The Betrayal of Betrayal (or why being faithful honours the tradition)

I've been reading Kester Brewin's pieces on "piracy" as a motif of Christian innovation and faithfulness. I feel compelled to write my own little critique of some ideas and approaches that are gaining considerable currency amongst many of us concerned to see the church engaging in creative mission. Kester explores the image of the "pirate" as a fruitful archetype of someone who bucks the system, kicks against empire, and releases "goods for all". His argument is that the church is in a block (as Judaism was blocked prior to the coming of Christ; which raises questions in itself) and needs "spiritual" pirates who undermine the exclusive and dominating character of church. These spiritual pirates are the "new heretics", in the pattern of Christ, (the archetypal heretic?), for which the emerging church is an example of. It's not clear what the emerging church's particular heresies are, but St.Paul's stuffy purity is contrasted with the bawdy self-aggrandisement of pirates with relish.

Kester is a very eloquent and stimulating writer, offering a huge amount of creativity to the contemporary church scene but I do want to take issue or at the very least push for some more considered theological reflection. The espousal of "heresy" as a motif reminds me of Pete Rollins' work, also, in particular his books "The Fidelity of Betrayal: Towards a Church Beyond Belief" and "The Orthodox Heretic" which explore similar themes. Again, Pete is a very engaging and creative voice but raises issues for me that we ignore at our peril.

I'll attempt to throw out some points and questions perhaps to begin a conversation that touches on complex philosophical grounds. What I sense in Kester's piece on piracy, and indeed in Pete Rollins' publications, is a de-centred viewpoint. Both are keen to articulate a place from the periphery that is "unorthodox", "heretical" or "piratical", in their terms. I'm reminded of Alasdair MacIntyre's assessment of contemporary society which has lost any sense of objective morality or authority; one that is working with the "fragments" of moral traditions. The arguments are pieced together, magpie-like, from sociology, philosophy, contemporary culture, with the occasional leitmotif of scripture (I won't even begin a critique of the cod-populist vision of Jesus the de-bunker of Jewish tradition, the anti-authoritarian on a mission that is all about correcting the wrong road of Judaism that Kester offers!). But this de-centred moral perspective forgets the one essential lesson of postmodernity: that all our standpoints are situated; there is no "view from nowhere".

What I feel I am left with if I'm to take seriously "the fidelity of betrayal" and a "plea for Christian piracy", is a moral vision centred on the individual and thus a "theology" that is yet another rotten fruit of modernity, (there are times when I wonder whether I should read this material acknowledging a wink and tongue-in-cheek at the hyperbole, but the gravitas afforded published books, my experience of their persuasiveness amongst Christians and the earnest hopes of the project (?) suggest I should be treating them seriously!). Kester and Pete are in danger of articulating something that is always and intrinsically "over and against" (the "empire" of the church). So where is it? Kester poses the question "what should we think of the Somali pirates", suggesting the global geopolitics of western oppression might give an alternative vision of who the real baddies are. Well, if you ask a poor Somali woman whose children have been killed by the Somali warlords growing rich on the piracy (for that is yet another side of the story), the answer would be a no-brainer. The point is that there is a coherent moral vision to be applied, inescapably, and we practice that moral vision in community and in our tradition. What i would describe as "an ecclesiology of iconoclism" is in fact licence for the individualism and self-referencing that i know Pete and Kester would otherwise disdain. The example of the shift from "pirate radio to BBC" and "Napster to Spotify" betray more than a whiff of the romance of the new, the trendy and the latest: a vision of consumerist heaven confirming my suspicions?

The perennial appeal of the "over-against" vision of Christian life plays into a necessary sectarianism, too. It is only in the obscure and the local that God's vision is played out, it seems. So we clearly should step aware from the public square of political engagement, international ecology and partnership with other groups because "establishment" is the real enemy!

Who in our churches are the outsiders, indeed? A question that brings to the fore the need to own our situated viewpoints. If you are a faithful old lady, comforted by Prayer Book communion in a rural parish church that no longer has any paid pastoral support from the diocese: you're entitled to feel on the margins. If you are a black Pentecostal in an inner city treated as an ignorant, rabid fundamentalist by the white, church establishment and the media you would justifiably feel on the margins. And if you're involved in a pioneering home group of Christians bringing creative, multimedia savvy worship in a non-heirarchical team leadership you might rightly feel that you're on the margins. Each of these would also have good reasons to be challenged about their self-perception. And that self-perception can be challenged when we own our part in the wider church body, hearing each other and being responsible to our tradition.

