our reformation

what martin luther began to do in 1517, was to call into question the absolute truths of the religious establishment & its associated power structure. he did this by pointing out accepted teachings and practices that were not scriptural, and by pointing out that infallible teachings from some popes contradicted the infallible teachings from other (earlier) popes.

luther's basis for doing so was the priesthood of all believers.

this opened the door for a less centralized leadership structure and the establishment of independent churches. many of us in protestant circles consider this model a vast improvement over the previous model... local pastors and teachers now have authority to create local versions of truth... we are given essentially more data points on what is truth (vice one data point via the papacy)... and perhaps more flavors of truth to choose from... (in increasing order of discomfort for some).

~

today we find fiefdoms of power - run by elites, who went to school, have special knowledge, received credentials, and are now empowered to tell us what the scriptures mean. if you've been paying attention, that should sound familiar. what these leaders hold in common today, is a claim that absolute truth exists and we can know it... code for *they* know it. not, *you* or *i* can know it. that should sound familiar too.

in response, we invoke a familiar test... we'll call it Luther's test. we point out teachings that have come down that are not scriptural (e.g. the church phillip yancey grew up in), and we point out that teachings from fiefs (who believe we can know absolute truth) contradict other teachings from other fiefs (who also believe we can know absolute truth).

to wit:

take all the christian ministers or leaders who claim we can know absolute truth ... (take just those from north america and/or a specific denomination, this will still work) ... and ask them to write down the truths that we are sure that we know.

build a website like baptistaboslutetruth.com and have everyone enter their set of absolute truths. if what they believe is so, we could expect vast agreement with a striking level of detail - with only a few outliers... (we'll call them "false prophets" secure in the knowledge they will burn in hell).

this should be relatively easy to accomplish. even trivial - and would settle the matter. yet, it hasn't been done, and won't be done... because it can't be done... because agreement doesn't exist. rome tried this first.

traditionally, the response of the catholic church when errors or contradictions are pointed out, has been to say that the pope didn't have his infallibility hat on when he issued such and such a statement. today, senior pastors and religious leaders pull the same trick as the catholic church does when confronted by errors or contradictions amongst their teachings. all except for relinquishing either their hold on power or their assurance that absolute truth is knowable.

these folks insist the power structure and the senior / teaching pastor or other leader must continue ... e.g. "to keep us from error". an alternative understanding is these roles are important because these people like their day job... and anyone who claims that absolute truth isn't knowable threatens this system and basis of power. this is their linchpin... so don't expect them to understand this - or to surrender this point easily.

~

the key to unlocking an understanding in much of this - is to realize that when we are using the word truth in many of these arguments, what were really arguing are facts. facts like; 1) the earth is the center of the solar system, 2) black people are the 'sons of ham' and are inferior, 3) women should cover their head and not speak in church, 4) bringing more wine to parties where drinking has already been occurring is not christ-like, and 5) the whale that jonah lived in for three days was the dunkleosteus.

contrary to what rick warren says, the first reformation wasn't about beliefs - it was about wresting this same notion of absolute truth away from the religious powers that be. and todays reformation, our reformation, led by the emerging church... is not really a second reformation. it's really just a continuation of luther's work.

our basis for doing so is the priesthood of ALL believers.

stick to the code

i picked up this link for a blogger code of conduct a few months ago - and then more recently this one on corporate blogging. i think they are both great documents.

as part of the technology team supporting our church, i've played the role of moderator of our message groups (e.g. a theology pub). even without being duly sanctioned for such a role, i stepped up to do the job because i cared about the groups, i cared about the people in the groups, and perhaps most significantly because i believed in the groups.

to care enough to do this extra work, i think i needed to subscribe to a few tenants, such as--

• these newfangled virtual groups are indeed "real"
• that what happens in these halls of cyberspace "really happened"
• and finally an idea(l) that our conversations ought to look a little different than the norm...

don't ask me why i think we ought to be a little different from the norm
- cause i don't have a good answer.

we had some ideas that were ideals:

• "this is a safe space to share", meaning - you won't get flamed... or more directly don't flame someone just for sharing a thought that is different than your own
  
• "everyone is in a different place in their journey" which hopefully provided some useful perspective
  
• and the benediction / blessing "may all thoughts be seasoned with grace".
  

nothing as thorough as the codes of conduct that having been floating around the blogosphere - but it's neat to see how much what we've done resonates with these documents. and neat to see we're not alone in our thinking, even if this is coming from mainstream society and not the (emerging - which arguably is in need of such a document) church.

aye, but they're more like guidelines really.

turns out not everyone thinks these codes are enforceable as a system. many think that ultimately the blog owner (the moderator) is responsible for setting the tone for his space ... an idea i think i/we resonate with. turns out that i mostly called the plays as i saw them by simply shining some light around when my gut said something was over the line. don't ask me what the hell that means :)

since i was never deputized in this role ... and thus without any real authority, the very fact i was playing this role could have been disputed (let alone my calls, conduct, standards, etc.) and elevated to our leadership and/or then our congregation as a whole. but they never were. and in the end, I only ever banned spammers.

but i believed in the groups and wanted to see the groups succeed. i believed the groups supported who we were and what we said we were. ...but along the way we got more than we bargained for. ...along the way, we learned, as a community, to return hurt with grace ... and a group identity formed ... able to weather these storms. and eventually i saw my role diminish. i don't think i've had to make a call in a couple years.

