Not knowing what ought to be done is to already know what ought to be done
It has been great that there have been so many responses to the last post. I hope that this means there is an energy behind exploring this issue. Sadly most of the comments deserve a proper response and yet that would take a long time to do (with each answer generating more questions). So instead I will pick up on one issue that Jason asked me to expand on. Namely, what I meant by saying that some people within the church ‘know what ought to be done yet don’t do it’. So what do I mean? Do I mean that the people I am speaking of have an idea of what an alternative faith community might look like and yet are refusing to create it? No.
Firstly, before saying what I mean I need to clarify what, to any sensitive reader, is already obvious (I shouldn’t even mention it as getting caught up in these silly matters takes away from the real issues). Namely, that my last post is not speaking of people who wish to betray their church because they find it falling short of its ideals, not to their personal taste, or for any other reason related to some consumerist self-interested desire. We all know the simple fact, hardly worth repeating, that churches will be broken because they are filled with broken people like me. I am of course speaking below of people who betray their church in order to show their fidelity to the message housed there, in order to more fully delve into its radical kernal.
Secondly, I was not referring to all concretely existing communities that call themselves ‘church’. Indeed I am open to the idea that the word ‘church’ can be redeemed to refer to various types of gatherings in which people meet together in the aftermath of a life transforming event, listen to the stories of the past, share their lives and attempt to encourage one another in living the way of Christ. However I am not wed to the word ‘church’ either because of what it has come to mean through the predominance of evangelical Christianity on the religious landscape. For instance I personally like words such as ‘cohorts’, and ‘collectives’. Words that not only have less baggage, but which have arisen in the midst of rethinking the nature and role of faith groups. In short, while I do not mean all churches, if you think I am talking about yours: I probably am.
Anyway, to get back to the point, when I speak of the potential revolutionaries within the structure ‘knowing what ought to be done’ I am not meaning that they have a positive understanding of a viable alternative. Indeed I think that this would be pretty much impossible. Rather they need to leave in order to be able to begin to explore alternatives. It is not that they necessarily have to leave their dogmatic church (although this is likely), rather they must free themselves from the linguistic system that sustains that church.
By this I mean that when one is within a particular linguistic system that is the system within which one will understand the world. Any choice made within that system will be a choice understood by the language of that system and thus will be held under its gravitational pull.
For instance, when people leave an evangelical church or engage in a lifestyle not endorsed by that group they will often be labelled ‘backslider’ (a word that refers to someone who has wilfully and knowingly turned away from the truth). This, in itself, is not my main problem (and, more often than not, this term may be an insightful description of the individual). Rather my concern is when someone in a faith community who makes a positive step forward (psychologically, spiritually, intellectually) is labelled in this way because the community does not posses the words to appreciate it. Indeed, this does not really bother me that much in comparison to such people who label themselves as ‘backsliders’. Here the individual, whether they have left the church or not, are still under the sway of that evangelical worldview and thus any positive step forward is still thought of negatively.
The choice to leave is made within the confines of the evangelical system itself and is thus understood within that system. In this way the explicit rejection of it is implicitly an affirmation of it (I reject it not because it is wrong but because I am wrong). The result is that the majority of people who see themselves as ‘backsliders’ will either return to the group they left or continue to define themselves in opposition to it.
The real choice to be made is thus not between staying or going from a particular church. Rather it is a meta-choice concerning whether I continue to interact with the linguistic system that sustains the church or step into an unknown space outside that linguistic system.
Because one is immersed in the system this meta-choice has no positive alternative. It does not have something currently visible on the other side that one can weigh up against what one is currently immersed in (listing off the pro’s and con’s on a spreadsheet). The wager is that, by stepping into the unknown and having the courage to start something that one does not really have any idea about, something truly emancipatory may take place.
For instance, when I began ikon I only had a name, a pub and three weeks before it started. I couldn’t have legitimated what I was doing at the time because I was engaged in a meta-choice – a choice not between two positive alternatives but rather between one linguistic system and a step into the unknown.
