I love that someone has written about the Fitch Option.
One thing I’ve been coming back to is how much fretting there is about “the church” - namely in the US or the West, and what do we do with the sense of loss. For years, I was immersed in this conversation. But these days, when simply living, pastoring, in my community and on God’s mission - I have come to realize how uninterested the conversation is.
I wonder if we it is because we are a tiny church, and we have zero expectations for cultural power. Maybe it’s because I came to Christ at an immigrant church, where being a cultural minority was all we ever knew (even though we still somehow bought into the Christian right’s political narrative of some yonder year — which we were never even in America for!). Maybe it’s because we live in a place that’s been not only post-Christian, but pluralistic as long as I’ve been alive.
In any case, for that reason, I’m definitely more drawn to the St Patrick option than the preservationist mode of Dreher. I don’t know it well enough, but it sounds like there is no assumption of cultural power, but acts on the belief in the true power of the mustard seed looking power of God.
Part of me is skeptical though, was St Patrick really without cultural power? Seems like he has the backing of the power Western Church. But maybe I wrong!
Dreher’s option stems from the historian’s narrative that Benedictine communities were the means to save and then restore civilization. It follows the Enlightenment dominance of thinking that Greco-Roman civilization was the high point with Feudal Europe as a backwards middle time, and the Enlightenment recovering what had been lost. What that narrative misses (in addition to your turn to Patrick) is that the establishment of Benedictine monasteries was a top-down act of Pope Gregory. While I deeply value the Rule of Benedict, its ubiquity and impact was indebted to the legislation of Imperial style church leadership. It was the norm because the religious powers said so. Dreher clearly fetishizes that kind of authority and the civilization thesis (rather than “culture” as you are talking about).
I appreciate your turn to Patrick, not so much for the ways Celtic is used in spirituality circles as a kind of Christianity untouched by Imperialism, but because he signifies the Irish tradition of being sent. The greatest renunciation of the Irish monk is to leave the homeland for the sake of Christ. There is a letting go of familiarity (and even dominance) in Irish monasticism that I think we can find empowering in intercultural ministry.
bro... your patristics chops are showing ... that's really really helpful ... have you written up the stuff on Benedict, Benedictine communities and that Enlightenment narrative anywhere... if not... why not ... let's roll ..
Interesting thoughts. Coming from an ordained clergy perspective, I wonder about the groups of 12 sent out in a multiplying pattern, though I really like house church models. Will the good news of Jesus Christ remain good news as theological education becomes less required, or just less? I really struggle with that. Some pulpit supply I have recently heard preached what they learned on Google, I'm pretty sure. It was not gospel.
I see a discussion about the future of the church, and that gets my attention, since that's what I'm all about. I see it talk about Saint Patrick, and that really gets my attention. This is a very good article.
What I hear in this are two options a community-first option, and a mission-first option. Looking through the lens of this narrative, I think there is significant wisdom in both. Not so sure I buy the narrative, however.
In this narrative, the church is the body of Christ. In the community-first model, the body of Christ is one of communal concern and loving care meant to build itself up as an alternative witnessing community. And the mission-first model, the purpose of the body of Christ is to express that concern and loving care to those who are not in the body of Christ.
But what if that entire understanding of the body of Christ misses the point? What if, indeed, the resurrection is about God's embrace of all creation, and thus creation itself becomes the body of Christ?
I don't believe that the call of Christians to participate in a church community as the body of Christ, whether they are inwardly or outwardly focused.
I believe Christians are called to participate in the fully human community, which is the body of Christ.
If someone views the Christian calling in this way, it radically changes the way they function in life no matter where they are. Because the boundaries of identity have disintegrated, Divine integration emerges.
Does the church serve a purpose in the context of this narrative? Yes. Perhaps ironically, the purpose of Christian community is to become the primary place where we are reminded that there is no such thing as Christian community, but only the human community in which we are called to participate, and in doing so identify with the one who is fully human and fully divine.
