Loading ...The Colors of God by Dave Phillips, Quentin Steen & Randall Peters
OK, so the Church is broken, now what?
If you’re like me, you’ve read a lot of books containing theory as to the why and the what of church problems and solutions. But what if we had a collaborative effort of church theorist-practitioners who produce solid paradigms, but do so in the context of sharing and testing in a local congregation? We do: It’s called The Colors of God.
This memorable collaboration, involving Dave Phillips, Quentin Steen and Randall “Peg” Peters takes readers on an unforgettable intellectual and practical exploration of the Christian faith as it is lived out in neXus church in Abbotsford, BC.
In Colors of God, the three authors utilize a unique conversational style to raise key questions and challenge theological assumptions about what constitutes Christian faith and how to embody that within a local church community. This book finds itself within the ‘emerging church’ stream and yet moves beyond simple theological arguments.
Instead, the authors attempt to lay out a useful framework for what it means to practically live out one’s faith in light of the Kingdom of God. Using colors to depict the different aspects of the Kingdom, they move beyond creed and belief into color, art, action and grace. Something I especially appreciate is their seriously playful effort to incorporate the grace-soaked insights of Episcopal priest Robert Farrar Capon into the DNA of their congregation.
Colors of God is the perfect book for anyone who questions aspects of their beliefs and longs to integrate better assumptions with a holistic faith community.
About the Authors
Quentin Steen has been the quirky husband to his fife for over fifteen years and the dazed and confused father to their three children. They live in Kelowna, B.C., Canada, where he works as a labor specialist and part-time speaker. He is finishing an MA in Leadership and Philosophy of Religion. As a third generation pastor he has fought hard against the destructive stigma of the Evangelical subculture.
Dave Phillips teaches in a Graduate School of Marriage and Family Therapy. He also leads workshops and corporate seminars on Emotional Intelligence and Mindfulness Training and is a soft skills consultant for a Canadian Labour Association. Dave holds 2 graduate degrees in Therapy and Theology and is an approved Supervisor with the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. Dave loves to golf, loves the Vancouver Canucks and is an avid consumer and critic of modern film.
Randall Peters was a seasonal lecturer of philosophy and religion at Trinity Western University for seven years and now hosts a daily television show in Vancouver, Canada, on religion and culture. He has a graduate degree in theology and did PhD Studies at Simon Fraser University.
When you post your review, help the wider community by adding the hashtag: #vb-colors
pa5t0rd
I really wanted to love this book! When I first received it I looked on the back and saw this quote, “OK, so the church is broken, now what?” I was immediately engaged – my interest peaked!
The first thing I’d like to mention is that the format of this book feels like you are the third wheel of an IM discussion about you and to you without you getting to put in your own two cents. They said their reasoning for creating the book in this way was to make the reader feel like a part of a discussion – that didn’t work for me…though I am certain that there will be many that find this approach refreshing and maybe even better at holding their attention. I found the responses to not be genuine to real conversations – there is never disagreement and there is a lot of unnecessary dialog between the authors. At the end of the day it felt less conversational and more scripted.
The book begins by stating some great questions and explaining the journey of each of the authors to where they are currently (neXus). They talk about no longer fitting within the current structures of the Evangelical Movement – saying it’s not about the people just the structure and sub-culture (this is like saying, “Hate the sin not the sinner” – which feels like hate when you’re the sinner). They allude to the evangelical movement as not being open to dialog yet turn and disregard the evangelical movements discussion(s). You can’t tell someone they aren’t listening or willing to talk and then refuse to listen or talk.
The part that I found to be the most fascinating is that though they speak about how they are so much different than the rest of the church because of their highly evolved grace gospel – I found them to not be gracious at all about any view other than their own. In fact there were several parts throughout the book where I was offended by, what they’d probably call – playful banter…it felt more like mocking to me. This aspect of their personality came through when speaking about the “old-covenant” – in fact their handling of many of their doctrines felt very much like the evangelical movement…they weren’t saying anything new except that they felt it was “absolutely bizarre” to make “reading the Bible daily a central evidence of growing faith.”
