Burner Culture and the Emerging Church

Great post. I thought your readers might enjoy Jan Lynn’s take on power and Christianity.

I lived in Nevada and have talked with people who attend the Burning Man Festival. To publish anything that even hints that this festival could be or should be attended by a Christian is irresponsible. Going to the Burning Man to be “missional” would be akin to going into a porn shop to hand out tracts. While entering to do good, one would succumb to the evil. May God grant you repentance and a revelation of the responsibility associated with worship of a Holy God.

-Mark

Mark, I think your comment “While entering to do good, one would succumb to the evil” is overly fatalistic. I have friends in ministry who annually attend festivals like Burning Man to show the love of Christ and be a “missional” presence. There are far more stories of redemption that come from these endeavors than there are stories of those who “succumb to the evil.” Why limit God and what he is able to do through his people and by his Holy Spirit to meet people wherever they are at, including festivals like Burning Man?

Mark let me push back a little, though it is true that Christ followers with good intentions often “succumb to the evil” but does some of their successes out way their failures? I know of a particular organization that attend porn shows to just show people Jesus. The question that comes to mind is, if the porn organization just stopped doing what they do, how many peoples lives would not be changed? Biblicaly it is easy to identify this same theme. Paul at Mars Hill preached the Gospel at a pagan Greek temple.

How in heavens name has pornography so immediately become the focus here?

Mark, have you attended Burning Man?

I struggle to understand the logic of not being able to hang around with “sinners” as we might fall into temptation. I find this typical of a church-goers mind-set that expects people to simply arrive in their church longing for salvation. I find this somewhat arrogant and lacking the compassion of Christ. Furthermore, are all Christians this weak!!

I found your post very interesting… I am a presbyterian emergent minister and I recently attended a ‘burn-like’ event in Ohio. Afterwards, I preached on the 10 principles. Here’s the blogform of my sermon… http://maghag.livejournal.com/23118.html

Nic, thanks so much for mentioning my missional exploration of Burning Man in this post. I recently spoke on this topic at a conference on new religions at Trinity International University in the U.S. and it was well received.

I must say I find Mark’s comments above to be very disappointing. In order to understand the festival it requires more than talking to a handful of attendees and rendering negative judgment. And the idea that there are “no go” areas for God, and that somehow the festival and alternative cultural event of Burning Man are so evil as to be off limits for missional Christians seeking to incarnate the gospel is a reminder of the limited thinking of many Christians in the West. It is this type of thinking that is irresponsible, not those of us urging a positive appreciation for and missional engagement with Burning Man culture.

maybe it would be good to start dealing drugs to be able to incarnate the love of Christ to those who are addicted? maybe we should quit the whole church thing all together and open up some abortion clinics and bars to meet people where they are? I don’t know, I’m just trying to continue the conversation. It does sound silly to say that certain places are no go areas for Christians, but then again, if my desire is to be holy because God is holy, how does one reconcile the burning man festival with a desire to pure and holy before God? I certainly would find it hard to believe that the only opportunity to share the incarnate love of Christ with a broken world would be to join the orgy. Isn’t the idea that our lives would be like magnets drawing others in because of the hope that we have?

Dealing drugs, performing abortions, and joining the orgy?

Dan, I HOPE your are being facetious here.

It’s one thing have dualistic thinking where God and “The world” are in consitant opposition, but it’s another to do so cynically, almost bitterly so.

Holiness has everything to do with wholeness. The view you propose is almost totally fractured.

I agree with John Morehead, in saying this type of thinking is what is irreponsible.

I especially like the difference between the negative and positive commands. There is so much more power in a positive command, “Do this…” or “Be this…” So often the church is concerned with what you can’t do, that they never get around to what we should be doing as followers of Christ.

To quote Marcus Borg:

“In one of his most concise sayings, Jesus speaks of compassion not only as the primary quality of God, but also as the primary quality of a life lived in accord with God. In remarkably few words, theology and ethics are combined : “Be compassionate, just as your Father is compassionate” (Luke 6.36). Found in slightly different form in Matthew 5.48 the passage affirms an ethic known at imitation dei, “imitation of God”. The ethical imperative is to live in accord with God’s character. ...This means imitating the God, who “is kind to the grateful and the wicked” (Luke) and “makes the sun rise on the evil and the good and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous” (Matt.)” (abstract from: JESUS: Uncovering the life, teachings, and relevance of a Religious Revolutionary.)

Borg goes on to look at the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke10.29-37). In this parable both the priest and the Levite pass by man beaten by robbers and the Samaritan goes more than the extra mile in taking care of the beaten man.( He bandages his wounds, brings to an inn, takes care of him, leaves money with the innkeeper for continued care.) Jesus asks: “ who was this man’s neighbour?”

It’s obvious!! The person that showed compassion.

The Samaritan was imitating God. Then Jesus said, “Go do likewise” This for me is MIssional.

The New Age claim that “All is One” is an attack on the holiness of The Unchanging One because it seeks to remove the division between the sacred and the profane. Yes, we ARE called to give the good news to the unsaved – even to dine with them as our Liberator did – but we are also warned to not have fellowship with darkness, suggesting that we should be careful with whom we become spiritually vulnerable. To therefore “merely [give] ourselves over to the potential of transformation” is injudicious spiritual advice. We are called to take great care in working out our salvation – to ask for discernment first – to test everything against the Word BEFORE we believe it. Encouraging believers to have an “experience” with patently occultic traditions is therefore reckless and seditious to the Faith.

Please note that Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, whom you quote with approval, claims that “All” is inevitably drawn to The Omega Point in the future (a.k.a his God) – which must delight New Agers as much as the Universalists in emergent ranks – but is also clearly anathema to Scripture which declares eternal separation between good and evil. His development of Vladimir Vernadsky’s concept of the Noosphere also encouraged the articulation of Gaia, a pagan idol of note who is especially popular at Burning Man. What a sad legacy of someone who called himself a Christian.

Danny’s instinct to prefer positive commands is also an ancient one – Adam was happy to enjoy everything in the Garden – but his rebellious spirit was revealed by his reaction to the “Do not” bits. Our Father’s perpetual wisdom is revealed in having commands of both sorts in the Decalogue.