That's my two cents, anyway. And I hope you don't mind a wee bit of radical theology thrown in. Thank you for this article, it was incredibly good and thought-provoking.
bro.. thanks for the words. My short comment question is "what is radical here" about your self-described "radical theology"? It is the Enlightenment project? No? The departicularization of faith, the John Hick-ized God is everywhere .. let us all seek to be truly human, narrative? All this to say, once God becomes detached from the particular narrative, in case of Christianity, that God has come in Christ, we each make up our own god. I'm not going to try to argue you out of this? For sure, both approaches are open to abuse, violence, and acting out in violence the name of God. But, IMO, Christ, and Christianity, and a social practice of a way of life that submits to a Jesus who says "not so among you" is a stunning life giving alternative. And so in the end I am compelled by what God has done, and is doing, in the person and work of Jesus. I find it easier to believe God has come into the world through this human incarnation to save, forgive, transform and heal a sick and evil world, than to believe there is some universal spirit of creative transformation at work that's going to save us from this mess. :) Blessings on you my friend.
Thank you for the reply. I appreciate it. When I talk about radical theology, I refer to a branch of theology, kind of like process theology or neo-orthodoxy which are there own branches of theology. Some bigger names in the field include JJ Altizer, Mark Taylor, John Caputo, and Peter Rollins. Sometimes it is known as a "death of God" theology. It's not for everyone. I offer it as an alternative perspective on the situation that has the potential to open the door to other creative responses to the problem.
John Hick? Hmmm. I don't know if he fits into that category, mainly because it's been a couple decades since I've read him and haven't thought about him in a long time.
Fwiw, agree with the idea of Christianity as a social practice. The way of Christ is the way of an other-centered, justice-oriented, and self-giving love. Where I think I differ is the extent to which I expand the concept to include the fullness of humanity, and ultimately all of creation.
Keep up the great, thought-provoking articles. Rock on! :-)
Thanks my bro!! Thanks for clarifying ... I was into these Christian A-Theism discussions twenty years ago... wrote a bit on the so-called Radical Theology back in the day... If you're interested I wrote a book called "End of Evangelicalism?" using Zizek... where I defined what I thought was so helpful about Zizek, but also where the limits were ...I outlined a political theology in that book in relation to Zizek and some other post-Marxists, which play into why I land where I do even in this post here. I engaged Rollins in the epilogue of that book. Forgive the John Hick reference... but still there's some overlap... although Hick is an Enlightenemnt modernist ... the apophatic approaches to language hadn't me with him yet ... but there is some net net de-particularizing effect ... which ends up happening in both theologies ... Anyways, for all the reasons outlined in that Zizek book, (and BTW - although we have our differences - James KA Smith's book on hemeneutics around 2000 was helpful in articulating where I was landing at the same time) I have moved on from the crowd you refer to (JJ Altizer, Mark Taylor, Caputo etc etc). Blessings on your labours!! https://www.amazon.com/Evangelicalism-Discerning-Faithfulness-Mission-Theopolitical/dp/1606086847
Thanks for the book recommendation. I picked up the Kindle version. From what little I know about Zizek, I'm intrigued with him. But, I admit, he kind of makes my head hurt. LOL.
This was a great read. I really like the St. Patrick idea. Anything that involves engagement rather than withdrawal is a good option in my book. As I worked through what you were writing, I couldn't help but have an idea pop into my head that all these ideas seem somewhat "western" -- for lack of a better word. (Perhaps European is a better word??) I wonder if there are other non-European models of this faithful presence that might help give us to God for us in the world today? There's long Christian history in places such as China, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Eg. Alexander de Rhodes -- admittedly also a European -- had a great presence in Vietnam in the early years. Lots of food for thought. Thanks for this.
I love that someone has written about the Fitch Option.