It seems that as a reaction to the often oppressive teachings of many churches (the notion that to become more like the Christ is to become more perfect – therefore performance driven) they’ve thrown out any semblance of personal responsibility for participating in God’s creation. They encourage you to participate but it feels like they are saying that participation is a bonus.
Much of the biblical exegesis was poor at best – and even if it was good – most wouldn’t know because they give no reason for going against long held understandings…many of the long-standing beliefs need to be reworked and questioned but please don’t state as matter of fact your view dismissing tradition and not give any real support.
I’d be interested in reading more from these gentleman and it sounds like what they are attempting to do with neXus is a great thing – God’s Kingdom needs to be more inclusive but we shouldn’t disregard the great cloud of witnesses that have gone on before us.
Aug 11th, 2010
tjkonopka
http://teresakonopka.blogspot.com/2010/08/colors-of-god-by-peters-phillips-and.html
This book intrigued me, but after a while, my brow was furrowed. I mean sure, in some twisted way, I believe the authors may actually have right intentions. They want an inclusive evangelical church that reaffirms grace. However, what gets me is how they go about it. First and foremost, the book is about neXus–the authors’ church they started. They say that works are not necessary (I disagree as a–here comes the C bomb–Catholic). They also say that, in the story of the Good Samaritan, that the dying man was Jesus. Scripture is not quoted, and the dialog between Jesus and the inquirer seems to be framed to the authors’ liking so the true message is cloaked. Also, the authors claim that Jesus’ parables ‘suck’ as life lessons and are meant for spiritual insight only (their word, not mine). At one point in the book, an author says he likes discussing spiritual matters over beer. Another author downplays abstinence before marriage as a lesser sin when compared to hate. Another author says that pastors cursing is not a big deal because they should not have an air of righteousness about them. The book is told with three authors speaking separately throughout and reads like someone is eavesdropping on their conversations. What really ticked me off the most–and I think even Protestants will agree with me on this–is when the authors’ put up a diagram with “me” in the center. Upwards with an arrow is “God” and to the right with an arrow is “the world.” The authors claim that Christians should not waste time on the “me”-”God” relationship because Jesus already perfected that (they even venture to say that thinking one should strengthen their relationship with God through prayer and devotionals are evil tricks that should be dismissed). They say to work on the relationship with “the world” and work on being inclusive and being nice to others without judging. Somewhere, the authors may have had a good intention, but, theologically, I just don’t see eye to eye with them.
#vb-colors
Aug 11th, 2010
adamkosar45
Three authors and fellow leaders of the neXus church in Canada have taken their experiences and conversations regarding their church and put them into a book. The book is written in a conversational style (the reader is told which author is speaking throughout) and the style remains loosely dialogical throughout. I found this format to be a little cheesy and corny at times, but overall, it made for a fast-paced book and kept my attention throughout. The authors seemed like likeable and fun guys to hang out with. The conversations stay lighthearted while addressing serious and controversial matters. So much for the format . . . the content is surely what will catch the reader’s attention more than anything.
My first observation is that the book title is a bit of a misnomer. I had envisioned a theological/ecclesiological interface with these “four colors” that never really materialized. The four colors they describe are not really about God as much as they are about the church. I would have expected each of the four colors to be rooted in theology proper, and then applied to ecclesiology. That wasn’t the case.
The authors are self-professed “emergent” pastors leading a self-described “emergent” church. The influences of emergent leaders is evident (the first part of the book is entitled “The Stories we Find Ourselves in” – Bryan McLaren would be proud), and one of the authors talks about the influence Doug Paggitt and others have had on him. Clearly most impactful in this book has been the work of Robert Farrar Capon (whom I profess being unfamiliar with), and his work on the parables. He is referred to throughout and quoted often. So, in some regards, this may be looked upon as an example of the rapidly evolving second order or second level of emergent theology – putting the ideas of the leaders into practice.
I could ramble on tit for tat regarding many of the specifics regarding the book, but instead I want to make a couple general points. There were some places I found great insight and appreciated their perspective (in particular, I found the first section on grace to be a good articulation of a challenging concept – I love their point that if we are preaching grace like we should, people should think we are being too liberal with it – see Paul), other places I found myself a bit challenged, and a few I was cautiously skeptical.