So what am I saying? I am saying that not knowing what ought to be done is to already know what ought to be done. In other words, ‘I do not know what I should do and I must step out and do it’! This is not then some commitment to do ‘church’ better by either improving it or starting a new one. For this reconfiguring will still be taking place in the very waters that sustains it. It is not a saying ‘no’ to one known in favour of another known, rather it involves saying ‘no’ to one known in favour of the unknown.
And when the dust finally settles and the new is reified into a dominant dogmatic system, what then? Well let’s get up, draw breath and start the process again – always privileging the weakness of the outside over the powers of the inside.
Tags: action, Peter Rollins, revolution, unknowing
May 28th, 2008 at 8:13 am
Excellent post! When we started our community in Virginia we experienced this move into the unknown. It was messy and awkward, but amazingly beautiful. Thanks for reminding me of this. It has given me some courage to step out further.
May 28th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Hi Pete,
You have really touched a spiritual nerve with your last two posts. I find my self completely agreeing with the sentiment and more importantly the challenge of your discussion especially as I am currently receiving a salary from the system. Have we for too long now simply been living between two worlds and having little or no impact in either being controlled by fear and fiscal boundaries. Thanks for making me / us think.
S:
May 28th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Yes, this is very helpful. The betrayal is much deeper, much more radical than merely leaving a church. Leaving a church is easy. Betraying the “linguistic system” is much more radical and important – it takes courage and a stepping out into the unknown (faith).
This is very difficult though – difficult because it does not fit into our current way of seeing things (our current linguistic system). Often when we think we are betraying our system we are simply perpetuating it. For example, we become dissatisfied with church so we start a house church, or an “emerging” church, etc, but the linguistic system itself doesn’t change – we are much more attached to the linguistic system, it is hard to shake.
This is my new rallying cry: “‘I do not know what I should do and I must step out and do it’!”
May 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Pete,
Thanks for responding to my question. What you’ve said here answers a lot of what I was wondering, even if it answers it with a sort of nebulous non-answer of unknowing nothingness. Your love for philosophy shows on your sleeve.
A few more questions for anyone who wants to guess:
1. Can you step out into this unknown while your feet are still planted in your old church? You suggest that it’s highly unlikely that this will work…
2. How do we connect with others who want to make this step without immediately dogmatizing the process?
3. How can we make this step without radicalizing and defining it as a reaction against the current churches? I want so badly to avoid the stuffy self-righteousness that plagues the environmentalist movement and has begun to creep into the Emergent movement.
You know, I’m currently in the middle of about 100 books, but now I’m going to have to put them on hold to go buy your new book and read it. Thanks a lot, jerk.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Jason – I’m thinking about your third question.
The problem with reacting against something, like churches, is that you’re still speaking the same language, just speaking against it. I think it’s important to step out of it altogether and do something completely other, something unknown. For example, I have a desire to instigate some kind of ir/religious collective of sorts. People might ask if it is church. But really that misses the point. I don’t even want to speak that language anymore. It’s irrelevant to even have the discussion “is this a church or not?” Instead, I just want to step forward and do it, whatever “it” ends up being. If someone asks ‘is this church?” I probably would reply, “no.” Because it doesn’t matter. I’m not interested in that discussion. I don’t care what it is, what it’s called. I’m stepping out of that whole world of thinking/speaking.
I think all this is related to your first question too. Probably speaks to some of the difficulties of saying in and stepping out at the same time.
Anyways, just a few thoughts. I’ll sit down now.
May 28th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Adam,
Thanks. I hear what you’re saying. On the one hand, you say you don’t care what it is or what it’s called, but on the other hand you would tell them it’s not a church. I suppose the question is impossible to answer if the feeling is “I don’t care”… at least without sounding like Henry David Thoreau or Ralph Waldo Emerson (maybe we all need three names?).
I can imagine my mother-in-law asking us if we’re starting a new church, and me responding “That really misses the point, Donna. I don’t even want to speak that language anymore.” I can see the look on her face right now. Alienation, concern, and tight lips suppressing uncontrollable laughter at what she’d undoubtedly perceive as incredible naivete.
My understanding of this whole idea is that it has to be gradual, and the graduation of the movement means that we can still use some of the language with an intention of redefining it or making it new.