Jacques, please comment on the contents of quote by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. It is easy to target the man. Let’s rather look at the poetics and metaphor shown in this quote and if it’s beneficial, relevant and useful to this posting. “Everything is permissible for me, but not everything is beneficial.” 1 Corinthians 6:12 (NIV)

Jacques
Thank you for your respose; and for avoiding too many spurious references to your favourite sins. But I’m unsure how you know that
1) We/I do not work out our salvation with care.
2) That our experience in the desert was “patently occultic”.

In my mind the division between the sacred and profane finds its roots outside of the Biblical tradition, specifically in the neo-platonism of Augustine, and other dualisms such as those from Persia. These have combined since then with puritanical hatred of pleasure and a fragile modernistic view of truth to give us Christendom which so pervades our thinking so as to blind us in many ways to the fullness of the Kingdom of God.

Col 1 states “For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.”

Here, I read hope that God is able to ultimately overcome all evil, and to reconcile all things to Himself. This fact encourages me to, like God, “Love the World”. Teilhard does I admit border on pantheism, where God is identified with his creation, but if you read the depth of his devotion to Christ in the “Mass on the World”, this philosophical trait does not seem to be that significant. If we have to throw him out based on the a splinter of philosophical creativity, then our faith is on very fragile ground indeed, with the very real danger of a log looming large in our own eye.

Modern Christianty’s rejection of imminance pushes transcendance, and inevitably dualism, to the fore. A satisfying, and biblical balance is to be found in a panENtheistic approach: God IN all, All IN God, rather than God IS All, All IS God, which is pantheism.

I heed warnings about sin and disobediance from those I respect. But to be honest, until various reponses on this post brought it up, I was simply enjoying God, in thankfulness and worship, and all this “dark matter” was a non-issue. Fool that I am.

I was interested in a line I read in a post from above:
“how does one reconcile the burning man festival with a desire to pure and holy before God?”
And may I answer as one who attended both AfrikaBurn festivals: seeing how so many people were able to put aside ego, prejudices, greed, anger, and selfishness to concentrate on generosity, openness, and caring for strangers, made me feel closer than I ever have in my life to the presence of God within us. And no, I’m not talking about in the drugged-up hours of the night (although I have my fair share of experience here too, self-confessed hedonist that I am). I’m talking about the quiet, hot, dry times of the day when we merely chatted with neighbours and shared the experience of time spent in a spectacular and harsh environment. And if this is the strongest impression that I emerged from AfrikaBurn with, I think I certainly found my way closer to God.

Hi Andrew

Scripture tells us to judge a tree by its fruit, so it is wise to take the consequences of an idea into account when we evaluate it. (e.g. “My! What a pretty atom bomb!”) The sequelae of Teilhard’s ideas are regrettably rather dismal.

As for the very post-modernist request that I should look at the words alone – without regard for its source – let me have a bash! I will of course be running the usual risks associated with analyzing a text without its context, so anyone who reads my attempt should approach it with as much caution as I approach Teilhard!

Here’s the text for ease of reference: “I have neither bread, nor wine, nor altar … I, your priest, will make the whole earth my altar and on it will offer you all the labours and sufferings of the world.” —Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Mass on the World

My concerns? These words would have flowed comfortably from the lips of Satan himself – that ancient Counterfeiter – as he tempted our Christ in the desert with something that was not his to give. It is astonishing that in this brief extract Teilhard manages to substitute three sacred things with occult equivalents: The Priesthood of Christ becomes his own; the Kingship of Christ over the world is also fair game; and the worst for last: the Blood and Body of Christ are swept aside for the relatively banal sacrifice of human works and suffering (see Cain and Abel). I experience this text as an outrageous attempt to usurp Christ’s position in His Church. (SFx: cathartic wave of crashing cymbals!)

Do I understand what compelled Nic to gift these words to us in good faith? I think so… I can relate to the generosity of spirit – the attempt to include/reach/extend – to make a difference – to bless… But Saul’s bellowing bullocks taught us that obedience is sweeter than sacrifice. Any attempt to “accelerate” the Father’s work is vain-glorious. It is not by might nor by power (bad news for the Word-Faith/Kingdom Now/Dominion guys). How Satan uses our best motives against us! So I thank Nic for the intent, but I decline the gift.

So – to answer your question – I do not think that the quote is beneficial prima facie. But there is of course the second layer of meaning: having had to think about all this stuff was a different kind of gift – and for that I thank you unconditionally.

Hi Andrew

Scripture tells us to judge a tree by its fruit, so it is wise to take the consequences of an idea into account when we evaluate it. (e.g. “My! What a pretty atom bomb!”) The sequelae of Teilhard’s ideas are regrettably rather dismal.

As for the very post-modernist request that I should look at the words alone – without regard for its source – let me have a bash! I will of course be running the usual risks associated with analyzing a text without its context, so anyone who reads my attempt should approach it with as much caution as I approach Teilhard!

Here’s the text for ease of reference: “I have neither bread, nor wine, nor altar … I, your priest, will make the whole earth my altar and on it will offer you all the labours and sufferings of the world.” —Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Mass on the World

My concerns? These words would have flowed comfortably from the lips of Satan himself – that ancient Counterfeiter – as he tempted our Christ in the desert with something that was not his to give. It is astonishing that in this brief extract Teilhard manages to substitute three sacred things with occult equivalents: The Priesthood of Christ becomes his own; the Kingship of Christ over the world is also fair game; and the worst for last: the Blood and Body of Christ are swept aside for the relatively banal sacrifice of human works and suffering (see Cain and Abel). I experience this text as an outrageous attempt to usurp Christ’s position in His Church. (SFx: cathartic wave of crashing cymbals!)

Do I understand what compelled Nic to gift these words to us in good faith? I think so… I can relate to the generosity of spirit – the attempt to include/reach/extend – to make a difference – to bless… But Saul’s bellowing bullocks taught us that obedience is sweeter than sacrifice. Any attempt to “accelerate” the Father’s work is vain-glorious. It is not by might nor by power (bad news for the Word-Faith/Kingdom Now/Dominion guys). How Satan uses our best motives against us! So I thank Nic for the intent, but I decline the gift.