If I was grading my experience with the book, I’d give it a B-. I like their four-part division as I think the four areas are worthy of discussion and a helpful way to divide the topic (btw: blue is the Gospel faith – the strongest part, in my opinion), green is health – I really, really liked this approach to ethics, as well – it reflects the way I’ve approached sexuality when talking with teens (they’re emphasis is on research – what is destructive, what is healthy as opposed to letter of the law . . . my problem here is that it places a lot of trust in research . . . remember, homesexuality was at one time listed as a mental disorder . . .), red is inclusive community (here I felt that the authors had to do a little hermeneutical gymnastics to make their point and blew through some strawmen arguments while overpassing more challenging texts), and yellow is contextual engagement (which I thought was helpful to hear them address pastorally, but wasn’t done as well as many other books that our out now.)
In general, I think this is a book worth taking a look at for church leaders. They will no doubt challenge you (unless you too think cursing isn’t that big of a deal and that sexual sins are less devastating than sins of pride and exclusivity – I challenge the authors who say that the Bible teaches the sins of pride and judgmentalism are more detrimental than sexual sins – you could argue the heart of the Old Testament antithesis began with sexual misgivings (Moab and Ammon came from where?) . . . but they raise some very helpful and insightful conversations – like this one regarding sexuality. I think they help raise questions that can push our thinking forward. I also think that they give a little insight into where the church will be heading into the future as younger leaders with different ethical mores, but strong spirituality lead them to cutting edge churches. This may be a good book for anyone fluent in emergent church conversations who feel themselves agreeing with everyone at every point . . .this book should offer a challenge to your status quo at some point.
Aug 17th, 2010
mhasty
Colors Of God: Conversations About Being The Church by Dave Phillips, Quentin Steen & Randall Peters, is a great reading experience. The authors are pastors at a church called “neXus”. Where they come together as “the church” to do church in a very different way that most of America “does church”. The first thing one might notice different is that there’s not just one speaker at a pulpit on Sundays. Dave, Quentin, and Randall speak in dialogue. They may plan out where they are headed in the end but all the in between is an honest, genuine, spontaneous conversation about a biblical “truth”. The book is written in this format of conversation. Much like one would read the script from a play each section is blocked off indicating who the current voice is. The three write/speak well together. I’m a great fan of the style of the book. It’s fresh, new, and rethought.
Truth is also something to be questioned at neXus. Nothing is off the table for questioning, or rethinking. neXus holds that everything that we know about Christianity, and hold true about the Christian faith, must be available to be reassessed. In the book they address this saying that they are part of an emerging group of Christians unwilling to settle for what various church fathers or creeds put in place many years ago. They believe that everything must be able to be put back under the microscope. This is not to say that everything is relative merely that nothing should be off limits for questioning.
I agree with the fact that we should never take anything for face value. Dig deep. Know what you believe. I also believe that this type of thinking can bring one to a hard point of frustration. Not that getting frustrated over digging and questioning is a bad thing. Where do we stop asking questions? Do we take Jesus at His word or do we have to dig deeper to find if it’s true? While I applaud this line of thinking for not allowing Christians to become part of the Christian Culture Machine I would proceed with caution.
Colors of God is a great book to challenge your thinking about books/church/Christianity/faith/God/methodology/theology. Take it in, but cautiously. I don’t agree with much of the theology of the book but enjoyed the conversation.
This book was provided for me by The Ooze Viral Bloggers.
Original Post: http://thecommoncup.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/colors-of-god-conversations-about-being-the-church-a-book-review/
Aug 18th, 2010
addsalt
Apparently I’m a sucker for taglines. This one is “Ok, so the church is broken, now what?” Broken church, colorful rainbow covering most of the front cover – I was somewhat expecting some GLBT themed stuff about the church. Couldn’t be more wrong.
In summary, the book is written by three authors who have founded an emergent church called neXus (writing the capital X in the middle just there was literally painful). It is written in a conversational type style with each of the three writing only a few lines at a time. The colors of God (blue, green, red, yellow) are symbolic of the four principles of their church (faith, healthy living, community, culture).
