A Christianity Worth Believing, Pt. II

Well, here we are. A post titled part 2.

Pagitt's views on Scripture are not the only potentially controversial expressions in this book. His views on the nature and essence of man are, to put it lightly, not Reformed by any means. In fact, he so adamantly opposes the concept of total depravity with a beautifully tragic story about the local target of criticism on everyone favorite social microcosm: the school bus. The story of the one unfortunate girl picked to be continually ridiculed and permanently marked as "sucking." When thinking back on this story, Pagitt compares the traditional doctrine of total depravity to this mindset, fearing that far too often the church has held this same bully perspective. In an attempt to maintain an absolute need for God's grace, we have deemed the nature of man as utterly inferior or corrupted in some way that claims man is, in Reformed traditions, incapable of good. 

Pagitt makes it clear that man is obviously in need of some sort of redemption, but the essence of the message is that God still calls men and women to participate in God's Good Dreams for the world. When Adam and Eve fell in the biblical narrative, they faced consequences, but they were still expected to maintain their roles of stewardship and co-regency over the created order. God is not "up and away," but "down and in," interested in humanity. God is passionately concerned for people to restore them to their original intent and relationship.

The truth is, in Pagitt's perspective, that God does not view people as if they suddenly went from "good" to total suckage. As the fruit fell off the branches of the forbidden tree, mankind's entire nature and worth did not fall with it. Perhaps it put us in a unique position in need of forgiveness, but it did not ruin the Image that God ingrained into us.

What do you think? What affects did the fall of Adam and Eve have on the essence of human nature? What are the lasting affects of Original Sin? Are its affects or its very rebellious tendency necessarily transmitted through procreation or as some sort of inheritance? What condition are we in, and what are the implications for our doctrines of evangelism or missiology, soteriology and orthodoxy?

A Christianity Worth Believing, I

I suppose I must be becoming a regular, old blogger. Weird. That kinda makes me not like myself.

I'm currently reading through the free e-copy of Doug Pagitt's new book A Christianity Worth Believing that was so graciously sent to me by Ian a few weeks back. First and foremost, I'd like to throw out a mad shout-out to Doug (who I know doesn't read this blog) for sending us this advanced copy.

Many people have called Doug Pagitt many things. I've heard him called a heretic, a liar and a pagan (all of those by Mark Driscoll in one sitting). But in my limited time with him, and in all my readings of his books, I have yet to find one claim that is definitively "heretical" or "pagan." This new book is no exception. I could blog about the whole book in one sitting, but I think I will take the lead of the great bloggers in this world and only cover one chapter at a time. (You ought to be warned that I may only ever write about one chapter.)

The sixth chapter deals mostly with Pagitt's opinions of the Bible. In his experience, the Bible has been misused in three incredibly offensive ways.

1. It has been used as a weapon
2. It has been used as an encyclopedia
3. It has been used as a long list of isolated verses

Far too often, the Bible is used in all three of these ways simultaneously. We wield like a heavy reference that dictates what life should look like in a series of pithy statements and commandments with absolutely no bearing on one another. For those of us raised underneath it, we often define our entire worldview by the accuracy of this book's moral code, and rather than looking at the world around us, we simply assert the truth we thoughtlessly find in Scripture. More often than not, the book we cling to for the story of Jesus, the story of a man who loved "sinners and tax-collectors" becomes the justification for division and judgment. We have forgotten the context of Jesus' world, of our world and of the words themselves.

To live in a truly biblical mindset is to enter into a conversation with the Bible. This is not to say that we ought to change what it says, or even ignore it. But rather, we ought to know who we are and in what context. Sometimes the Bible will say things that we don't want to hear. It will challenge us to grow and to live in ways that we aren't comfortable with, but shouldn't we think about these things? Shouldn't we struggle with them so that our experience with the Bible leads us to authentic faith rather than a desire to be the "most right"? 

Pagitt has an obvious distaste for Christians who cling to a doctrine of "inerrancy" to prove their own position or to validate their own prejudices. He says, "I think there are people who argue for an  “ inerrant ”  authoritative understanding of the Bible to support their prejudiced feelings about homosexuals." (p. 63) This perspective, while I'm not sure is universally true, is certainly somewhat indicting, particularly if there is truth behind it.

There is an obvious passion and reverence for the Word of God in Pagitt's writing. Maybe he is slightly "unorthodox" (that's a pun, not a judgment statement) in his vantage point, but the point in the chapter shines through: We, as the people of God, ought not to isolate portions of the Bible for the sake of our egos. But instead, we enter the biblical narrative through study and thoughtfulness in ways that don't simply make us right, but also make us Christ-like and holy.