Pete blogged about people's tendency to stay in churches even when they don't agree with how they are being run. It was a challenging post, but I was confused by his definitive point. Is the only option for those who don't agree to leave the church altogether, until they find a church with which they can agree on everything? My implication is that such a church doesn't exist, so it isn't much of an option.
I asked Pete that question in the comments. He responded in a new post today.
I really enjoy a lot of what he's said, including in particular:
The wager is that, by stepping into the unknown and having the courage to start something that one does not really have any idea about, something truly emancipatory may take place.
...a choice not between two positive alternatives but rather between one linguistic system and a step into the unknown.
I am saying that not knowing what ought to be done is to already know what ought to be done. In other words, ‘I do not know what I should do and I must step out and do it’! This is not then some commitment to do ‘church’ better by either improving it or starting a new one. For this reconfiguring will still be taking place in the very waters that sustains it. It is not a saying ‘no’ to one known in favour of another known, rather it involves saying ‘no’ to one known in favour of the unknown.
Go read the rest of his post to fully dig into it!
No comments:
Post a Comment