Neither Skinny Jeans Nor Pleated Pants: A Case for the Basin and Towel
I begin with a confession. I have not read Scot McKnight’s Kingdom Conspiracy. I have followed the summaries and discussions
(esp. David Fitch’s several-part blog posts) but I confess I may miss some
nuance to Scot’s argument.
Thus, I believe this image of church as God’s subversive counter-revolutionary movement can effectively integrate the different readings of “kingdom” McKnight has pointed to and yet also avoid some of the ways Scot attempts to resolve this dilemma.
As I understand it, Scot is arguing that the old divide
between “soul-winning” and “social action” (which I grew up with) has morphed
into a similar divide in the key of “kingdom.” This leads to a situation in
which some wear Skinny Jeans (the social justice crowd) and others wear Pleated
Pants (the redemption crowd). The former
work for God’s kingdom outside the church in the world while the latter equate
kingdom work with personal salvation and growth in the church. McKnight sees
both sartorial choices as inadequate.
The whole debate needs to be reframed.
He’s clearly right.
He asserts that there is “no kingdom outside the church”; therefore,
“all true kingdom mission is church mission” (115). McKnight is trying to marry
the two into one, into what God has made one and we should never have sundered. The church is the place where all this
happens.
I have some concerns about McKnight’s formulation of the
way ahead. But I don’t want to focus on
that. I think there’s another issue that
cuts deeper and more profoundly into what is at stake here. I believe we need a fresh image of
church. McKnight has shown that neither
pleated pants not skinny jeans will do.
Nor will one side exchanging their pants for the other’s do. The fundamental impulses of both are
legitimate but I do not believe they can be fruitfully integrated without a
“extreme makeover” of the church itself.
I do have a proposal for a fresh image of church that I
believe is capable to organically integrate both impulses. I suggest that the character and mandate of
the people of God in whatever form we meet them in the biblical story is a
subversive counter-revolutionary movement.
-subversive because it does
not seek to run the world and impose a way of life on others in a top-down
fashion; rather it lives its way of life in its locality in solidarity with its
neighbors wooing them to join in by the quality of its community and care for
one another;
-counter-revolutionary
because it to seeks to counter the effects of humanity’s revolution against God
on behalf of God’s original intentions and design for human life or the closest
approximation that can be achieved in any situation. In particular, the fallen life inscribed in
the patterns, systems, and institutions fallen humanity has constructed need to
be challenged, critiqued, and changed through persuasion, consensus-building,
and political activity (local preferred) where possible; and
-a movement, marks of which
are a white-hot faith, commitment to a cause, contagious relationships, rapid
mobilization, and adaptive methods.
God initiated this subversive counter-revolutionary
movement with the call of and promise to Abraham and Sarah in Gen.12:1-3. We meet this people in the remainder of the biblical
narrative as
-a
family gathered by God (Gen.12-50)
-a
fugitive people fleeing from Egypt (Ex.1-18)
-a
nation chartered and inhabited by God (Ex.19-40)
-a
wandering nomadic people (Num.11-Deut.)
-a
united, and then divided, monarchy (Josh.-2Kings)
-a
people destroyed and in exile (e.g. Daniel)
-a
people oppressed in their own land (e.g. Ezra-Nehemiah)
-a
people winnowed down to one faithful Israelite (Jesus)
-a
church of Jew and Gentile indwelt by God’s Spirit (Acts-Rev.)
In each and every one of these forms God’s people are
mandated and equipped to be God’s subversive counter-revolutionary movement.
Being subversive and counter-revolutionary, I submit,
organically integrates both the skinny jeans interest and the pleated pants without
losing the centrality of the church or a sense of being part of something
larger than the church – the kingdom of God.
Obviously, I disagree with McKnight at this point. This subversive counter-revolutionary movement
is a prototype of God’s kingdom – a sign that points to it, a sacrament
that embodies what it proclaims, and a servant that gives its life for
the kingdom.
In short, we need to trade in our skinny jeans and
pleated pants for the basin and towel of John 13 and sacrificially serve others
in the community and the world. Jesus
has been installed as world ruler by his resurrection and ascension to the
right hand of God. The people of the
world are his subjects (whether they know it or not), he is ruling over them
even now and working out his loving purposes in and through them, he is present
to the world through his Spirit focally in and among his people but also in the
larger world as the Giver of Life (Nicene Creed) and renewer of creation.
God’s people remain at the center of God’s work and
purposes. McKnight is right on
here. And he is right that the service
to the world Christians offer ought to be rooted and nourished in the
church. We must be willing to say that
we do what we do in the world in Jesus’ name and for his sake. And that we have found the energy and impetus
for such service in the new life Jesus has given us.
As God’s subversive counter-revolutionary movement, the
Spirit-filled people remain foregrounded as the agent of God’s redemptive
purposes. It also serves the world
through meeting needs and encountering others wherever we may find them. The servant’s robe we don as we take up the basin
and towel is looser than the skinny jeans some of us wear and allows us to see
God at work beyond the walls of the church and summoning us to join him
there. He is the king of the world
already, and the people and conditions of the world are his realm now as well
as ultimately. The servant’s robe is
also meaner than the pleated pants others of us wear. We are not too proud to claim the church as
our mother or to abandon it as it seeks, balkingly at times, to serve the world
God dearly loves. Thus, I believe this image of church as God’s subversive counter-revolutionary movement can effectively integrate the different readings of “kingdom” McKnight has pointed to and yet also avoid some of the ways Scot attempts to resolve this dilemma.
Comments
Post a Comment