nice work.

Greetings Tom,

So well done as usual…  It crashes before it begins, but as you and I have discussed multiple times, you steal the game by defining the terms, what Wittgenstein argued was the role of ‘rule maker’ via language definition.  You do so with the following comment:

“According to the Adventure Model, each traveler sets out with others on an open-ended and largely unplanned adventure. The journey will inevitably include challenges, but the traveler will also encounter opportunities for great joy. “

Unplanned?  A huge assumption that seems to ignore the witness of scripture (Eph. 1ff and a multiplicity of other texts).  As one who leads (guides) large groups of people across a very dangerous Grand Canyon trail each year, I can tell you that I would challenge anyone to abandon a guide who starts the hike with the following,

“This hike is largely open ended.  We don’t know how we are going to get where we are going, or even where we are going for that matter, and once we start I can’t do anything but offer advice here and there, some of which you will hear clearly, other times, barely audible at all.  I can’t empower you in any way other than cheering you on or giving advice, especially if my empowering you would impede the agency of another traveler pr change the trail in some way.  It is just not my way.  But have a great trip and make sure you keep an eye on your fellow travelers, because some of them are absolutely nuts and out of my control, and will push you over the edge to your death.  The best I can do is ask them not to…  Have a great adventure.!”

It’s just me, but as one who does lots of adventure trips where death is a very real possibility, I prefer a guide who says, “Be at rest, I am here, I know what I am doing, know just what you can handle and what you can’t, know exactly how thrilling this journey is going to be for you as I take you right the edge of your limits.  And yes, you will fall over the edge one day, but I will catch and you take you home…”

As an adventurer who has been to the edge many times (too close on a couple of occasions) I never travel with a guide who doesn’t know what is coming next… 

Later friend…  Seriously, you need to do the canyon with us next year.  And yeah, we are not like your guide, we actually carry you butt out if need be…  :o)

Just finished re-reading Relational Holiness. I do have to say that you have a gift for putting difficult concepts that are quite accessible to everyone. I just used some of your wording to explain what we mean by holiness and the people I was talking to grasped it right away and are in full agreement. Too often people see holiness in terms of purity/rule following but those as core notions inevitably lead to the slide scenario, IMHO.

This is easily my new favorite way to explain holiness to people. Thanks for sharing this!

Before coming to NNU, I was not familiar with the concept of prevenient grace - or at least I was never given this term to attach to the concept it represents. I used to think about sin like it was a completely obliterating failure - that upon sinning, I would “fall down the mountain” and would have to start all over again.  Through thinking relationally about God (which the Church needs to play a large role in, I believe), we can take the fear out of horrifically failing from moment to moment.  With God as our guide, we do not have to have these worries - certainly sin is still significant and real, but God is not keeping a tally of when and how we fail. God wants us to commune with him - this is the beauty I find in relational holiness.

Don,

Uhhhh, I think you are extending the metaphor a bit far to somehow reveal weaknesses in Tom’s point.  And you may have succeeded in doing that, but at the same time I think you missed the overall message that Tom is trying to convey.  I think Tom intends to use imagery that empowers us to think about the dynamic adventure of relational holiness.  It seems the contrast Tom draws between the slide scenario and the adventure model is needed and could be really helpful to folks. 

I have often used the adventure model to explain the dynamic of following Christ. I call it taking the plunge.  As someone who swims in natural bodies of water, I sometimes only have about 12” of visibility.  Like Abraham leaving Haran to journey to an unknown country, I have to walk (swim) by faith and not by sight.  No two swims are alike I zig zag all over the place, but somehow I always make it to the other side.  Tom’s imagery is much better than mine if yo ask me. My point is this, I don’t have a problem with the words unknown or unplanned as you do. I think those words accurately reflect the journey of holiness as I have experienced it.

I think what happened here is that you tweaked the metaphors to make YOUR point.  It almost comes across a little condescending don’t you think?  Or maybe I missed the humor in it…if so forgive me.

Don, I guess “unplanned” needs qualification. It doesn’t mean that the Guide has no goal or doesn’t know where He is taking us. It does mean that the Guide will sometimes regret His decisions because we reacted poorly, as the Scriptures many times explain, and hence adjusts His guidance. Not the ultimate goal.

Sure, I’d want a Guide who has exhaustive knowledge of every step I’ll take from today through all eternity. But that might say more about my need for comfort than my skill in Biblical exegesis.

Also, I think the “Grand Canyon trail” is not the best comparison. “A loving response” allows for much more flexibility than walking along the edge of the GC does. So our Guide has many more options along which to lead us, than a GC guide has.

Tom, I like the metaphors you use; they have merit.  At the same time I find myself considering the limitations of the Adventure Model. 

When we start to think of the relationship of God and creation being side-by-side or face-to-face, it is comforting to think of that kind of companionship.  However, envisioning ourselves as stand alone free subjects who respond to God’s external calling or guidance is problematic. 