Being faithful is not about betraying, being unorthodox  or romanticising ourselves as latter-day pirates, Robin Hoods, Al Capones or whoever. What story are we a part of? If we own the Christian story, we have a responsibility to bless and be blessed by the whole church; to challenge and be challenged by the whole church. There is truth and there is authority; we just don't have the complete take on what that truth and authority is. My discomfort with Kester and Pete is in the illusion that their denial of truth and authority disguises the inevitably alternative truth and authority they project. Truth and authority that comes from I know not where.

Comments

[Ben Edson]

Thank you Richard for this timely, thoughtful and challenging post! I've not been quite convinced by Kester's piracy motive and haven't been able to articulate why, so this is really helping my thinking.

[gareh]

hey richard great post. it articulates many of the worries I have felt towards the direction the emerging church thesis has been going in the US and the UK. It worries me that so much of it is now predominantly shaped by the consumptive, modern, individualistic anthrpology that it first appeared they were trying to escape from. I must admit to having partially given up on the EC as I am not sure as a project it will amount to much beyond a lot of postmodern ironic hyperbole.

I am much keener on recovering MacIntyre's new St Benedict or a recovery and recontextualistation of the spirit and essence of the Oxford movement that spent a lot of time doing rather than talking, where liturgy was not about novelty but rather beauty.

would love to catch up with you and hear what you are up to. If you fancy a visit to Cambridge I'll happily put you up and take you to dinner :-)

[KB]

Oh dear... long reply lost in the aether. Sorry. That was this morning and doesn't seem to have been received, and got to head out after work now, so can't rewrite. Another time hopefully!

[Mike R]

Hi Richard

Thanks for this critique. Very helpful.

I especially like the part about sectarianism and the outsider mentality - I've been thinking about this for quite some time, but couldn't articulate as well as you. It's that "indie" mentality that has always annoyed me for reasons that I couldn't quite put my finger on, but you've crystallised some good thoughts for me.

One question about the de-centred perspective though. I'm wondering if there's a bit of a conflation between a coherent moral vision, and coherent theological one. Or am I mis-understanding? I appreciate that the two overlap in many ways, but there is surely a difference between piracy as an analogy for a series of ideas, philosophies and practises on the one hand, and the moral obligations of community on the other (although, again, sure they can be related in many ways)?

This is a rich seam of thought you've hit on here, Richard. I'm still finding my mind go off in all sorts of directions even as I type. Eek! Time to hit "Post" before my brain explodes.

[Richard Sudworth]

Thanks for the comments thus far and sorry that your first response was lost in the ether, Kester. Gareth: yes, I could prob. do with a visit to Cambridge esp. as I met one of your fellow students doing some parallel research in the Littlemore Conf this summer. Mike: "yes" I probably do conflate the theological and moral community critique somewhat, though the latter is my main target. The former critique, in my post, rests on the issue of sectarianism. For me, Kester, and Pete Rollins, offer or at least shape a moral vision of what church is/should be. My issue is that the moral vision is detached from the sources of life of that tradition. The selectivity of the appropriation of the tradition results in a de-centred, individualistic vision that plays into the modernity and consumerism that we ought to otherwise aver.

[KB]

"My issue is that the moral vision is detached from the sources of life of that tradition."

I'd obviously want to disagree with that. The thrust of my lost response yesterday was that the source of life of any tradition is constantly being obscured by our very human tendencies: power, authority, selfishness etc. And the job of the pirate/heretic - as denominated by the orthodox, mind - is to keep sweeping away that detritus to help people to re-vise, see again the source of that life.

The best example is Jesus' cleansing of the Temple: a heretical act that one could argue precipitated his death, but an act that was attempting to re-un-cover the source of life in his tradition.

[Richard Sudworth]

I agree Kester with the need for being attentive to the way power, our human fallibility, can obscure the life of the Christian tradition. But Jesus' temple clearance was also a great act of continuity. His whole ministry was a model of Jewish faithfulness and orthodoxy, a la lettre, as well as the (unique? unless we want to relativise the mission of Christ) discontinuity of the new covenant. The question is begged of what criteria we apply to supposed "heresies" without a conscious owning of the corporate story in community of faith... Nazism was a very fashionable break and heresy that interrupted Lutheranism in 1930's Germany. If you were a marginalised working class German post 1918, you had reasons to kick against the "empire" of European reparations. But a "heresy" we should regard as instructive to faithful Christian living? I think not.

[Mike R]

This an interesting debate. I've typed and deleted several times, as there's so many thoughts and counter-thoughts that I don't know where to start!