So – to answer your question – I do not think that the quote is beneficial prima facie. But there is of course the second layer of meaning: having had to think about all this stuff was a different kind of gift – and for that I thank you unconditionally.

OK Jacques that is generous, thank you. Thanks for expanding on your response to de Chardin.

As I read it, Teilhard was a priest, firstly as a believer and secondly a Catholic. He had an all consuming, mystical vision of God for which he paid with his entire career. He was as you might know, ultimately obedient to his order who forbade him to publish while alive.

He was also a paleontologist, with a deep love for his subject matter – the Earth. On a dig in a faraway place, he deeply wanted to serve the sacraments as was his role, and found none. So out of his lack, he composed the “Mass on the World”.

Having no wine he perceived the labour and suffering of all things as an offering. This is eminently Christlike to my understanding.

How you see all this as satanic, as an attack, as occultic, a sad legacy, so much suspicion, is waay beyond me.

But let me ask you if you don’t mind and so I can get some handle on why we differ so, what are your main influences; who do you most admire, and what tradition (if any) do you subscribe to?

Hi Nic

This is fun! (Sorry about the previous double post – browser was hanging…)

Your two questions first:

Q1) How you know that we/I do not work out our salvation with care.?

A1) I hope to never be in the position to judge all of your conduct  And seriously – I don’t doubt your passionate pursuit of truth. I was however contrasting what Scripture says (Guard the integrity of your spirit by avoiding even THINKING of evil things) with what you say (We […] merely gave ourselves over to the potential of transformation). “Merely” ? With strangers? Who were most likely not believers? Eish… Maybe something you can take a personal risk on, but not to be recommended lightly to other believers.

Q2) How do you know that our experience in the desert was “patently occultic”.

A2) I was not commenting on the experience which you may have had – it seems as if you were able to winkle out a positive experience in spite of the dangers. But I did say that “encouraging believers to have an “experience” with patently occultic traditions is […] reckless and seditious to the Faith.” I also go on recce’s that I think I am up to – but I am careful about what I recommend to others.

As for dualism being of relatively recent origins: A rather more ancient script than that of the Persians or the Greeks says: This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him.” (Deut.30:19-20)”

As for the Father’s desire to reconcile all to Himself – that merciful desire is clear – but He is also bound by the other parts of His character – such as justice. So His desire for redemption for all must be considered in tension with what our Liberator says in Luke 13:27: ‘I don’t know where you come from. Get away from me, all you evildoers!’

As for Teilhard’s “depth of devotion to Christ”- A man’s level of devotion, no matter how passionate, matters little in a theological debate if it is based on a spurious premise. The Father judges the heart of men so I am sure He will show mercy as appropriate, but I do not accept vehemence as academic currency. As for the splinter/log thingy – the moral of the tale is to not criticise thoughtlessly. As sentient beings we ARE called to debate, judge and discern – the very stuff of free will – although we should wisely leave the condemnation bits to the Father. I do not think that a fundamental issue such as Pantheism is a splinter. It is a forest that dwarfs my log – and I can’t let Teilhard slide on that point – it’s just too important.

And speaking of immanence – thanks for picking up on the most important point that I wanted to make as I believe it is the issue at the heart of all New Age misdirection. I appreciate the distinction that you make between Panentheism and Pantheism, but I regret to say that I disagree with both concepts. We agree on the shortcomings of Pantheism, so I will leave it there, but Panentheism’s flaw is revealed when we consider the indwelling of the Spirit – a privilege due to believers only – in my opinion. The Spirit can of course engage with the unbeliever – in conversation – as a means of redemption, but indwelling is reserved for the submitted. God with us all? Yes! God in all of us? No.

A second reservation stems from the one pillar of Panentheism that claims that all of the Universe is in God. This is not acceptable to me as it implies that all the evil of the world is also IN God – which attacks the perfection of God – yin-yang territory!!! Maybe a pedantic/semantic point: but Jesus took all the sins of the world UPON himself – not INTO himself.

As for your enjoyment of God – sans dark matter – how I too long for those innocent, thought-free moments. My journey has been blessed with a few ephemeral moments but I have realized that any attempt to orchestrate more of them leads to error – like manna kept for the next day – not a good idea. Attempts at engineering spiritual ecstasy lead to counterfeit versions found in phenomena such as the Toronto “Blessing, Eastern meditation, trance states, drugs and even worship music which can be abused to induce trance-like and suggestive states – all things which are inconsistent with the call to have a sound mind.

Thanks for engaging with me – I hope to earn some of that respect… Ok Ok – I know it’s not easy to deal with me!

Hi Nic

Picking up on Teilhard’s Mass…

I too respond to the sentiment of the story. It sounds so good – it is so tempting to just accept it – but two serious theological errors occurred. Eek.

The pagan roots of Teilhard’s Catholic dogma failed him in holding that the Mass requires recurrent sacrifice. “It is complete” is a big hint that “the gods” do not have to be appeased continually anymore.

His second error – also based in pagan tradition – was to think that he had anything worthy of offering to the Almighty. If one HAD to offer something/one on that altar then Christ is the only one who deserves the place – not even our highest work or deepest suffering is worthy. The only things from us that reach the throne room are our prayers ( the bowls of incense image has always moved me deeply!).

So Teilhard’s all too human and familiar error lay in “trying too hard”. Our job is to accept what was done for us – to respond with obedience – not further sacrifice which questions the sufficiency of Christ’s work.

Thanks for asking about my walk – answers will have to wait till tomorrow – I am poured out now.

With love

From “Stick in the mud”

If I’m not mistaken, Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch analyze the Burning Man with similar thoughts in their book “The Shaping of Things to Come: Innovation and Mission for the 21st Century Church”.

Finn

Thanks for your story. I agree that the sanctity of the general community of Burners is to be celebrated.

It’s also good that your hedonisim is “out there” rather than hidden. I am sure that mingled together with any excesses is the generous presence of Homo Festivus, Worshipping Man, who is not afraid of pleasure, and who can put it in it’s right context, like David the Psalmist.