You mention the idea of the guide calling and empowering.  It is this second part that I fear may get overshadowed in the metaphor.  Without empowerment, any guidance, calling, or command would have to be worked out by the grit of our own flesh.  This is where the imagery of side-by-side or face-to-face can misguide our thinking.  We must live by the Spirit and not the flesh, as Paul taught.  Holiness is a fruit of the Spirit’s activity; the Spirit is more internally enabling than an external guide whom we heed. 

There is so much I like about the way you talk about the journey of holy living.  Nevertheless, I am trying to think about how to keep the notion of empowerment closer to the surface in your metaphor.

Bob,

So well said.  I agree that I have taken Tom’s metaphor to a point that would make some people uncomfortable.  Your insight is right on spot!  Like you, I am often in murky waters, as deep diving is my true joy in life.  Nonetheless, let me suggest you missed the point with your well presented response.  I was not addressing the ‘experience of the swimmer (adventurer)’, but rather the ‘Guide’.  Tom’s analogy tells us not only that the adventurer sees as though in murky water, but that the ‘Guide’ is equally unsure of where the adventurer is headed, or even how to get there…  I concur that the adventures are always a bit in the dark, but I have deep concerns when we suggest the Guide is equally wondering which way to go or how to get there, when the guide can’t see much further than the adventurer.  Further, I want to believe that the ‘Guide’ has very strict guidelines as to when the Guide will allow the adventurer to wonder down a trail leading to death, or when the Guide will not.  That the Guide is free to act upon the adventurer and his journey anytime the Guide thinks it best, thinks it mandated by love.

Forgive me, but I am no theologian, and sometimes have trouble tracking with great minds, but metaphors I sometimes get.  So when I see one that I think I understand, I feel like I can engage.  I want the guide to know where we are headed and to have the ability to get me there.  To even altar my course when I am too deaf to hear the Guides promptings.  I rely on the guide, trust the guide, precisely because the Guide has been here before, done this before.  People take my advice when diving to depths of 200 ft because I have done it before.  I go on ahead of those hikers who follow me across the canyon, because I have done this before, I know where the trail is going.  I know what it takes to survive.

Now here is the tricky part.  While I want my hikers and divers to be free to chase their dreams, sometimes I say ‘no’.  Sometimes, I know their choices are pure folly, and I simply say no.  I have even refused to allow some folks to go, violating their free will.  Pharaoh was determined to kill the Israelites and God said ‘no’, drowning him in the sea, a pretty radical limitation of his free will.  Paul was told by God what he ‘must’ do.  Somewhere in this discussion is a middle ground.  There is a Guide who lovingly closes and opens paths for the adventurer.  A Guide who may even allow them to chose a path that leads to death, while at other times closing that path, for the timing is not right. 

My challenge with the Guide metaphor is not about the experience of the adventurer, but rather the nature of the Guide and what the Guide does and does not do while guiding…

I am sure there is a philosophical way to address this, but that is the best I can do.  Metaphors I get most of the time.  Maybe that is why Jesus so often taught with them.  He knew he was addressing folks like me, not the ‘brightest bulbs in the pack’...  But I agree metaphors are always limited and tricky…  As one of my favorite metaphors from Tolkien likes to say, “It’s tricksie…”

Don

Okay fellas,

I think we are all struggling with the limitations of a single analogy used to describe the adventure of holiness. At best it provides a rough sketch of what we know and experience.  I think of Teresa of Avila’s Interior Castle as a description of the Soul’s journey toward God. It’s a huge metaphor sorta like Robert Mungor’s My heart Christ home. These images provide rough sketches.  Of course we theologians come along and poke holes in them and then argue with each other over their meaning.  In the book that Tom edited, Creation made Free, Alan Rhoda uses the game theory analogy to discuss divine providence, but he does so with caution and identifies the limitations right at the outset.  All this to say, I think we have to cut each other some slack here and appreciate the intent.

Len Sweet get criticized for using metaphor and image all the time. In fact, he has written whole books that are built on a single metaphor.  Quite often this kind of writing is not friendly to academic audiences.  In fact, I almost see Tom’s entry as an attempt to draw in a wider audience.  More of a popular audience and not just an academic one, which I think is needed at some level. 

Anyway, thanks for a the good discussion.

I want to echo Bob’s affirmation for Dr. Oord’s willingness to take the risk of presenting very complicated theology in forms that the average pastor like myself can grasp and interact with.  I find it even more valuable that he allows us to actually discuss the material in a serious way without treating us like we are in Sunday School, nor expecting us to simply jump on the ‘band wagon’ of public affirmation.  And finally, that more than a few of my laypeople visit his blog weekly to see what we so called ‘thinkers’ are up to.  I for one, concur with Bob, and appreciate Dr. Oord’s risk taking by presenting new ways of thinking to the less educated folks like myself.  Oh that more lay people could be invited to this journey of theological discovery.

Don

I see this as a very helpful analogy for many today. Often Christians fall into the trap of a works based faith with Christianity merely a set of rules to follow. Many see the Christian walk towards holiness as the slide were the slightest mistake will cause everything to fall apart. Too many Christians tried to complete the trek up the slide but fall down too many times and give up on it all together. This analogy is useful in that it rejects this Pharisee type view of religion and seems to be more consistent with the teachings of Christ.