I think what I'll take away from all this is that there are some rather severe limitations to what I'm going to call the "outsider mentality" that I'd not considered before, and that I intend to be a bit more careful about taking that stance myself in future.

Further, I'm feeling increasingly un-comfortable with the almost pathological desire to "challenge" people that I've seen christians adopt at times. Sure there's a place for it, but I wonder if there's more headway to be made sometimes by a more collaborative approach that is sensitive to other people's stories.

Nice debate - thanks guys.

Hitting the post button now. No really... :-D

[Mike R]

BTW, what would you suggest is Alasdair MacIntyre's most definitve work? I'd like to read one, but he's written a few, and I don't know which to start with.

[Jason Clark]

Great post Richard, thank you. Brought to mind some of my concerns about the romanticizing of 'revolution' that are centered around anthropologies that seem far from a location in any lived Christian tradition and moral vision.

The idea of the ‘trickster’ as rebel, able to subvert the nature of church, can be seen to be captive to the process of consumption.

The rebel is not a rebel at all, but is rather complicit in pandering to the agenda of consumerism. It was St Augustine who warned of the danger of loving love itself, of misdirectiing our affections as a means of escape into simulacra and simulation, which I fear/suspect these metaphors are captive to.

Likewise the love of revolution, the anticipation and excitement in being ‘rebellious’ can and does pander to the titillation of consumer agency and result in no real revolution at all.

The ‘trickster’ who seeks to subvert the church, to draw attention to the failings of the church, can end up as absurd as the man in a story from Immanuel Kant’s lectures on anthropology who, on seeing a child fall into water and start to drown, complains that there is no one taking action to save the child.

I remember reading a well-known emerging-church blogger who wrote an autobiographical piece on why he had left his church. He described how the members of the church drove in their cars past the poor, the homeless and drug addicts, on their way to spending their money on putting on a Sunday worship service, having bypassed the needs around them.

It was enough for him, showing how the people of his church had failed to engage with the poor, to justify the leaving of his church. He had taken 'action' against the failings of his church community.

I did wonder why the author was unable to stop himself on the way to the service, why had he not tried to minister and invite the other members of his community to serve the poor with him.

Perhaps then something amazing and truly revolutionary could have taken place instead.

And beyond romanticizing ourselves as pirates, we know that real pirates do not form a life with others, but conquer, control, steal, loot, pillage, and bends all things towards their own ends and self creation, controlling others with fear and intimidation. Unless they are the pirates that Johnny Depp makes manifest, who are no real pirates at all.

Surely scripture and church history has other metaphors to better capture our imaginations, to help us make manifest and concrete a moral vision of life together with Christ?

[Alan Mann]

I should start by saying two things. Firstly, I've not digested, nor understood all that has been written here. Secondly, I've only dipped into Kester's 'Pirate' metaphor, which, though I can see areas of merit and understand what he is trying to achieve, there is much that concerns within a metaphor that seems overly complex and forced. But I accept that this is a comment based on some ignorance of the whole – see please forgive any misunderstanding or misrepresentation – I just wanted to get on board this fascinating, and increasingly topical thread before the opportunity had passed.

The reality is, (and in a way I think this is what Kester is ultimately saying) we should be seeking to be radically orthodox in our faith – however dull or uninteresting that may seem - but it is important to hold onto this fact.

Healthy questioning and dialogue, even the challenging of religious dogma and practices is something that has always gone on – look no further than the OT Prophets, and as Kester points out, Jesus himself. What's more, the Church’s theology and practical engagement with the world has always been fluid and organic and it is out of this process that distinctions of orthodoxy and heresy came about.

To quote Maurice Wiles on this subject, 'The earliest churches are now seen to have been relatively diverse in belief and practice. Orthodoxy was something to be achieved rather than simply maintained. On this understanding heresy and orthodoxy alike were seeking to make sense of the faith in relation to the basic ideas of their milieu. Heresies are the attempts that were judged to have failed. The motivation of the heretics was not  significantly different from that of the orthodox, and they can even be seen as a necessary element in the difficult process of how best to articulate the faith in relation to the surrounding culture. In some cases the fault of the heresy can better be seen as uwillingness to adapt in the face of new ideas rather than moving away from established truths.'

Jesus may have been a heretic in the eyes of the Jewish leaders, but ultimately his teaching wasn’t found wanting in regards to God, or the religious, political, social and economic issues of his time – indeed, Jesus’ teaching and actions were orthodox in the truest sense of the word.