Where are you based? I’d love to continue this discussion.

Gustavo
Thank you – I have ordered the book.

hi all.

thanks Nic for your post and for the rest of you, without whom there would be no conversation. when i first read Jacques’ earlier comments, my first thought was, “what’s this guy doing on emergent village?”

i recant.

mainly because i think the dialectic – if that’s what it is – could easily become an “us vs them” scenario. in some quarters of the church, it already has.

maybe the views extolled by Nic & Jacques are ultimately irreconcilable. either way, i sense an encouraging level of goodwill, particularly in the latter exchanges.

go well.

Russ….

Jacques
I await the rest of your story; I really would like to know about the context of your faith.

I percieve that you have some connection with South Africa, is that true? You have remarkable resemblances to a certain blogger I have sparred with recently…

I recognise the shape of your thought, and know that I once hosted it. My move away from it was gradual, brought about by deep dissatifaction. I do not reject you, I value you, but I do not relate to aspects of your worldview. So I do not speak with any malice, just honestly:

You seem rooted in sin-consciousness. Your view of innate sinfullness is pervasive, resulting in an almost superstitious rejection of simple goodness, and ringfencing all goodness into a bounded set you define as “christian”. I have come to believe in Gods often hidden involvement with and influence on this fallen world. So I reject the “fall-redemption” narrative (500 CE – present) in favour of the more ancient “Creation Spirituality” tradition. (2000 BCE – present)

Dualism is a complex subject, and must incorporate many dimensions including both what texts or mindsets predate what, as well as the evolution of thought whereby new (and improved) though supeceeds it. It is not sufficient to merely say – it’s newer therfore better, or it’s older therefore better. The claim to authenticity (origins) must be held in tension with the claim of revelation (progressive and evolutionary). A “right” reading of scripture is complex and poetic – an art rather than a science.

I appreciate the tensions between justice and reconciliation. I believe that all will stand before the ultimate Throne of Judgement, I also believe that we are “judged daily”, I also believe that we can resist that judgement, for it is painful, and I also believe that mercy will be shown to all who allow themselves to be purged.

But ultimately, that God will redeem everything, the entire cosmos, and defeat and purge it from all evil. Hence if my hope and my eschatology involve Eventual Oneness, I also have a hope that redemption involves overcoming dualism, in the here and now. Us/Them, Christians/Non-Christians, Flesh/Spirit, Now/Sweet By and By, Sacred/Profane – all this is affected by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit Who calls us to Oneness. The implications of this for mission,for example being missional within Burner Culture, are profound.

You noted earlier how this view was “anathema to Scripture which declares eternal separation between good and evil”. This claim is by no means as clear as you propose, firstly the word “eternal” has been largely mistranslated, originally in the KJV, and also because this the “separation” we suppose to be the “Hell” alluded to in Jesus’ own words (Sheep/Goats, Wheat/Tares, Lazarus) is DEEPLY, DEEPLY misunderstood.

Jacques, you may not see it this way, but your faith is rooted in the assumptions of Modernism, eg. How “devotion, no matter how passionate, matters little in a theological debate if it is based on a spurious premise”. This may have been how Plato or his disciple-in-rhetoric Augustine would have it, but I do not think this is how Jesus would say it. His emphaisis was always on the heart, while yours seems to be on the head.

Your idea of what constitites a “sound mind” is concerning. While I agree that some of the excesses you list are counter productive, and may lead to misery and even death, for me a sound mind is one not divided by dualism, but infused with a all pervading sense of Holiness (wholeness) and a consciousness of boundless Grace.

Have you read “The Mass on the World” (http://www.teilhard.org/panier/1_fichiers/t13;139-156The.Mass.on.the.World.pdf), or are you objections to de Chardin based on your own perjorative, “anti-new age” assumptions? I do not see why you dismiss this almost unrivalled classic of christian mysticism and devotion so vehemently. If I could achieve a small portion of his faith I would be a very very blessed person.

Also, I got it wrong – he unequivocally rejects undiluted monism (pantheism).

For me, Teilhard de Chardin is a Christian prophet to the New Age, and an Archetypal Universal Burner.

Wow what a conversation i think fortunately its out of my depth and prehaps this is a real blessing. what i know is i went to Afrika burns and did not drink or take any drugs or get involved in the parties i made bread i drank lots of water and
felt quite purified by the experience. the protection of god was with those who believed and the darkenss did not invade my inner world. when the man was burnt i felt prompted not to go closer so i didnt. i had a wonderful time with beautiful people and on sunday when we had the “liturgy” God’s mercy and compassion was tangible. i am not a intellectually educated man but i know the best way we get encouraged into new levels of faith is though our encounters and experiences we have with the divine. i left africa burn knowing this is god world and he will show up where he pleases and to whom he pleases
thank you jesus for showing me your way in the desert you are god (light) and can move in the darkest places if you choose.

Jeremy; I am very encouraged by your testimony.

More than I do, you know a bit about the darker areas of Trance/Rave Culture, so for you to have felt what you felt was really redemptive.

And I am so happy to have been part of your vision to be involved in a sentient way with the Bread of Life.

nic, jacques, and others who have added to this discussion, i wish to thank you for a very thought-provoking discussion.

i’ve gathered a long list of things to dig deeper into. i find i must be heavily influenced by Chardin even though i’ve not read his works (but now intend to).

i have wanted to attend burning man since reading about it in the book “Pronoia” by Rob Brezney (great positive-thought book, not christian, but not anti-christian; one chapter is about burning man). the thing that i found most appealing about the festival description was the depth and bredth of the experience of community. i feel capable of participating in community with non-christians without endangering my faith.

i think wisdom can be found in non-christian contexts. i think it’s silly to reject wisdom if it originates with a non-christian. so long as the person/people/event is not anti-christian, i don’t see a problem. obviously, i don’t equate non-christian with anti-christian.

one of the pleasant differences between “modern” christian thinking and “post-modern” christian thinking is the post-modern ability to not see difference as inherently threatening.

nic, your Oct 29, 09:12 PM post … gosh … it’s perspectives like yours that have allowed me to re-embrace christianity these last few years after a long spell of rejection. thanks for reminding me that i’m not alone.

