Thoughts on "Transformational Architecture" by Ron Martoia; "The Biblical Text"

In an effort to continue my review of "Transformational Architecture" by Ron Martoia, I wanted to present the next portion of my thoughts on Martoia's second text titled "the Biblical Text". This is one of the most fascinating parts of the book. Martoia basically says that in order to effectively share God with others it is important to examine the Biblical narrative that we reference.

Martoia explains that Christians have always presented at least a portion of the "Biblical Text".

"Most Christians...know an abbreviated CliffNotes version of the biblical story. It is important to realize this, because it is precisely a miscue at the story level that causes a nearly complete failure at the spiritual conversation level." (Page 51)

Is it possible that Christians have been telling just a portion of whats important in God's story? Are we willing to question this at all? At the core of this question is an evaluation of our humility. If there is any possibility that we have might of gotten it wrong, is it possible that we can become to prideful to move in another direction? I think this is a question that Martoia forces us to ask ourselves.

There are two directions you can go with this question. The first is to embrace the possibility to see if we are in any need of repentance. The second is to embrace a prideful mindset, and go into this with no willingness to engage in any form of doubt. The second possibility is a mistake, and I truly believe truth will not change in the environment of doubt. With this being said the traditional story as Martoia explains goes something like this;

"'...you are broken, messed up, heading to hell---and you need to fix it.' The story continues: Jesus has come and lived a perfect life, so that when he died, he could die the death you should have died. If you will trust him and his death, you can now live the life he lives and someday have a seat forever with him in eternity."- (Page 51)

This message sounds awfully familiar to me in my tradition, as it probably does in many traditional evangelical circles. So to question the message can be a tough one to embrace. At the same time, I wonder if we have missed something as Martoia suggests. Are we using the watered down gospel? If this isn't the full story then what is it? Martoia does explain this, but not in totality within this chapter, Martoia does offer this though,

"Here is the rub: Did Jesus go around offering the propositional distillation...?Was this what constituted following him? Jesus, it seems, had a fundamentally different mission. He wanted to broker shalom. Jesus was interested in imparting wholeness to people, and while eternity in fellowship with him is in fact a part of that wholeness, it wasn't a primary part of the conversation he had with people" (Page 55)

This is a message that I can follow, and not just believe. And that is exactly what the problem is in just telling part of the story. It becomes tempting to limit faith just to belief. But, the Jesus message invites us into mission and movement. It is a call to partner with God and His desires for an abundant life for all. Is it possible that when we offer the CliffNotes version of the story we miss this central theme. I think it is very possible and Martoia is right in pointing this out.

Martoia uses Luke 4:16-21 to point to a possible "mission statement" of Jesus. If you read the passage, does it at all resemble our mission within most churches? Martoia rightly points out that we will "spiritualize" portions of this text to make it fit with our belief. Does the text allow this freedom? It is is a tough argument to say 'That's not what Jesus meant...he really meant this...'.

Martoia ends with thoughts on our modern approach to scriptures. He says this about that approach,

"We have been co-opted by the same game rules of the modern world and we have reduced the Bible to a set of propositional principals to apply. We even call it 'owners manual for life'." (Page 61)

This happens too often in church circles. If we string enough random verses to prove a point, we then win people to Christ. At least that is what we tell ourselves. I think that we intimidate others in our attempts to throw verses at others. I have known others in which this proved to be more harm then good. What is the alternative though? Is there a better way?

"When we understand the entire story, starting with creation rather then the fall, we start with God's intended purposes for the world. When we start with creation, we start with the very reason we exist and the basis of our yearnings. When we understand creation, we have a clear picture of what the whole world is headed back toward as all things are ultimately restored in Jesus. " (Page 66)

The central concept that Martoia is saying that we should embrace is the narrative. To see the biblical text as it was intended, and that is an ongoing story, as Martoia calls it "meta-narrative". In order to do that, we should not start off with the "sin problem" as we often do. Instead we must look at the beginning of our story in creation. This is where we will find our purpose within the story. Martoia will pick this up further in the book.

It is a challenge to ask ourselves if we are sharing the full message of God. I personally do believe that Martoia is on to something when he suggests that we are leaving out very important aspects of the story. I believe that embracing the message as a narrative we have room for a true sharing experience with our friends. By embracing narrative, we can plug ourselves in this ongoing story that is still being written. I would rather invite someone in this ongoing story, and invite them to participate in this partnership with God, rather then convincing them to believe a set of propositional truths. The only question becomes, is this a narrative that the church can embrace?

-dj

http://audaciousliturgy.blogspot.com/