I think I can bullet point my issues
1) I don’t get the point of the colors. It is apparently foundational to the church (and the title of the book), but to me seem very superfluous. I was expecting that they had some deeper meaning (and that the green color would be comprised of the foundations of the blue and yellow), but it doesn’t seem to be. It is like they were devised just so they could create this pretty model picture, only so the pretty picture could be misinterpreted as some homosexual statement (seriously, if you are culturally engaged you have to know what colorful rainbow symbols have come to represent).
2) The exegesis of the book is thin. I get that this isn’t a theological book, but if you have a main point that is founded by a new view of a scripture you need to have at least an appendix that addresses the issues a little more. I get the rhetoric that there is an over-focus on sexual sin, and that excommunication is not something they are in to – but you need to address that Paul recommended that certain people be excommunicated because of sexual sin. No, I don’t see that the parable of the sheep mean that the sheep getting lost was a good thing. Saying the man on the side of the road with the good Samaritan represents Jesus gets you into some difficult hermeneutics (so the Samaritan brings Jesus back to health?).
3) Because of #2, I have serious issues with their concept of God (“vertical relationship” as they call it). Basically, because of the completed and universal work of Christ, there is basically no way you can screw it up, or even disappoint God – so don’t worry about it (their words are “doesn’t need management”). In their reformed framework, the original sin of Adam which we inherited is totally taken away by Jesus for everyone (if they know it or understand it at all) – which makes Christianity both the problem and the solution. Seems easier for me to sidestep that whole mess and just be Buddhist (I already shaved my head so I figure I’m half way there); you reach the same endpoint theologically and don’t need any complex discussions.
4) In chapter 16 they describe what piece of pop culture has impacted them most significantly. The first one on the list is M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village. My mouth is still gaping at that one.
This group may be one of the few who stand up and say “we are the emergent church”. The title is so vague, no one really knows what it means, so everyone has a tough time saying “that’s me”. It has come to mean, any church that is a reaction to the current Christian subculture. While their culture is certainly a reaction to the evangelical church, the theology is still firmly placed in the reformed framework. This would make emergent church less of a clean break from evangelical, and more of the next logical step in its formation (the same argument has been applied to much of the postmodern philosophy over modern). If we see a problem with what we evangelical church as become, we need to take a deep look at the roots (reformed theology) to see where we can move forward from where they have taken us.
Original post is here
Aug 21st, 2010
bkjohn
The book “Colors of God” by Randall Peters, Dave Phillips, Quentin Steen published by Biblica Publishing. This book is subtitled, ‘Conversations about the Church’. It is a conversation by 3 guys who are part of an emerging church in Canada.
The only thing I can say is that I am glad that I am not part of that church. In chapter 5 Quentin says that they are wanting to ‘deconstruct our modern understanding of the gospel’ and they propose that their idea is “more faithful to the New Testament, to the scriptures as a whole, and to church history”. I am not sure what NT they are looking at, what scriptures nor whose church history they are reading but it sure does not measure up to the NT, scriptures and church history that I am aware of.
These guys are strong ‘once saved always saved’ believers, no matter what. They would fall into the category of ’easy believism’ or as Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, they preach ‘cheap grace’.
Just for one example, on p.60 Quentin says that even though, in the face of death (persecution) I deny Christ because of my fear of death, ‘God and I are as good as ever’.
If this is the case what does ‘persecution’ even mean? Too bad that all the martyrs of church history and even present day martyrs has not heard these guys’ message. They would have lived a long time and many would still be with us today (sarcasm).
These guys must not be aware of what Jesus says in Matthew 10:33, But whosoever
shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
The problem that those who believe, as these guys do, is that in their attempt to
emphasize grace, they rob grace of its transforming power. Yes, Gods grace is powerful.
Through grace God not only forgives our sin but he transforms our lives. Our sinful past
is forgiven and we have power to live above it. Paul says, “I have become a new creation
in Christ Jesus, old things have passed away and behold all things are new” (2 Cor.5:17)
Stay away from this book. It will not help or encourage you. If someone happens to give you a copy-trash can it.
http://www.intercessioncity.blogspot.com
Aug 25th, 2010
staucody
One of the biggest issues I have had with what some call the Emerging Church/Movement is that, for a long time, it was stuck in a period of pure deconstruction. Don’t get me wrong, deconstruction is a necessary component of a healthy, living, moving, growing faith. It’s something that should always be going on. But the problem is that, quite frequently, no one starts building anything else. What tends to happen is that far too many people simply settle or are happy enough with defining themselves by what they are against, the things they don’t like. It’s no secret the Church Universal has issues, and it’s not just relegated to Mainline Churches or the Evangelical world. It’s in every stream. It doesn’t take much courage to point that out, especially since it’s been going on now for nearly two decades (probably longer) by THOUSANDS of authors, scholars, regular Joes, bloggers, and so on.