I dunno. St Francis was quite an open geezer and he wasn’t post-modern. Jesus feasted with the so-called dregs of society and He wasn’t pomo. Maybe more post-med. I don’t see the ability to embrace diversity as a post-modern enclave. It sits at the heart of the gospel.

Russ.

PS, this isn’t the optimal post to say this but given the last coupla comments were on “modern” v “Pomo”:

no human being “is” modern or post-modern. post-modernity is an intellectual construct. i’m as guilty as anyone else of falling into this sort of map-territory confusion.

hi liquidlight,

yup, mod/pomod is a way of thinking about things, hence my original statements about mod christian Thinking vs. pomod christian Thinking.

and yes, there are folks from every era who embrace diversity, it’s not restricted to pomods, i just see it as more prevalent among pomods.

footnote: your two examples (st. francis and jesus) are not from the era of “modern” thought; e.g. not the best examples when discussing mod vs. pomod, though the core of your point still stands and i agree (sorta) ... :)

hi Vanessa.

what i didn’t articulate clearly is that liberty, inclusiveness etc, are timeless in nature – Christ being the obvious example. a sign of the Spirit, not pomo.

many of the warmest & most embracing christians i know would be classed as “modern” my pomos. in certain emergent circles, “modernism” is the new taboo. i have strong modernist leanings and yet a part of me – going back to ‘82 – would be classed as emergent in character.

i am pleased that there are people across the globe who are finding their faith reignited by the conversation. i read McLaren’s The Last Word and wept in places.

i loved it.

however, i feel “emergent” was an unfortunate choice of word. it suggests a non-emergent sector of the church. maybe it will date & get replaced with something more inclusive.

apologies, i know i’m being a bit bitchy.

God bless.

Russ
a very modern pomo

Nic, Andy, Vanessa, Jacques & Co – apologies! Great threads can so easily be taken off course and in this case i’m guilty. so to help get the focus back on Nic’s post:

how deep should our inclusivity and openness to other spiritual traditions – in this case, neo-pagan and related streams – lead us into those traditions?

Jacques seems to feel that Nic, Andy & other Burning attendees are going too far. does scripture provide guidance or delineation here and if so, what?

Liquidlight aka too many names to mention:
Thats sooo modern: the idea that a conversation can be taken “off course”.

As Alice Cooper says to Wayne & Garth in the post mod classic Waynes World “Get up; you ARE worthy!”

And I add, there room enough for a little bitchness, as long as you own it.

I love the term emergent, as I loved the term “charismatic” in 1980. So check again in 2034 (unless the emergentvillage mandate finally expires by then), and maybe I’ll be a little less enthused.

Keep Cur!ous.

Vanessa – so privelaged to be able to stimulate something which calls, reopens, nourishes.

PostModern as a liminal space is not here to stay, but right now serves as a timely icon of hope, an opportunity for rediscovery of that which has been paved over by progress and civilisation – forgotton paths of blessing.

I look forward to your part in the revolution!

Amen to that! ignore my grumpy dinosaur ramblings Vanessa.

Go well,

Russ.

In answer to the question posed by liquidlight/Russ: “How deep should our inclusivity and openness to other spiritual traditions lead us into those traditions?”

In the early days of my rebirth I rebelled radically against the cultural baggage of my conservative reformed religion – now gratefully left behind. I vigorously explored the alternatives, trying to construct a personal code. I then realized that I was spending more time on defining what is good for me than on getting on with the business of loving others through the transmission of the “Good Spell” which is that we have been set free from the Law by the Blood so that we can again love others in truth.

One expression of my attempt to love truly is the desire that fellow-travelers should not waste time on self-worship – or on that which denies the character of Christ – or on that which adulterates His Bride.

Satan attacks the Kingdom on the three key issues above. His elevator pitches are: 1) Find the God within (you’ll discover it’s you); 2) Jesus was nice but he ain’t God (see Point 1); 3) All is One (so why waste time on trying to separate the sacred and the profane?)

My concern with syncretistism is based on Point 3. When unqualified fellowship with the profane occurs, spiritual adulteration of the Bride becomes likely. One should of course learn about the culture of unbelievers so that one shall be wise in evangelizing them – as Paul did on Mars Hill – but allowing one’s spirit to commingle with that of the unbeliever in the vulnerability of open fellowship (rather than the recommended rational conversation) is dangerous. We were tasked to go and tell the Gospel – not to allow it to be changed by the audience.

With reference to Point 2: Once one has done that in the presence of an unbeliever which denies the character of Christ one is silenced, because one has abandoned the required spiritual authority – the moral high ground – if you will.

How can one speak of spiritual probity if one has just emerged from a state of spiritual delirium induced by music and motion? (BTW David’s dancing broke the law and brought unbearable heartache on his wife).

How can one speak of discernment if one has just allowed oneself to enjoy an unguarded moment of unity with an untested soul? For the sake of space I will not mention the many other risks in this area. Let’s chat about that later if you wish.

The degree of care required when encountering unbelievers leaps from these Scriptures: (references borrowed for the sake of speed from http://www.bible-knowledge.com/wise-as-serpents.html).

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of the light … And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by THEM [my caps] in secret. (Ephesians 5:8)

Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial [the yokeless one!!!]? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of God. (2 Corinthians 6:14)

The righteous should choose his friends carefully, for the way of the wicked leads them astray. (Proverbs 12:26)

Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. (Matthew 10:16)

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. (1 Peter 5:8)

Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not be partakers with them. (Ephesians 5:6)

There shall not be found among you anyone who makes His son or daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures up spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you. You shall be blameless before the Lord your God.” (Deuteronomy 18:10-13)

Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. (Hebrews 13:9)

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine [regarding the person or office of the Lord Jesus], do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. (2 John 1:10)

Even within the church we are cautioned as to fellowship:

Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. (Romans 16:17)

My bottom line is this: Engage with all as a bearer of the Gospel, but be careful by whom you are prepared to be changed in the course of spiritual communion.