---

the most likely sources of hurt were folks that had all the right answers and didn't have anything to learn from us. often enough, this was folks right out of seminary - and not just young buck twenty year olds... at least one old timer remains in my memory. they could raise a ruckus, that's for sure - and they were great at sticking people in well-labeled boxes. but the art of dialog was missing... as was apparently the practice of grace from whence they matriculated.

the most disturbing sources of hurt were the people who wanted to own the conversation with their pet topic/issue - and then progressed to wanting to literally own the place. in these extreme cases they would lobby individuals separately - trying to swing people onto "their side". eventually their presence would force the air out of the room - it would become suffocating. people would try to contact them directly off line to address this psychosis - but to no avail. they would play games - literally telling different people different things - and would say different things in public than in private. they were manipulative.

at some level they had to be feeling the conflict - perhaps an evidence of this is they would pop out of the room (missing valuable, often grace-filled responses) - and then back into the room (thinking the worst) to throw a grenade that proved their very point about us (so they thought) - but then pop back out of the room rather than stick around do the work of dialog. i don't know how they managed to maintain a coherent internal position in the midst of all this - but i don't doubt they did. we're amazingly good at creating a coherent reality. it's one of evolution's little gifts.

as one of the moderators (the leadership were also moderators at the time), we could see when they popped in and popped out - but the majority of the people were left even more bewildered than we were - unclear when it was safe to breathe. "gun shy" doesn't cover it. the moderators would try to narrate a little of what was going on to add perspective... but it could get pretty... well, insane.

Eventually I hit upon changing the group settings so that someone needed to simply write why they wanted to be a member of the group to join... and this small little step stopped the discontinuities in its tracks. they wouldn't fill it out. i could watch them come right up to this point and then leave.

i would've approved anyone who wanted to come back in who could write an answer to that simple question, "why do you want to join?". and I'm sure the leadership and the congregation would have held me to that.... but it never got that far.

we've always said we would welcome anyone back. where trust has been fractured - that may need to be repaired... but the heart remains. however this has never gone any further than a thought experiment. no one has tried to come back. strangely, i can't see that it was ever about dialog for them - we were all trying to dialog - but at some point it became more like a dialog with a hornet's nest than anything coherent. it was, i fear, really about something else...

---

while in this position of moderator, i took some hits. i once was told, "fine pete! you win! you're alpha male!".

what?

excuse me?

lol dude.

you think this is a battle of wills?

you may want to turn it into that... but this isn't a battle of wills. because i am unwilling to engage on that level. but i remain very willing to engage on the level of dialog.

I asked him - "bro, why are you even talking about 'alpha male'? what does that have to do with anything? we're friends here. on the same side. right? why are you making it about that?"

and he never answered me...

and he never came back....

---

and - the room changed.

the sun comes back out.

the birds start singing again.

and suddenly we were reminded how pervasive the darkness had become...

because it had been creeping in for so long...

and suddenly you realize the hubbub was only about one bub...

it wasn't the whole pub...

---

i've recently friended one of these guys on myspace - but there are limits to our relationship in place - limits to intimacy, limits to realness, limits to dialog. limits i can't do anything about. because he has chosen to limit the dialog. by whatever method of manipulation. and for whatever ends. congrats bro. you "win".

it certainly sucks. because i never had anything against this guy. and i still have nothing against this guy to this day. and i still don't have a reason to have anything against this guy.

but we've seen this before. we'll see it again.

---

each time it gets harder. and easier.

each time, we know better what to expect. and learn something else unexpected.

each time, we learn how to better practice grace.

i hate this kind of growing though.

Cleric Rajan Zed

I join Cleric Rajan Zed in his beautiful prayer:

Let us pray. We meditate on the transcendental Glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky, and inside the soul of the Heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds.

Lead us from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacle arise between us.

May the Senators strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, performing their duties with the welfare of others always in mind, because by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. May they work carefully and wisely, guided by compassion and without thought for themselves.

United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be as one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord.

Peace, peace, peace be unto all. Lord, we ask You to comfort the family of former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson. Amen.