In their book, Colors of God: Discussions About Being the Church, Randall Mark Peters, Dave Phillips, and Quentin Steen attempt to answer the question they bring up: “Ok, so the church is broken. Now what?”
Randall, Dave, and Quentin are the co-founders and leaders of a neXus, a church in Canada that is attempting to build something that is post-Evangelical in nature. They have asked some hard questions and deconstructed some unhealthy issues with the Evangelical culture they were living in, and for the past few years have been working together with their community to construct something that is faithful to scripture and tradition. This book is a conversation between the three of them about this community they are a part of and the values it holds, told by using four different colors to highlight how their church is attempting to put flesh on theology. They use the color blue for Gospel Faith, green for Healthy Living, red for Inclusive Community, and yellow for Cultural Engagement.
One of the features of the book is that it is truly written in the form of a transcript of a conversation the three are holding about these issues and their attempt to live in faithful community. Some won’t like the book for this reason, but the conversation has some very deep issues in it that are worth getting to. The book is broken down into four sections, one for each color, and at the end of each, they actually “open the floor up for some questions.” There are about 4 or 5 people apparently in on the conversation who get to ask some tough questions about what the 3 authors are proposing, questions that would in fact be asked by people listening in.
The book will certainly challenge a lot of people in the Evangelical world, as the 3 are not shy about laying our their issues with the culture they come from. Thankfully, the book doesn’t dwell too long on these things and instead offers some viable options for any church wondering where it should go next.
http://anewkindofminister.blogspot.com
Aug 25th, 2010
dckludt
I recently had the chance to read and review Colors of God: Conversations About Being the Church by Dave Phillips, Quentin Steen & Randall Peters – a book that was originally published in 2008 and recently republished. The authors are part of the neXus community in British Columbia. The book is set up as a dialogue between the authors (representing the voice of a pastor, a scholar, and a therapist) and explores the theology and practice of ministry through four colors: blue (theology), green (healthy living), red (community), and yellow (culture). The authors are part of the continuing conversation in the emerging/Emergent church dialogue, and readers familiar with the ideas in this conversation will find similar themes deconstructed and reconstructed in this book.
While I did not naturally distinguish between the voices of the author as I read, I appreciated the attempt to match the medium with the message by the structured conversation. The parables of Jesus are highlighted throughout the book, and the authors rely heavily on theologian Robert Farrar Capon for understanding and interpreting these parables for the life of the church. After reading Colors, I picked up a book by Capon and would encourage anyone interested in the theological framework undergirding Colors to read Capon, as his work is hugely important for understanding the perspective of Colors. Few will find themselves agreeing with all of the theology presented in this book, as it represents a blend of liberal Episcopalian/mainline, evangelical, and Emergent mixed together in the cultural milieu of Canada.
While the authors express their desire to be “for something” rather than “against other things,” I did find that a prevailing theme was the failure of traditional Western evangelicalism. There certainly is some hopeful and positive movement offered by the book, but the conversation primarily was defined negatively and reactionary. Overall, I found the book stretching (in good ways) and was challenged to think through some of the basic assumptions about theology and practice made in the wider church (and in my own ministry).
Aug 25th, 2010
RyanBraught
The other week I received the book “Colors of God: Conversations on Being the Church” by Randall Peters, Dave Phillips, and Quentin Steen as part of the Ooze Viral Bloggers, in which I read the book and then blog about it. All three authors are a part of neXus, an emerging church in Canada. A tag line on the back of the book got my attention, “OK, so the church is broken, now what?” With my interest piqued from the subtitle and that tag line, I started reading. I want to share the 4 parts of the book, the parts that I truly resonated with, and the parts that I have serious issues with.
