Introduction

    Evangelical Christianity as a movement has hit a snag. It may well have begun with a snag, for it begins with a misunderstanding of how Christians relate to cultures. This is, in my mind, the bedrock critique of Jesus & John Wayne: not our history of sexism, racism, and militarism, but our permitting ourselves to be drawn into a way of life which makes us susceptible to cultural high priests rather than living before the face of God. In this essay, I want to try to articulate a new way for Christians to relate to cultures which I call “Liminal Christianity.” In doing so, I will have to articulate what the difference is between my proposal and the old evangelical manner, as well as how it avoids being a mere caving in to the surrounding culture.

    Let me begin with two ways of viewing culture as a Christian which I reject: what I will call the Evangelical Model and what I will call the Worldly Model. This will be a vast oversimplification, as both are meant to represent a broad spectrum of views, but the two types should nevertheless be helpful in framing our discussion.

    On the Evangelical Model, reality is divided rather cleanly between the sinners and the saints. This is not to say that Evangelicals claim to be perfect, but that there are the things of the World and the things of God, and cultures and cultural artifacts are viewed as rather neatly in one realm or the other. The World has its culture--or cultures--and we are called on to reform that culture and resist what is evil in it. But this reform and resistance takes the form of creating a counter-culture, that is, a skein of images, metaphors, and other media which promulgate a “correct” culture, a web of interlocking groups which campaign for their visions of “right” culture. Particular publishing groups, news networks, or websites are allowed to influence us. These are “safe” sources. Others are rejected as “dangerous”--they might lead you away from the faith!

    Thus, on this model, there is a kind of bunker-Christianity. This can present as a kind of hiding-in-basements disposition, or as a more aggressive combat against the infidels. In either case, this culture, with its leaders and institutions dictating doctrine and even politics, becomes a group in the sense exploitable by our tendency towards in-group/out-group thinking, and gains the hierarchies which are made otiose by Jesus Christ’s high priesthood.

    Turning now to what I am calling the Worldly Model of culture, we see the boogeyman of the Evangelical Model. This is still meant to be a way of approaching cultures which Christians can have a tendency to take up, but now it is a less articulate, more easy-going approach. Here, the Christian unhesitatingly imbibes the agendas and doctrines we find lying about us in the world, incognizant of the ways that sin has twisted them. This is in many ways the opposite of the Evangelical Model, and I doubt many--if any--Christians actually operate in this manner. However, some can be less careful than others in their approach to media made by non-Christians.

    With these two models in hand, I want to explain what is wrong with the ways of thinking about cultures which is evident in them. Perhaps most importantly, whereas Reinhold Niebuhr discussed “Christ & Culture” here we seem to have “Christian Culture & Secular Culture.” It is important to notice that these are not equivalent; rather, Christ relates to both “Christian Culture” and “Secular Culture” as to products of fallen beings. Thus, both models go wrong by failing to register their own cultures as tarred by the fall. Now, most Christians would admit that Christian Culture is affected by the fall, that their culture is imperfect, but they would hold that their culture is better, since it is more aware of the impact of the fall and actively struggling against it. I want to level a critique which will undercut this response, but for now simply ask whether those in Christian Culture spend much time reflecting on their heritage and doctrines seeking out ways in which sin may have infected them. I think they--at one time, I--do it far too little in comparison to how often they criticise the outsiders.

    So, what do I mean to refer to with my label of “Liminal Christianity”? Well, let us begin with why I have chosen this label: liminal means “of the boundaries” or “threshold.” I am calling for a Christianity which would refuse to enter into the midst of any culture without reserve, but would rather stand at the borders of many, carefully testing what the will of God is, and stepping across borders which various cultures have raised up for their own protection. This is a Christianity which would open itself up to strangers, not as an in-group to an out-group, but as neighbors. This is a groupless Christianity--not in such a way that we abandon our local Churches, but in such a way that within these Churches we relate primarily as brothers and sisters in Christ, rather than as members of a group.

    The refusal of group membership requires a refocusing on the Priesthood of all Believers. We must resist those who would tell us what we may eat, or what we may drink, or what we may read--those who say “do not touch, do not taste, do not read.” We each stand before God directly, with only Jesus Christ as our advocate before the Father. With the destruction of Christian Culture comes the destruction of its rules and regulations, which serve only to promote fear, entrench bias, and chain those Christ has set free.

So much for the sketch of my position. In what follows, I do not intend so much to argue for liminal Christianity as to elaborate on what it means in a compelling manner.

New Creation: Network or Group?

    First, I want to elaborate on the distinction I am making between Liminal Christianity, on the one hand, and networks and groups, on the other. A group is composed of some collection of people. However, what is essential to a group is not those who compose it, but rather some doctrine, practice, or loyalty on the basis of which members are granted access to the privileges of membership. These privileges are protected by some gatekeeper(s) who establish what is “orthodox” for the community. A network, on the other hand, is not able to be strictly circumscribed in this manner. Rather, what is important in a network is one’s concrete relations--loyalties--to other members of the network.