I heard Ryan Sharp of Cobalt Season talk about when his old band first decided their music was too commercial, they decided to play all their shows on the floor and not use microphones and never play in churches. Looking back, it was probably too severe of a reaction to be that committed to the opposite.
I guess I’m wondering if we can connect with the rest of the world at the same time as we step out into the great unknown. Otherwise, our options are implicit fetishism or monastic seclusion.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
pete sat down today and read fidelity/betrayal in one sitting. once again great writing. well done.i’ll be doing a fuller eview on the site in the next day or so but for now i’ll just say that i think you make a good case for a phenomenologically based christianity.
the problem i have with this post i guess is that it’s basically what every would-be reformer would say, in that they all stepped out from the familiar into something of of the unknown/unknowable. i’m thinking of luther “here i stand, i can do no other” with fear and trembling not knowing where it would lead; of wesley, leaving the staid anglicanism around him and stepping out into the highways and byways; of the jesuits refusing to name themselves after a saint at all and challenging the status quo within the church simply by their existence.; of william booth taking pub tunes to the hymns and vice versa and so on.
one of the reasons i love mary daly’s leaving the church is that her leaving was a public statement; it meant something and challenged the (patriarchal) orthodoxy simply because she was who she was. the problem with simply not showing up in our ‘normal’ churches is that firstly most of us wouldn’t be missed at all and secondly most of us are not anywhere near creative enough to form something radically different all by ourselves. so what we’re left with is simply an abandonment of the sinking ship and a legacy of lost leavers struggling to make it through somehow without the new ideal cohort to help.
and so we remain.
May 28th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
don’t think my last comment made it clear enough that i LOVE LOVE LOVE the new book. you’re a wee genius and i’ve already recommended it to several friends.
your talent makes me want to throw up!! people as gifted as you should be weeded out at birth and summarily killed so the rest of us don’t feel so badand inadequate in comparison!!!
May 29th, 2008 at 8:00 am
While I am no personal fan of Mary Daly’s work, I applaud her for having the courage of her convictions. Her decision to stand up for what she believed to be true cost her dearly. That was the gist of what I was saying in the last post is how leaders respond once they come to a truth that is at radical odds with the system that supports them financially as a pastor, academic, author/speaker, etc.
Pete – I’d be interested to get your thoughts on this subject once you read Phyllis Tickle’s The Great Emergence (Baker Books, October 2006), She places this current church crisis in a historical context that helped clear the air for me.
One of my greatest concerns from what I have seen of the current US cohort system is that it has become somewhat of a de facto institution with someone claiming they are in charge of organizing the cohorts (this person led the NYC cohort until it imploded) – while I’m sure some individual groups function well, I’ve seen too many examples where this dynamic becomes a Lord of the Flies scenario. I find all too often these groups become like informal academic guilds where they talk theology but i don’t see them actually crossing over to orthopraxy.
Also, I can think of two really hip groups that started out with the dynamics explored in this post – human nature being what it is, these groups have both now emerged as more of a platform for the leaders to “sell” themselves as emerging/progressive/cutting edge leaders and in the process, what they started has been killed.
Shane – I just had an adverse reaction to medication – don’t throw up. It’s not worth it.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:45 am
These last 2 posts led me to re-read a blog post my partner wrote around a year and a half ago (http://postrantrant.blogspot.com/2007/01/developing-post-church-discourse.html – apologies for the link, but it will save waffle here, and anyone who is not interested doesn’t need to read it). At the time of writing she was on the edge of leaving Church (but still in it), as well as rejecting aspects of church, and thinking about moving outside of the linguistic structure/discourse. I thought this was interesting because at that time she was embodying all 3 of the positions you’ve mentioned. If you’d spoken to her at that time you could have concluded 1) she’s supporting a structure she doesn’t believe in (2) she’s rejecting the structure but still staying within the linguistic structure, thus identifying as ‘backslider’ or (3) she’s about to step into the unknown and go on a post-structural adventure. For a time she seemed to exist in all 3 of these places. Of course I know where this has led a year and a half on, but this isn’t particularly relevant (and she’s not so keen on closure/containment, but that probably gives you the answer…).