Personally, I think the fight we face in the contemporary church is to wrestle back what true orthodoxy is about - which is the fight Jesus was having. And that's why the likes of Kester, and Pete, and even myself, have at times been disparagingly labelled 'heretics' at times. But personally speaking, I don't wish to wear that label with any sense of pride, honour of purpose. We are not heretics (or pirates), we are orthodox, because, after Jesus, and those who follow after him, we are attempting to make sense of the moral vision of God's kingdom for the world in which we live.

[Richard Sudworth]

I think I'll do a "part 2" in order to respond appropriately to the very helpful comments I've had. To Mike; "After Virtue" is the classic MacIntyre text... I don't agree with everything he has to say but his essential critique is I think a valid one. And Alan, I've been called a heretic, too, by conservatives that don't like the idea of Christian-Muslim dialogue. I wouldn't want to suggest we cease questioning, exploring or being rigorous in our theology and practice, (including our reflections on atonement et. al.!)...But to use the outsider emblem as legitimation unmoors from our Christian moral worldview and pushes us into invidualism.

[KB]

Just a quick plea - in vain I know in the world of screen-reading - but please try to read the series of posts on Piracy in full.

I think you'll find it a little more nuanced than may be being sketched in these comments!

It's a metaphor, a springboard into thought. I'm not actually suggesting we go pillage the next village. Lol.

[Graham]

Thank you for posting this that I have so far read twice and will come back to again. It is a very thoughful post. The comments are very helpful; very eirenic- much better than some blogs where disagreement leads to war. I am going to read all the piracy posts in full.

I'm a minister in an established church, although trying new things. I find it amazingly easy to get into 'outsider' mode: 'I am the only faithful one here' and harder to realise that I am just as mired in sin/compromise/myopia as the wider church...... having said that I need 'orthodox heretics'/prophets to keep me awake.

...don't have much time for heretics/prophets who have left structures etc to establish 'purity'-reminds me too much of evo/charistmatics of my youth who left to establish 'pure church'...

My current working definition of following Jesus is 'You have been blessed: now go and bless others'. I'm realising how easy it is to focus exclsively on the former- enjoy your wealth/relationships/ blogging communities/informed critiques.... as it is easy being in the warm. Far harder to move on to do the latter.

Sorry- waffled on there and went off message, but your thinking aloud is helping mine.

Thanks for the depth!

[jonny]

thanks - great stuff as ever richard and all... i have posted a link and thought on the blog. the thought was this:

i often get asked what i think of pete's work and usually respond by saying that i love having his voice in the conversation but it's not the only voice i want to hear. (i loved the book how not to speak of god.) this conversation reminds me a little bit of the book nation of rebels: why counter culture became consumer culture which makes a powerful critique that the over against rhetoric of liberals who talk a good game round the dinner table about the evils of the system and overcoming it are not the people who effect real change in society. it's the people who have engaged in the public square, engaged in civil rights marches and so on - often long slow painful processes - who have done more. on reading that book i was challenged to think that actually being alternative is a poor strategy for change which i remember saying as part of a blah in manchester in 2005.

i'd probably want to nuance that now and say what i have said many times that actually change or newness is most likely to come from having people work at both the centre and the edge. artists, tricksters, prophets and now pirates (?!) - characters i tend to love and warm to - their ruses and plays are inevitably going to dwell on the edges and so they should to do their work and share their gifts in those spaces. but the loyal radicals who work at the centre, in institutional spaces and located in traditions are those who may equally herald the future... for what its worth i try and play in both arenas.

[Mark]

I like half baked ideas, in fact I've heard it said that all the best ideas where at some point half baked! I guess that's why I find Pete and Kester helpful, not because they offer a complete package for me to adopt or not but because they tell stories which leave space for me to reflect, to work through etc., they are half baked stories that give me (someone who is not an academic, who can't necessarily grasp or grapple with the language of the philosophy text book) a place to start. Sometimes these conversations become somewhat polarised, seeming to seek to establish camps (some of the comments above illustrate this too) and hard. The "illustration" of the Somali Pirates is typical - I don't know if you (or others) saw Ross Kemp's programme, but it was clear that it was not a simple question of what colour hats each group wore!

I do agree with your thread Richard, that there is a multi-layered and important relationship between inherited/traditional and the new/edge (and of course their is plenty of romanticism running through it/them all!) indeed many Pirates where state-sponsored! I guess I tend to be with Jonny "in both arenas" or rather I'd say I don't see it as simple or polarised as some. I've been asked several times recently why I am in the Church of England, some even saying outright if I don't like the "way it's done" I should just leave... but I do think there is more complexity to it... to pursue Jonny's "loyal radicals" I wonder if when he talks about "artists, tricksters, prophets and now pirates" he describes the "radical loyalists" people who live and move right on the edge of things but feel passionately about their heritage and story. I guess my plea is that we see this in a more fuzzy/half baked way and talk about it in a more open and inclusive way.