    It may thus appear that Christianity is clearly a group. After all, we require an admission that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised him from the dead, we require partaking in the sacraments, and we require loyalty to Jesus Christ. However, what distinguishes Christianity from mere group membership is that this is a concrete and personal loyalty and that the gatekeeper, fundamentally, is no mere human. I am quite happy to say that Christianity is not a network, but neither is it a group. A group ignores particularity, effacing it with the universal.

    If Christianity were a network, that would mean that it was a phenomenon of the following sort: a variety of individuals come together and find they have something in common, some goal, perhaps, or an ideal. They thus bond around this common goal or love, and are attracted to each other in virtue of it, because they share this love. But this is done loosely, so that, while one and another share one love, they are bound into a community with a diverse array of more or less sympathetic loves. There are chains binding one to another on the other end, but these chains grow tenuous. So now the network is essentially a matter of these particulars coming together, not of what, in fact, brings them together. A network leaves the particulars at the level of the bare particular. In a network, these bonds of shared love, of common interest, become contingent. They bring people together, but they are held together by loyalty to each other.

    Christianity is different from both a group and a network. There is hierarchy in Christianity, but it is a particular and individual hierarchy: I submit to God. There is coming together in Christianity, but it is the coming together of individuals who are already independently and primarily devoted to something higher than the community. It is a selfless community in this way: the members lose nothing in the dissolution of the community except what is inessential to the community. The destruction of the Church, insofar as it is possible by worldly means, from without, can never be the destruction of the Church as the Church, herself, cares for her preservation. If a collection of Christians, bound together by love for God and trust in his Christ, is burned at the stake, this is not the destruction of Christianity, but rather a witness to Christianity. Christianity, I am arguing with Kierkegaard, raises the particular to the very level of the universal.

    Much of my theological argument here will draw on traditional arguments for the Baptist doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers. However, it will go farther, or, put another way, draw out some of the oft-overlooked implications of that doctrine. As a philosopher, I will draw on Kierkegaard’s emphasis on what it is, Christianly, to be the Church and on Levinas’s emphasis on the concrete face to face interaction with the Other.

Priesthood of All Believers

    The affirmation of the Priesthood of All Believers (henceforth, PAB) is the denial of the need for any mediator between God and humanity besides the Godman Jesus of Nazareth. It is therefore the affirmation of the ability of all believers to read and understand Scripture without recourse to an authoritative interpreter, to admonish and intercede for one another, and to offer the grace of God in the gospel to a suffering world. It is not, then, a doctrine supporting individualistic Christianity, but, rather, a Christianity with direct access to God in fellowship and on an equal footing with all other believers. Note that, if the priesthood of all believers has the consequences I will argue it has, then, even if the historic Church has not lived in a liminal manner, we can argue that, insofar as this doctrine has been accepted, the Church’s history has been straining towards liminality

Congregationalism

    Liminal Christianity provides good reason to endorse a congregationalist manner of Church Governance. In all Church Governance, we are seeking to preserve the Church from false teachers and to shepherd the flock of God. What Congregationalism presumes, emphasizes, is this: each believer has the right, nay the duty, to speak as one who stands before God to those who would teach God’s Word, to hold the teachers accountable by testing the spirits and by studying the Scriptures to see if the things taught are really so.

    We should register the ways that PAB suggests a bias towards a horizontal ecclesiastical structure, one which would deny the offices any special standing independent of the recognition of the body. In fact, much of the New Testament’s church governance appears to operate in this manner: those who are recognized as holy teach, serve, and lead. Offices originate through the recognition of needs. Those who are gifted use their gifts to fill these needs. There is no special authority invested in the pastor or elders beyond what is theirs in virtue of their holiness and respectability.

    This does not mean that pastors and elders have no authority in virtue of their being declared pastors and elders, but this authority comes first from God, and its exercise is enabled through the recognition of other respected members. When a holy one of God says of another “Trust him,” they are using the same respectability to grant respectability to the other. It is a house of respect and holiness which depends on the care and wisdom of those already respected.

Sex, Gender, & Women’s Ordination

    It would be easy, if hasty, to hold that PAB entails that any--regardless of physical makeup--are permitted to preach. Nevertheless, it does suggest that conclusion. What I wish to point out here is that the authority of the preacher is a delegated authority from God, and that every member likewise must submit to the authority of God. Thus, where the preacher speaks falsely, it is incumbent upon every member to reject the false teaching and to correct the preacher. Secondly, because the authority of preaching is a delegated authority, it is an authority which must be exercised with humility: in submission to God and not to mere humans. Thirdly, the authority of preaching, insofar as it derives from the authority of Scripture, cannot be hindered by the messenger except where the delivery is contrary to Scripture. That is to say, neither maleness nor femaleness, freedom nor slavery, nor race or any kind of worldly status can hinder the delivery of the Word of God.