The objection that post-modernists may have with this approach is revealed when the post modernist’s preferred way of learning (immersive experience) is compared with the more conservative arm’s length approach of the rationalist (hypothesis, objective experiment – to whatever extent that is possible in a quantum world – and measurement).

I am loving this conversation. Thanks for engaging.

For those who may be stumbling over me or my clumsy expression, please find a more articulate version of my POV at:

http://www.gty.org/Resources/Transcripts/47-46

During my stay in Japan I came across the Non-Church Movement established in the early 1900s – with remarkable similarities to the Emergent Church. Read the POV of a missionary in the midst of that at:

http://www.emergingchurch.info/stories/japan/index.htm

I confess: In realtime conversations it is of course necessary but notoriously difficult to heed this command:

Colossians 4:5-6 (NIV)

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.

Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.

Another straggler thought…

Much thought has been given to contextualizing the Gospel – it is of course wise to be Roman to the Romans – but is a culture-free gospel possible? Many believe it’s not, but I am still trying to get at it.

At the complex missional interface of Biblical Culture, Target Culture and Personal Culture it would be useful to know what is not negotiable – what is the message that is being contextualized?

What message would you take into Burning Man and not budge on?

Anybody out there who would like to give it a bash? Please mail me at theverybfg@gmail.com if it doesn’t fit in here.

Hi Jaques.

I am glad you are persisting with this conversation. Your views and opinions are representative of a sector who, despite not allowing me the space I would enjoy, still represent earnest, well meaning and thoughtful brothers/sisters in God. In fact the differences between us are microcosmically representative of those throughout the church.

I’ve had a quick study of the proof texts you presented for the case that Christians should be “coming out from amongst unbelievers”. I can’t disagree with any desire to be Holy before God, that is my goal too. The warnings not to be part of the worlds system, but to realign our deepest motivations with the Kingdom of God should be heeded.

But for a fuller picture of Gods activities in creation, there is a time to separate and a time to unite. None of these scriptures persuade me that I should not take part in events such as Burning Man, or not consider myself culturally a passionate Burner. You seem to be suspicious of my motives because you cannot imagine a space where one can be both postmodern/primal/anarchic/artistic etc AND a wholehearted follower of Christ at the same time.

I see you have been inspired by sermons on the “Grace To You website”. John McArthur is well known as a strident anti-Emergent. On his site his banner message reads “Unleashing Gods Truth One verse at a time”, and is a well meaning attempt at an immersive, indepth view of scripture, but it falls right into Moderisms analytical approach – breaking apart into (apparent) atomic units, at the risk of missing the unity of the whole.

Not only that, but I find his view not laudably righteous, but deeply biggoted and politically partisan. I quote from him in your article:

People ask me this all the time, “I’m in a liberal church, what should I do?” Answer…leave immediately. People sometimes say to me, “I’ve come to know Christ, I’m in the Catholic Church, what should I do?” Leave immediately. The indication of this text couldn’t be more clear. “Do not be bound together with unbelievers.”

I’d be very very wary of taking on this type of thinking without being aware of the worldview it represents and the attitudes it hides. In fact, I’m almost tempted to say, “Come out from amongst them!”

See my critique of him and others like him in their uninformed attack on the EC in SA magazine “Joy” – http://www.emergingafrica.info/blog/2008/08/06/joy-magazine-ec.

In our excursions into culture, we meet and grow in friendship with postmoderns and new agers. These friendships are opportunities to reveal Love, to challenge and to be challenged. In McArthurs reasons not to be “bound together with unbelievers” (not that I see these friendships as being that, but he no doubt would), he lists that it is irrational, sacrilegious, disobedient, and unprofitable.

If such priggish assertions were my only conection with the family of God, I’d cut myself loose right now. Fortunately there are many voices that encourage me to believe in a generous God of Grace.

Jacques, why are you trying to find a “culture free” gospel? The Incarnation shows us that Gods very revelation takes place in the concrete context of culture. Maybe your desire to be culture free will only create a vaccum in which something you have no control over will manifest, such as a rightwing gospel. I would not wish that upon you.

You ask an excellant question – What message would you take into Burning Man and not budge on? I will answer it, but give a few others some space first ….

Jacques, I think it’s best you stay away from Burning gatherings, and continue warning others about the dangers.

Nic, super post. I think you and others here should continue to be a light to the selfish-hedonistic elements at burning events.

For some, burning events would be terribly disruptive to faith. To others, they are a prime opportunity to be subversively salty.

Religion, like all things, follows a bell-curve distribution. Burning gatherings attract the fringes of the bell-curve, the artists, the outcasts. The vast majority of Christendom – the big center of the bell curve – simply cannot fathom how anyone could be attracted to such a strange event.

And that’s just how it is.

To the Jesus types on the fringes, the religious outcasts, those who see far more gray than black or white, who have more questions than answers, who are more enlivened by the awe and mystery of the cross than an exegesis of it… it will never be easy. The Jacques’ of the world will never quite get what God has created you to be. Perhaps this is a healthy tension.

Would love to chime in on dualism and de Chardin, but another time.

Again, great post, and kudos to the Emergent™ guys for shaking things up a bit – good luck and all best wishes to Tony as he steps out into new adventures.

So much territory has been covered in these comments it is difficult to hold all the strings in hand, but here is my attempt at addressing some loose ends by way of a Q&A.

Nic: There is a time to separate and a time to unite.
Jacques: I agree with a missional call to unbelievers to unite under the Cross with other believers. But that call has always co-existed with these divisive texts – so the texts cannot possibly have been abrogated by time as is implicit in your suggestion. The other possible reading of your statement is that we should capitulate to syncretism. That is then merely a restatement of the New Age heresy of “All is One”.

Nic: None of these scriptures persuade me that I should not take part in events such as Burning Man, or not consider myself culturally a passionate Burner.
Jacques: The question that I have been trying to answer is not whether one should attend such an event, but rather what kind of inter-personal fellowship would be permissible for a believer at such events. I too would confidently attend such an event – hopefully with a missional intent. I too would participate, but with care to avoid spiritual vulnerability to an unbeliever’s spirit. To identify myself unconditionally with a pagan brand would however be a bridge too far for me.

