I sense that these new ways of thinking of things like hell, mercy, and judgment (not so much the Gospel itself) are threatening to people for two reasons – they may upset existing power balances, but they may also have implications for theology that are significant. I wish those two reasons for disagreement could be kept separate, but of course they’re almost always enmeshed. I also am challenged to think and read about theology – these new ways of thinking are pushed forward by pastors and “leaders”, but there is a strongly democratic strain in which we are all encouraged to participate as thinkers and co-creators.

P.S. What does it mean that Katie gave me a book full of Jesus and love, and Carla gave me a book full of adultery and sex (The Wife)? I must say that I thoroughly enjoyed them both.