    Now there is of course space for someone to say something like, “This is how I read these texts, and so I must obey them.” Indeed you must! But take care that you read them well. There are many levels to reading, and we must take care lest our biases lead us to pervert the intent of the Scriptures. Let us note that there is certainly a bias towards the subjugation of women in the church, particularly in those corners called “evangelical.” Having taken note of that bias, we must beware that it does not dominate our reading. Of course, if you are in this category, you may object that others are likewise affected by feminist and liberal biases, and we must not let ourselves be swept away by the tides of this world. Indeed! And do you fear the world so much that you think evangelicalism is in danger of that? Or are we not rather much more likely to fall off the horse in the other direction? Deal with your own biases, and let others deal with theirs, lest your log blind you.

    What I am arguing is not that women ought to be permitted ordination. I am not taking the space I would need to make that argument, though I will take that space in another post with gusto. Rather, I am simply arguing that we should take stock, in light of PAB, and ask whether our biases have misled us. If elders have authority because they are respectable and holy, what makes a respectable and holy woman unable to teach? Perhaps in some cultures this would be offensive to the culture, and perhaps there are reasons in that case not to let a woman teach for the sake of avoiding giving unnecessary offense, but that is not a universal condition, nor is it obvious that it should be.

    Let me end this section with an argument which is suggestive of the difficulties with denying women’s ordination in all cases. If women cannot be ordained, this is either due to something about the nature of women or it is not. If it is not, then we must ask what the grounds could possibly be, for God does not act without just cause. If it is due to something about the nature of women, then this difference entails either that women are lesser than men, or there is a corresponding distinction for men, barring men from doing what they would as well. Now, if women are lesser, then they are not equal--but they are surely equal, since God created humanity altogether in his image with divine dignity! Therefore, the conclusion seems to be that if women are denied ordination, then there must be an equal and corresponding weakness for men, one which would likewise require them to be held back from pursuits they might prefer. Thus, if women are denied ordination, the obvious question is: what are men denied and how is this denial equal? It seems to me that this question has not been satisfactorily answered, and thus that women can legitimately claim that denying ordination to them amounts to implicitly deeming them less than men.

    Furthermore, where the interpretation of particular texts regarding the roles of women is concerned, several of the egalitarian interpretations situate the texts more fully in the work of Christ in tearing down dividing walls, freeing the oppressed, and stepping outside the cultural practices of the day to resist worldly power struggles (Icons of Christ).

Race

    It would be easy to pass over the implications of liminal Christianity for race relations as too obvious, but in a time when Christians have refused to face our own racism we cannot assume that it is obvious. That there is now neither Jew nor Greek does not mean that the distinction is completely eradicated, but that it has no place in defining our relationships with each other in the Church. We are, instead, brothers and sisters in Christ. However, just as the first deacons were raised up to ensure that, in particular greek, widows would be served and thus were called from among the greeks, so we must beware that our sinful biases do not hamper our service to one another. It is right and wise to hear from the oppressed who are forced to consider these things. It is right to be cautious when one in power makes statements which might serve to retain their own power. If we refuse to be taught by those who are oppressed by the world, not only do we deny that they are priests equally with us, but we join the world in its oppression.

    The Church is called to be a people from every tongue, tribe, and nation. The diversity within the Church must stand as a call to repentance to the world with its many racialized and politicized conflicts. 

Politics and Other Fights: Talking to & like priests

    If Christianity is a relation first to God, through Christ, and thereby to others, then, as a holy priesthood, we must speak in a manner befitting priests. If Christianity is liminal, then it is at odds with every group, every network, and every falsification of itself. Yet this "at odds with" is not an aggressive stance towards the members of these unchristian tribes, but stands against the tribalism itself as contrary to human fulfillment, inevitably falling into either an anarchical antinomianism or a tyrannical legalism--in either case contrary to the grace of God and a straining to replace God with humans.

    At the same time as Christianity is fundamentally incompatible with tribalism, however, it is also able to enter--and disrupt--any tribe. We are liminal beings as Christians: unable to enter the core of any tribe, but at the same time able to stand on the outskirts of every tribe. The created goodness of humanity is not fully destroyed in any tribe, just as the fallenness of humanity is not fully healed or avoided by any.

    There are many texts which address how we, as Christians, should speak. Among these is the directive that we are to be above reproach. We are to be so holy, so honoring, that those who would speak I'll of us have nothing to say (1 Peter 2). Some may bend our words, but those who know us should find it nigh laughable. We will fall short, but this is our aspiration.