The book is divided into 4 parts or colors, hence the idea of Colors of God. The 4 colors are the core values of neXus (the capital X I guess is a nod to the idea of Generation X.) The colors are Blue for Gospel Faith, Green for Healthy Living, Red for Inclusive Community, and Yellow for Cultural Engagement. Not sure why they chose the colors they did (except the Green color which makes sense).
My main part of the book that I truly resonated with and resonated strongly with was their piece of cultural engagement. When the one author listed The Village as a movie that spiritually impacted him, I was right with him, and had some of the same thoughts about the movie and it’s commentary on the modern church. Quentin says, “We have to return to the way the church once was- the artist spoke the language of God in the common language of the people.” Hence the use of Stain Glass and the Jesus narratives on them. I guess the best part of that section was the relization that much of the evanglical church has bought into a type of Gnosticism and lives by the idea that there is a sacred world which is good, and a secular world which is bad. One quote from that section puts it this way, “This misses the whole thrust of incarnational theology; that God in Christ, came down from heaven and lives within the entire material world.”
Another section that connected with me, and with Veritas’ Core Value of A Safe Spritual Search was in the discussion of Inclusive Community. The whole discussion about being authentic and starting with the Pastor was a great bit, and a good reminder that if I want authenticity in our community that I need to go first. One quote from that section says, “They feel safe. I don’t hear that word used in teh same sentence as church- very odd. And safe means that I can be myself.” Another part from the Green section dealt with a woman who began asking some tough questions and dealt with how her church community dealt with her questions. “She said that she started to ask a few questions about this or that at her woman’s prayer group, and they all began to lay hands on her and pray for her and give her verses- this confirmed to her that she could not be safe: ‘The Church is not a safe place for the questions I have.”
The one thing that I believe started out as a good intention and I first thought it was great was the different approach to writing. Instead of one voice writing, it was a discussion between 3 people, and it almost felt like we were easdropping on their conversation. At first I liked it, but then the further I went into the discussion, it really felt contrived, especially in the q and a part where “people” asked questions and they responded. I didn’t see any disagreements played out between the three and the Q and A seemed like someone spouting out “traditional ‘evangelical’ straw man questions’ that got put up and then knocked down even quicker.
There are some issues that I have with this book. One of which is the idea that we don’t have to, they say “manage” our relationship with God. Which almost seems like to me just live your life and you and God are good. I know that I can do nothing to earn God’s love. He gives it to me freely. But because of that I want to love, serve, and know him better.
Another part was their exegesis around the idea of confession. They say, “there is nothing more damaging to the gospel, my faith, and to my position in Christ than this daily confession of sin..” They say that it leads to this concern that “What happens if I don’t confess every sin. Then am I damned?” But I believe their exegeisis on 1 John 1:9 is weak, and Jesus wants us to confess the sins in our lives on a regular basis, because it hampers our relationship with Him. Not that he stops loving us at all. But wants the best for us.
I could go on and share some other thoughts regarding this book (God is never disappointed in us, their take on the idea regarding who goes to heaven, etc..) but this post is long enough. If I were to give this book a score of 1 to 10 (1 being horrible and 10 being amazing) I would give it about a 5. Good but not great.
http://veritaspa.squarespace.com/blog/
Aug 26th, 2010
Miriam
I just finished reading Colors of God by Randall Mark Peters, Dave Phillips and Quentin Steen. The book describes a new and emerging church in British Columbia, Canada called neXus. It is written in a conversation format as a discussion among the authors regarding what they are calling the colors of God. Each color represents an area of the church where they focus their teachings. Though I did like some of what the book had to say about the teachings of Jesus through his parables, it lost me when it began to dismiss words that have been a part of our Bible and Christianity since the beginning. They advocate an all inclusive thinking, however, when they are discussing traditional Christians, it seems to me that they are using exclusive language to make their points. I had a difficult time with their journey away from moral issues and toward that which is healthy. If something is healthy then it is what God would want us to do or have. I think that some issues could be debated from different perspectives and removing morality in a society that tries to dismiss it at times could be highly misunderstood. In concluding I would like to quote a contemporary Christian musician, who is now deceased, Rich Mullins. When talking about scripture, Rich often said, “God is the only one who’s got it right, the rest of us are just guessing.”