One thing I’ve been coming back to is how much fretting there is about “the church” - namely in the US or the West, and what do we do with the sense of loss. For years, I was immersed in this conversation. But these days, when simply living, pastoring, in my community and on God’s mission - I have come to realize how uninterested the conversation is.
I wonder if we it is because we are a tiny church, and we have zero expectations for cultural power. Maybe it’s because I came to Christ at an immigrant church, where being a cultural minority was all we ever knew (even though we still somehow bought into the Christian right’s political narrative of some yonder year — which we were never even in America for!). Maybe it’s because we live in a place that’s been not only post-Christian, but pluralistic as long as I’ve been alive.
In any case, for that reason, I’m definitely more drawn to the St Patrick option than the preservationist mode of Dreher. I don’t know it well enough, but it sounds like there is no assumption of cultural power, but acts on the belief in the true power of the mustard seed looking power of God.
Part of me is skeptical though, was St Patrick really without cultural power? Seems like he has the backing of the power Western Church. But maybe I wrong!
Dreher’s option stems from the historian’s narrative that Benedictine communities were the means to save and then restore civilization. It follows the Enlightenment dominance of thinking that Greco-Roman civilization was the high point with Feudal Europe as a backwards middle time, and the Enlightenment recovering what had been lost. What that narrative misses (in addition to your turn to Patrick) is that the establishment of Benedictine monasteries was a top-down act of Pope Gregory. While I deeply value the Rule of Benedict, its ubiquity and impact was indebted to the legislation of Imperial style church leadership. It was the norm because the religious powers said so. Dreher clearly fetishizes that kind of authority and the civilization thesis (rather than “culture” as you are talking about).
I appreciate your turn to Patrick, not so much for the ways Celtic is used in spirituality circles as a kind of Christianity untouched by Imperialism, but because he signifies the Irish tradition of being sent. The greatest renunciation of the Irish monk is to leave the homeland for the sake of Christ. There is a letting go of familiarity (and even dominance) in Irish monasticism that I think we can find empowering in intercultural ministry.
bro... your patristics chops are showing ... that's really really helpful ... have you written up the stuff on Benedict, Benedictine communities and that Enlightenment narrative anywhere... if not... why not ... let's roll ..
Great article Fitch. I think that it might be benefical to develop more the St. Patrick option. 😀
Interesting thoughts. Coming from an ordained clergy perspective, I wonder about the groups of 12 sent out in a multiplying pattern, though I really like house church models. Will the good news of Jesus Christ remain good news as theological education becomes less required, or just less? I really struggle with that. Some pulpit supply I have recently heard preached what they learned on Google, I'm pretty sure. It was not gospel.
I see a discussion about the future of the church, and that gets my attention, since that's what I'm all about. I see it talk about Saint Patrick, and that really gets my attention. This is a very good article.
What I hear in this are two options a community-first option, and a mission-first option. Looking through the lens of this narrative, I think there is significant wisdom in both. Not so sure I buy the narrative, however.
In this narrative, the church is the body of Christ. In the community-first model, the body of Christ is one of communal concern and loving care meant to build itself up as an alternative witnessing community. And the mission-first model, the purpose of the body of Christ is to express that concern and loving care to those who are not in the body of Christ.
But what if that entire understanding of the body of Christ misses the point? What if, indeed, the resurrection is about God's embrace of all creation, and thus creation itself becomes the body of Christ?
I don't believe that the call of Christians to participate in a church community as the body of Christ, whether they are inwardly or outwardly focused.
I believe Christians are called to participate in the fully human community, which is the body of Christ.
If someone views the Christian calling in this way, it radically changes the way they function in life no matter where they are. Because the boundaries of identity have disintegrated, Divine integration emerges.
Does the church serve a purpose in the context of this narrative? Yes. Perhaps ironically, the purpose of Christian community is to become the primary place where we are reminded that there is no such thing as Christian community, but only the human community in which we are called to participate, and in doing so identify with the one who is fully human and fully divine.