Nic: You cannot imagine a space where one can be both postmodern/primal/anarchic/artistic etc AND a wholehearted follower of Christ at the same time.
Jacques: I don’t have a problem with postmodern (if that means an attempt to strip away the dust and clouded varnish from an Old Master) or with creative or even with anarchic (if that means allowing the natural order of a thing to re-emerge) but, you are right, I cannot imagine the primal, unyoked, unsanctified “me’ in the same space as God – unless I were covered by the blood of Christ. The error lies in endorsing uncovered unbelievers in their state of hubris. Think Babel. Oh the sweetness of human agreement. The flush of power. The end.

Nic: I’m almost tempted to say, “Come out from amongst them!”
Jacques: I have. I merely quoted an article that was clearly written for convenience sake. Didn’t even know it was MacArthur at the time. I suppose I made the equivalent of a Teilhard error! I will have a look at the Joy polemic.

Nic: These friendships [with postmoderns and New Agers] are opportunities to reveal Love, to challenge and to be challenged.
Jacques: I suppose the nub of the argument is about when such friendships become “bonds”. Ref my “vulnerability”comments.

Nic: Fortunately there are many voices that encourage me to believe in a generous God of Grace.
Jacques: I also believe in our graceful God. But the granting of grace only has meaning if the withholding of it would be missed. And the granting of this grace is not unconditional. It hinges on the acceptance of Jesus. And Scripture is clear on how we should behave towards those who are in unconfronted error (evangelism) – and towards those who have rejected Him consciously (knock the dust from your sandals on your way out). Hanging about with unrepentant spiritual rebels is not on the menu and steals time from the many who have not yet been told.

Nic: Why are you trying to find a “culture free” gospel?
Jacques: Culture is negotiable. Truth is not. Maybe if we can see the naked Gospel we would be able to tell if we have the same one.

i think that Jacques question is a central one to this thread: “What message would you take into Burning Man and not budge on?”

having spent a fair amount of time exploring the mystery schools, gnosticism & kabbalah, there are certain elements within those teachings which i see as irreconcilable with & antithethical to biblical teaching. so i would not attend a ritual in honour of the goddess diana or to the masonic grand architect of the universe for example.

ie. while i feel i can enjoy friendship & communion with a mystery school adherent of whatever pagan tradition, i could not partake of their rituals.

i’d be interested to hear where our burner brethren draw the line.

Russ…

Russ asks, “what message would you bring to Burning Man and not budge on?”

I would suggest that following Christ isn’t about eloquent words or religious logic. It isn’t about creating a script or winning arguments. Words and outward dynamics are but a reflection of an inward reality.

The better question of those attending a burning event might be – are you saturated by the Spirit? Does your lifestyle (who you are in relation to culture) exhibit sensitivity to global social dynamics that may not reflect that Spirit?

If so, your deeds will echo Spirit wherever you go, with whomever you meet. You will plant seeds of Spirit with every encounter you make. Your art will be permeated with Christ, your words saturated with the heart of Jesus.

This idea that we can “script Spirit” pervades and defines religion. Consider an Ozzy concert – we react from the evil makeup and grotesque stage props – it’s part of the show. But in the end, that’s all it is – a staged theatrical event by actors making a living at their craft.

Perhaps most religious “services” (pagan, Christian, whatever) are not much different – stage-focused shows managed by well-meaning showmen for the benefit of an audience. Such events can (and do) evoke temporary feelings and emotions. Sometimes, theatrics can even hold great power over people. But such stagecraft, with scripted lines and polished delivery, is not the power of the Spirit we seek to follow.

The “powers” we should be concerned about in this world are not the staged events, but rather global dynamics that have lulled us into mutual assumptions on economics, commerce, ecology, religion, resource management, the nature of money and wealth, community, and all the other workings of culture which form the deepest realities of shared human experience.

Hi John,

I could not agree more with your last paragraph. I feel that some very rich people carefully maintain a system that deludes the hamsters (like me!) into running like mad on the wheel to nowhere. Critical thinking that reveals imprisoning “frames”is our only weapon against this satan-inspired distraction from the real reality. Hello Matrix!

I agree with you that our love-filled behaviour is an underused and important way of showing the world that we are different, but Scripture shows that words are also very important to explain that difference to the observers.

The gift of tongues was given so that foreigners could hear the gospel. We are told to go and tell all nations. We are taught to have a ready defense for our faith and to be graceful in our delivery of it, which suggests rational debate. And maybe something that should re-assure me: Christ in Luke 12 says that we should not worry about what we should say before rulers and authorities – the Spirit apparently considers words important enough to provide them Himself. A PURELY experiential transmission of the gospel is therefore not scriptural or, IMO, practicable.

Even in a gospel via example it would eventually become necessary to explain why one is different – and I would be interested to hear what you would say at that moment.

I also agree with you about the obfuscating use of stagecraft. Ritual is useful as a way of remembering a lot in a little time – an efficient shorthand amongst fellow worshipers – but the difficulties arise when the worshippers forget the encoded message and start worshiping the medium, like the Eucharist – which intent was not repeated sacrifice, but remembrance of that sacrifice and the fellowship that was enabled by it at the very table at which it is remembered.

If you have the time, please listen to the interview below (50min+) and let me know what you think of Larry Harvey’s description (somewhere in there) of the deliberate use of stagecraft at Burning Man to create a numinous effect. Let me confess up front that I think it would be difficult to resist idolatrous impulses within a space that is engineered with such care to achieve just that. Ouch. Audiostream at http://tinyurl.com/larryattheforum

To answer the question: “what message would you bring to Burning Man and not budge on?”
For me, it’s simple:

Godde is the creator, love, compassionate, holy and just. You can experience Godde in your life.

To add to my answer on “what message would you bring to Burning Man and not budge on?”
I would like to answer the question with another question: “Do I need to go to Burning Man with a message?”

John L, Jaques, RuZl and Andrew
I love you guys, because you give each other the dignity of engagement, whether or not we agree.

I’m glad for your furthering this thread. I’m now summarising comments 43 onwards into a few thoughts.