[Mark]

Oh and when you say...

The example of the shift from "pirate radio to BBC" and "Napster to Spotify" betray more than a whiff of the romance of the new, the trendy and the latest

I think you're missing his point... there have been many instances when something which has been dismissed as anarchic or corrupting has shaped and become "mainstream"... one could equally replace "Napster" with the Electric Guitar (think about the reaction by die hard fans to Dylans switch to a strat!)

[Richard Sudworth]

I think I'd still want to make that point, Mark. To keep with the analogy, my point is not another in the line of conservative Luddite attitudes a la "guitars are of the devil", which now seem laughable. Kester's allusion is about something that is cool and hip quickly becoming dull and worthy in the eyes of the trend-setters. ie if you were into Dylan playing electric in 1965 you were at the cutting edge of taste, but if you only discovered folk rock upon hearing The Byrds in 1969 then you're a bit of a sap! It's pushing the analogy a bit, but my point is about the elitism of being the "first" to the new..."which has more than a whiff of..." consumerism and a negative stream in contemporary culture. There is nothing ever wrong with the tools except when they become ends in themselves. It's the "end" of the unconventional (?) that I am uncomfortable with.

[Martin]

Great blog and discussion. Isn't it partly that the christian calling is to be on the edge (in the world but not of it?..) but we've become the centre/establishment? Whether you call it pirate or heretic or rebel, we should always be looking to be on the margin, with the dispossessed, outside of the norm?

[Chris Enstad]

Thanks for this however I think it is worthwhile to let folks like Kester and Pete have their time impacting the church, the Church will stand regardless of any one individual and "for such a time as this" theirs is a refreshing and needed voice in a supposedly reforming tradition.

Would that our faith allowed our institutions to be agile and able to navigate culture rather than rigid and impervious to real life!

[Mike R]

Just a thought - I really like Jonny's comment about it being a mixture of different strategies - and following on from that...

I do think, that it's more important to retain a focus on standing up for the marginalised rather than BEing the marginalised. I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but we can all be outsiders if we want to - I just don't see it as that helpful a strategy. Sorry!

Maybe I'm taking the idea too much in isolation...

[nick coke]

Thanks for this Richard - good debate. For what it's worth, a brief comment.

My experience is that change almost always comes from the margins. Creativity sparks something new on the edge that goes through some kind of process of vilification to resistance before eventually acceptance and becoming the norm. However, the originators rarely get (or want) credit for the original movement. They tend to be just getting on and doing it and creativity has probably taken them on to something else before it's mainstreamed. If I have an issue with all this 'pirate' stuff it's with the idea that we can set out to deliberately change stuff. Just do it and if it's good and right and Godly, it'll spread. But don't expect any credit.

[Jeremy]

Where do you find Pete and Kester denying truth and authority? I find that so many of these critiques function by projecting a ready-made criticism of the postmodern Other onto different thinkers. Do you know where they mention this? This is ultimately a criticism of modernity or liberal theology that I think it is pretty obvious Rollins does not fall into given his clear insistence on the importance of community and his more complicated understanding of truth as 'event' (taken from Badiou).
Also, your use of MacIntyre strikes me as weird because the very thing Rollins is trying to save Christianity from is the death of modernity/metaphysics. If you wanted to read nihilistic, anti-ecclesial theology, you should've checked out secular theology from the likes of Altizer, Taylor, Hamilton. Clearly, this post-metaphysical theology is an attempt to bring back the truths of Christianity in the space that the post-secular has opened up.
Also, can we please stop giving these ridiculous and trite dismissals of modernity as 'bad fruit'. Modernity was not good or bad it just happened. I'm gonna post a link from Halden's blog because I find so many of these criticisms inane: http://tinyurl.com/kwlctd

[Robin]

It's good and healthy to read a considered and thoughtful criticism to Pete and Kester's stuff - thank you. I'm reminded of the Ikon service at Greenbelt this year where the suggestion was that whatever we establish as our idea or form of god will always fall short and needs to be burnt to the ground to let something else grow in its place (at least that was my interpretation). I would say that Pete would be all too aware of his position becoming the very thing he is warning us about. I'd like to think he'd be the first to reach for the matches to light his own pyre.

[Vannesa Curry]

Richard, I have to agree with you, but not entirely, because I believe that the integration of the theme, with the general idea of piracy is not as accurate, especially for modern day pirates.