That's my two cents, anyway. And I hope you don't mind a wee bit of radical theology thrown in. Thank you for this article, it was incredibly good and thought-provoking.
bro.. thanks for the words. My short comment question is "what is radical here" about your self-described "radical theology"? It is the Enlightenment project? No? The departicularization of faith, the John Hick-ized God is everywhere .. let us all seek to be truly human, narrative? All this to say, once God becomes detached from the particular narrative, in case of Christianity, that God has come in Christ, we each make up our own god. I'm not going to try to argue you out of this? For sure, both approaches are open to abuse, violence, and acting out in violence the name of God. But, IMO, Christ, and Christianity, and a social practice of a way of life that submits to a Jesus who says "not so among you" is a stunning life giving alternative. And so in the end I am compelled by what God has done, and is doing, in the person and work of Jesus. I find it easier to believe God has come into the world through this human incarnation to save, forgive, transform and heal a sick and evil world, than to believe there is some universal spirit of creative transformation at work that's going to save us from this mess. :) Blessings on you my friend.
Thank you for the reply. I appreciate it. When I talk about radical theology, I refer to a branch of theology, kind of like process theology or neo-orthodoxy which are there own branches of theology. Some bigger names in the field include JJ Altizer, Mark Taylor, John Caputo, and Peter Rollins. Sometimes it is known as a "death of God" theology. It's not for everyone. I offer it as an alternative perspective on the situation that has the potential to open the door to other creative responses to the problem.
John Hick? Hmmm. I don't know if he fits into that category, mainly because it's been a couple decades since I've read him and haven't thought about him in a long time.
Fwiw, agree with the idea of Christianity as a social practice. The way of Christ is the way of an other-centered, justice-oriented, and self-giving love. Where I think I differ is the extent to which I expand the concept to include the fullness of humanity, and ultimately all of creation.
Keep up the great, thought-provoking articles. Rock on! :-)
Thanks my bro!! Thanks for clarifying ... I was into these Christian A-Theism discussions twenty years ago... wrote a bit on the so-called Radical Theology back in the day... If you're interested I wrote a book called "End of Evangelicalism?" using Zizek... where I defined what I thought was so helpful about Zizek, but also where the limits were ...I outlined a political theology in that book in relation to Zizek and some other post-Marxists, which play into why I land where I do even in this post here. I engaged Rollins in the epilogue of that book. Forgive the John Hick reference... but still there's some overlap... although Hick is an Enlightenemnt modernist ... the apophatic approaches to language hadn't me with him yet ... but there is some net net de-particularizing effect ... which ends up happening in both theologies ... Anyways, for all the reasons outlined in that Zizek book, (and BTW - although we have our differences - James KA Smith's book on hemeneutics around 2000 was helpful in articulating where I was landing at the same time) I have moved on from the crowd you refer to (JJ Altizer, Mark Taylor, Caputo etc etc). Blessings on your labours!! https://www.amazon.com/Evangelicalism-Discerning-Faithfulness-Mission-Theopolitical/dp/1606086847
Thanks for the book recommendation. I picked up the Kindle version. From what little I know about Zizek, I'm intrigued with him. But, I admit, he kind of makes my head hurt. LOL.
This was a great read. I really like the St. Patrick idea. Anything that involves engagement rather than withdrawal is a good option in my book. As I worked through what you were writing, I couldn't help but have an idea pop into my head that all these ideas seem somewhat "western" -- for lack of a better word. (Perhaps European is a better word??) I wonder if there are other non-European models of this faithful presence that might help give us to God for us in the world today? There's long Christian history in places such as China, Southeast Asia, and Africa. Eg. Alexander de Rhodes -- admittedly also a European -- had a great presence in Vietnam in the early years. Lots of food for thought. Thanks for this.
Intriguing! Will think more about it! I have read about the 4th wave of Evangelicalism. What do you think?