This book was provided free to me for reviewing by http://www.viralbloggers.com. I was not required to provide a positive review and this review is strictly my personal opinion.
Aug 26th, 2010
nlindroth
Colors of God was written a couple of years ago by three key leaders of a church in BC, Canada called neXus. The conversational style of the book gave it a very informal feel, which is good, because the content seemed very informal as well.
The church neXus is based on 4 main ideas represented by colors. Blue stands for the gospel, green for healthy living, red for community, and yellow for culture. For each of these topics, the authors seemed to be trying to be outside the box; in their words to deconstruct evangelicalism and suggest a different way.
I whole-heartedly agree with most of the main ideas of the book. The gospel is about grace, not works, and often we loose sight of that. If we are truly following Christ our lives should be getting healthier, transforming from the inside out. Our core beliefs should be reflected in our daily lives. Evangelicalism has become in some ways an exclusive club and does not reflect the grace of God, justice, mercy or love. There does need to be an authenticity in the community of God that has no pretense, and recognizes the mess of our lives. And finally, we are called to be in the world and to be engaged in our culture, not cordoned off in our evangelical sub-cultures.
Having said that, I found myself astonished at the “new” ways of looking at the Bible, that seemed to be trying to be edgie, or push some buttons for the sake of being unique. The extreme ways they made their points actually made them lose credibility. Starting from the idea of health in order to determine what is true seems very shakey to me. Saying that we don’t need to work on the vertical because it is finished, is ludicrous. A relationship needs to be nurtured. The point of the lost sheep story can hardly be that the 99 should get lost. And I honestly don’t think that in Matthew 18 Jesus was subverting the process of church discipline.
I found the book raising really great issues, and then trying so hard to seem extreme that it became painful to read. In the conclusion of the book some attempt was made to say that it was good to draw from the past, but the very meat of the book was about deconstructing the orthodox beliefs of the past.
The old covenant was replaced by the new. Thus new wine skins. I really don’t think that it is time for a another new wine skin, as the authors suggest, unless there has been an event such as the resurrection of the son of God to usher in such an era.
Aug 27th, 2010
Dan
Some of the things the authors say in this book push the limits of what others have lead me to believe are orthodox, or in other words, what one should adhere to that is commonly accepted. Not a bad thing. I have never been comfortable with blindly believing everything I am taught. Nevertheless, I started reading it about two weeks ago and I have been methodically looking at every word, re-reading every other page, and trying my darnedest (which is a word surprisingly…) to understand this book. It’s not that it is hard to understand. It is just so foreign to what I normally read. I can’t help it… I like this book.
Years ago, I read a biography of Martin Luther’s life and was enamored by his persistent pursuit of freedom in Christ. I went on to study many of Luther’s writings. I never once came to the point where I idolized Luther as some have (he would not have wanted that). However, I learned from him how really radical the gospel of Jesus is. No matter how you paint the picture… it boils down to this: Jesus came to set captives free.
Colors of God: Conversations about Being the Church is a book that confirms what I learned from Luther so many years ago, that our freedom in Jesus Christ is so much more radical than we let it be. It reaffirms what I have known for sometime: the gospel is “good” news. I recommend it… the book and the gospel.
http://edan0889.blogspot.com/2010/08/colors-of-god.html
Aug 29th, 2010
ngilmour
Cross-posted from The Christian Humanist Blog on September 1
Three years have passed now since I stopped posting over at theooze.com’s message boards, and I have to admit that I don’t entirely miss the experience. When I did decide to leave, the tone in general had for the most part (with happy exceptions) become belligerent, and I grew tired over time of people’s scoring “gotcha” points when I was trying to explore what I took to be important ideas and intersections of ideas. As folks who read here and who used to read over at Hardly the Last Word, I’ve come to enjoy blogging more than message-board posting because blogs allow for paragraphs, and for the most part, folks who read blogs don’t mind reading those paragraphs.
Oh, and I can moderate the comments.