Jaques, you suggest that I am in danger of “capitulating to synchretism”. But the way I see it Christianity is one of the most synchretic sytems of belief in history. At its source, the Book of Genesis borrows heavily on myths from Babylonian sources, and is acknowledged to be pretty much mixed and manhandled over the ages. The gradual revelation of YHWH includes constant interactions, many rejections but also many unspoken inclusions.

New Testament influences include Greek and Persian streams. Augustine despite being seen as the chief architect of Orthodoxy, was unashamedly Neo-Platonic. Much of his thought therefore was in direct contrast to the Hebraic tradition. Many of our ills (IMO) can be traced to him. It was he, who introduced the idea of “conditional grace”, grace as not more than a (platonic) necessary opposite to punishment – See City 0f God Books XX and XXI. Pauls and of course Jesus’s POV is far more inclusive.

In conversations such as this one we seem well versed in Idolatory, but poorly in “Iconatory”.
If you like I have explored some thoughts regarding Idols and Icons, on http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/idol-icon/

Russ, you raise the challenge of being present during Non-Christian Ritual. I have wanted to experience various ritualistic spaces with an open mind and heart. In addition to the Burn, I have visited a Mosque, A Pagan Beltane Maypole celebration and a Microsoft Product Launch in the last year, with an aware, prayerful attitude. (For details see http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/designing-the-sacred/)

These were all risks I took in faith (especially with the demonic Vista OS just waiting to install itself on my hard drive), but I learned a lot, and felt strengthened as a result. If I had felt the Spirit prompt me at any time I would have walked away. I usually express a proviso in my invitations to things like Afrika Burn, that people need to partake according to their faith.

John, thank you for your support. I love your term “Saturation with Spirit”, for I guess it applies in my case. The Burn, as you will see in above comments, was a real blessing for many, precisely because G-d was so very present throughout.

Andrew, I have also wanted to ask this, so thanks. Phrases like “love-filled behaviour is … underused” reveal a utilitarian approach to the most sacred of things – Love. Love is not a tool or a commodity to be used for ANY means, but an essential aspect of G-d.

Jaques, thanks for the Larry Harvey link. It shows you have taken the conversation seriously. I shall listen to it and post again.

Nic

Whether past syncretism occurred or not, I think you will agree that any further “manhandling” of the Gospel should be resisted, not facilitated. Special care should be given when considering inputs from traditions that are either opposed to or dismissive of the sovereignty of Christ.

It is my current opinion that any syncretism that may have occurred in the past has been mainly cultural in nature and has not denatured the principles of the Gospel – thanks to the guardianship of the central message by the Spirit. It is more likely than not that where stories from other traditions were co-opted, they were used to dramatise principles that are not inconsistent with the Faith.

That is why I think we should know what we are trying to say before we clothe the message in new cultural clothes which may obscure rather than amplify the underlying principle.

Much emphasis is placed in these circles on “the conversation” – and rightly so because it has been neglected in the past. But rather less time has been spent on what the content of such conversations may be.

Nic – as an Afrika Burner – what you have received from other Burners that has edified your faith – and is not already in Scripture? And what have you been able to give to them as a representative of Christ – other than just being present?

Jacques
More interesting thoughts.

I see syncretism as a by-product of Incarnation. By being with us, Emmanuel is with all our foibles, the unpredictability of life, and the particularities of our cultures. So syncretism is unavoidable, and it is happening now, and it has happened over the course of this conversation. I see it as an essentially neutral fact of an incarnationary Savior, not a deistic or even theistic but rather panentheistic Lord.

To work out and live the essential message of the Gospel within this context is our calling. I don’t think “stories have been co-opted into the biblical narrative”, I think we, if anything, are being co-opted into the stories.

Anyway, I totally agree that we should know what we are trying to say as we engage life. This is always true, but it is also true that we are finding this out as we go. Trusting in the Spirit, we encounter and evaluate, we reject and embrace.

The content of the conversation emerges. I go into most conversations, as Theodore Zeldin says, “hoping to emerge a different person.” I understand the evangelical “take” in that we bear a message and look for opportunity to share it.

I have a sense of a treasure in a jar of clay, but by and large my encounters consider where the other is at, rather than how to convince them of my preconceived message. I see how this seemingly more passive stance is perceived as compromise of the preaching of the Gospel, but at the end of the day I go with St Francis, who says, “I always preach, with words if necessary”.

Being present is for me the greatest gift. Out of my presence, flow all other things. I do not belittle presence in any way. I’m not sure if you saw my report on the heart of our encounter, http://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2008/10/26/an-economy-of-grace/

At Afrika Burn I received a sense of great potential, of goodness rather than sin, of unconditional gifting rather than transactions of give and take. I was able in a Burner environment to do my hearts desire – create and gift, spontaneously, being open to the unwritten future.

Unlike most other Burners, I believe that this cultural space is not a phenomenon that comes into bloom a few days a year, but is possible in an ongoing way. I call it the ecclesia. I also am not under the illusion that this level of giving is do-able without a radical encounter with unconditional grace.

i enjoyed reading this post and the thread of conversation that emerged from it.

i appreciate Jeremy’s approach (27) to the burning event – i came, i baked, i served, i left. it’s simple, passionate, visionary, generous & an act of faith.

what Nic, Andy & their families contributed by way of a sacred space to relax & be, while sipping tea, sounds like my proverbial cuppa.

i have no problem with christians attending such an event. St Paul told people to forsake idol worship, not move out of Ephesus.

Jacques, i think i appreciate where you are coming from. you want to be salt & light wherever Christ may lead you, but you don’t want to compromise your beliefs or what you see as the absolute, objective truths about Christ or of the Gospel. nor should you.

i suspect you live in SA and if so, i’d like to take the liberty of challenging you to consider going to next years burning event – not to go necessarily, but to consider going. pray about it, explore your concerns some more with Nic – i can vouch for his integrity as a christian – and then make your decision.

for example, imagine yourself ambling around the desert with fresh water and rags, washing peoples feet? just smiling, talking with people, hanging out at the various tents & locations. without you saying anything, people would connect the dots. after all, Christ is the most famous foot washer.

i might see you there in 2009.

adios,

Russ…