May 29th, 2008 at 11:17 am
becky,
your comments on the cohort system and the “hip church” as platform for personal celebrity are important. thank you.
the notion that the transformation that is the kingdom of god requires anything more than the mundane, soiled complexities of local living is one that the particularly religious would do well to unlearn. our organizing, publishing and conferencing more often than not simply constitute a religious hobby kit.
the kingdom is enactment. the body, its building and its dwelling, is the site of the world’s turning.
May 29th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Pete,
This hits close to home for me, because I dealt with some quasi-tumultuous church exodus experiences.
And similar to your position, I’ve had a good handful of people express frustrations of the churches they’re a part of but never fail to do something meaningful about it, even if that action is having to leave it.
And although your responses are so affirming for any future engagements, I’m still feeling sad.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
It’s a step of faith is it not?
We gather in faith based communities, yet it seems true acts of faith are the hardest actions to take. Either in philosophy or acts of love in our communities.
May 30th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Thanks pete [and fellow commentors] for these thoughts. I love the idea of “adding to the stock of available reality.” by creating new linguistic systems. But how do you do this in humility, and with out it becoming a sort of uber-protestantism, or a 20th Century “come out ye from among them” attitude.
I may be lowering the tone. It’s at this stage I’m reminded of Emo Phillips joke – credited has the best God joke ever. I hope you don’t mind me posting it here:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.
May 30th, 2008 at 4:52 am
Appreciating this site and public forum from half way across the world (although, perhaps in cyberspace there are no such geographical minutes of latitude and longitude?!) Re: linguistic systems… Let me provide some context. I am a Canadian expatriate living and teaching at a private school in Indonesia. Recently a close friend/ colleague pointed out that the new housing development in our neighbourhood was being advertised and promoted as a ‘cluster’. He further commented on how this collectivist-culture friendly term would fly in the face of our individualistic-culture West. The term ‘cluster’ would undoubtedly make one cringe in Canada as the cul-de-sac chit-chat is something more like ‘Get your shaggydog Cocker Spaniel and it’s shit off my manicured/ Evian-watered lawn!’ ‘Cluster’ immediately signals our Spidey senses, which is informed by our mental cognition for ‘claustrauphobia’, which is further translated into panic to mean there might not be enough space to store all of my stuff as well as set-up my brand new Wii. ‘Residences’, sub’divisions’- these feel safe, sterile, secure, private, roomy, and leave the impression we will be able to drive our boxed car into our box garage after leaving the box-shaped place we call work so we can box ourselves into our box house without having to be bothered or boxed in by community/ cultural expectations. In a similar vein, just wondering what ‘felt’ sense (Gendlin) we might have for how the linguistic system which prefers the term ‘church’/ ‘congregation’ affects us differently than a system who privileges ‘collectives’/ ‘cohorts’…? The philosophical guru on this subject is Gendlin (and although admittedly still reading and re-reading to really understand the psychology of his work, and so no expert on his ideas), I would still like to postulate his thinking (to Pete and blog readers) on how concepts affect us (even in bodily/ physiological ways); and how changing/ de-constructing/ replacing expired language is so much more than nonchalantly supplanting Kleenex for tissue, or substituting Q-tip for cotton swab. For philosophical fodder on the topic of language and implicit meanings link to: http://www.focusing.org/philo.html
May 30th, 2008 at 4:59 am
Oops! Sorry for the long-winded opus with no paragraph distinctions! Just realized a little too late that separating ideas in this comment box is totally possible here! Ma’af, ma’af! (Indonesian for ‘my apologies’
!
May 30th, 2008 at 6:11 am
Thanks Dan – it is an element of the debate – I see a host of people in the US who have no interest in US Emergent church (TM or who have left the dialogue over theses dynamic. These people tend to be the voices who really could contribute the most to the dialogue.
I know a lot more than two groups where this dynamic has occurred – I am referencing two groups in New York City where I was personally involved and had to leave because the leaders got bitten by the fame bug – as this was happening, I felt a bit guilty in that I wrote articles that praised the group’s forays into the unknown (at the leader’s suggestions). While my intention was to encourage other groups to do likewise and help people working in isolation connect with each other, these articles ended up being used as fuel to help drive the leaders’ into the limelight. And once they got there, it became “my ministry” instead of a group project. They also developed an air of superiority as though they had found “the way” and those who chose to go another direction (especially if they felt called to stay in the mainline churches) were seen as “unenlightened.” At least here in the US, I am seeing a real receptivity in some mainline circles to this kind of dialogue that wasn’t present even a year ago but the Q is how to have the conversation in a spirit of mutual humility.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:46 am
Thanks for all the comments. My problem is that I reflect upon a comment and come back to respond, only to find another great comment. I am rubbish at quick responses. Thanks Shane for your warm words about the book. It means a lot coming from such a thoughtful and talented person as yourself. Will look forward to reading your engagement with the book.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I didn’t leave, they threw me out. Knowing what ought to be done has its’ price.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:02 am
Becky seems to be hitting the nail on the head when she outlines the history of some emerging type communities that she has experienced – leadership!This too has linguistic connotations for us whether it present a picture of a suited pastor,gowned minister or denim and t-shirted emerging facilitator.Put a group of people together and the gifted ( or sometimes not so gifted) people seem to float to the top of the pile taking on delusions of grandeur as they go.Has the gospel that we aim to represent an answer to this internal wiring that seems to kill off faith community.
I believe Jesus’ washing the disciples feet was addressing this very problem along with his hanging on a Roman cross a couple of days later!He was the model for deconstructionist leadership.Unfortunately we are so influenced by the Evangelical model of leadership ( 5 fold ministries etc) as well as the ultra -heirarchy of the Roman faith that we allow this process to emerge (no pun intended) in our alternative expressions of faith.From what I can see of church history the early Quakers had a good view of community with each believer being a Friend of God who had the Light within.Of course like all movements the Quakers in time became as institutionalised as the groups that they had withdrawn from.I wonder though if perhaps this historic stream has something to teach us in our discussions.As Pete says language lies at the heart of our church systems – as a method of control by leadership and a crutch for dependency by the followers.The Hebrew language is ideal for word plays and many of the early prophets used these word plays and hence their religious language to deconstruct the religious systems of their day e.g. the sacrifice cult of the first and second temples.In Aramaic too Jesus took the religious language of His day and turned it upside down e.g. the Pharisees tale of the rich man and poor man after death i.e. rich man goes to Abraham and poor man (Sinner) goes to eternal punishent was reversed by Jesus and completely challenged the religious world view of his listeners.Perhaps we can use religious language to deconstuct itself through use of humour,story and drama as Jesus seemed to do.Now that really would take a mind shift to turn the religious language in on itself rather than invent a new hip language that will only be used in a new power play game!
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:56 am
Hi Pete and everybody else,
I am always deeply challenged when I read Pete’s work because it creates words for the experiences I’ve had.
When I first left the church, I left assuming it was “right” and I was the “backslider”. However, my time away has lead me to realize that I’m simply stepping away from the known into the unknown.
It’s refreshing to have tangible words to descrbe my intanbile experiences; however, I realize that as soon as I have enough words to catalog my new “linguistic system” then I will have to leave my postmodern faith for the unknown.
This whole process is going to be tedious and interesting.
June 7th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Hi. I am late to this thread but just thought i would chime in with A.J. above. I have just completed Petes first book and find it eerie how much i resonate with what is written. This current discussion is also one i have had in my head and with friends on occasion. This end result is often shrugging of the shoulders and a resigned continuance of unsatisfying church gatherings.
Yet, i myself yearn to jump into the actual “unknown.” Although it is a bit tough to sell people on the idea of jumping into something that is nothing–yet. Or maybe the nothing is the something we have always been hoping for? That is, the kind of subjective space that allows for that deepest something to find its way to the surface? I suspect that I am on to a point of understanding that is significant for me, even though it has very little value in the structures many of us call church.
Cheers.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
[...] new friend, Pete Rollins talks about “communities as Ikons,” living acting dramatizations of the story of [...]