The sad thing about my departure (and no, I’m not returning) is that, in the three years or so that I posted there, I was interacting (I found out later) with some folks who would become at least moderately well-known in Emergent circles, but I didn’t have enough of a grasp of that cluster of phenomena to say much about it. (Whether I’m part of it or not I’ll allow others to judge.) This book is another artifact that makes me realize that the line that Emergent folks so often use, the bit about Emergent’s being a conversation, is not some bit of pop-culture fluff but in reality a key to understanding what’s going on in that loose coalition of thinkers, speakers, and book-writers. To say that the whole shebang is really just the latest public face of Evangelicalism is to ignore figures who really do wish to popularize some of the more liberal/mainline theologies that have developed in places like Union Theological Seminary. To say that it’s all a front for theological liberalism is to ignore that a relatively conservative intellectual like Scot McKnight is at the core of the conversation’s history. And to say that it’s somehow a repudiation of the core principles of the Reformation is to ignore books like Colors of God, a joint project of Randall Mark Peters, Dave Phillips, and Quentin Steen.
The core of their theology as presented in this book is a Lutheran understanding of the gospel, namely that human wretchedness is forgiven and forgotten, without remainder, by the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That core conviction is the blue color in their four-color scheme, and taken in a large sweep, there’s little with which to quibble. Asked to give in brief form the broad outlines of Christian theology, certainly something like that contention would appear in my own account. My concern is that the broad sweep becomes totalizing, resulting in a tendency to rule out certain interpretations of Biblical texts without considering the shape of the texts themselves. I first noticed the trend on page 40, when Randall Peters says that certain (apparently obvious) interpretations of the Parable of the Good Samaritan categorically can not be right, but throughout the book the three authors in turn declare that this or that reading cannot be allowed because it doesn’t fit without remainder into the first principle of their theology. As readers who look at my lectionary posts know, one of the functions I believe the Bible should serve is to correct us, and my fear at the outset in this book was that a rigid adherence to a system would disallow the rise of a “theological datum” (Walter Brueggemann’s term) in any part of Scripture. As I proceeded, my suspicion never did get extinguished.
The green color in their four-color scheme represents health, and this is where some of my past concerns about Luther’s formulations come to fruit. Since forgiveness is without remainder, no action (in the scheme of Colors of God, mind you) can please or displease God more than God is currently pleased. (I’ll get to the Hell bit later.) Therefore all actual human life, in this system of thought, is to be judged not in terms of obedience or holiness but in terms of health, both physical and psychological. This is where the strong psycho-therapeutic background of Dave Phillips comes to dominate the conversation, and it’s where the book does not oppose but largely dismissed giant parts of Christian tradition with regards to sexual fidelity, disciplines of prayer, and other such things not because they’re “bad” but because they’re irrelevant in terms of the blue color. This is also where the authors hint at the possibility of a counter-cultural or prophetic critique of what they refer to as “the kingdom of man” (but don’t give anything like the details that Augustine gives to his civitas terrana) but can’t seem to muster any good reasons why one would want to oppose consumerism, advocate for environmental protection, or perform any of the other (new-left-flavored) actions that they seem to want to commend. As I noted before, when all human action becomes irrelevant for the big picture (the blue color), there’s little reason to do something as “unhealthy” as to live counter to the prevailing ideologies of the day, and this book provides little reason, other than the avoidance of seeming “religious,” to discipline one’s life in any intelligible fashion.
The red element is inclusive community, and once again, it’s an outgrowth of the previous two. The only aim of such a community, it seemed as I read, was to make sure nobody got too “religious” or did anything “unhealthy” in terms of contemporary psychological research. As with the first two colors, the authors showed themselves willing to cherry-pick both Scripture and Christian-era theologians to demonstrate their points, but never did there seem to be even the slightest room for novelty, a thought which challenged the big frame. For a book trying so hard to be “conversational,” there was little room for anything like a consideration of other possibilities for interpretation.
I have to say at this point (I’m honest to the point of rudeness that way) that this book’s “conversation” format irritates me. Throughout its pages I kept thinking that it shouldn’t have been a book in the first place but a video production of some sort. The book is a long transcript of a conversation, complete with requests by one author that another explain a concept just mentioned and interjected jokes (and responses to those jokes) that one expects at a panel discussion but not in the run of a long-form prose essay. This probably would have worked nicely as a DVD series or an online video-content feed or something else; as a book it doesn’t work that well. I’m certain that other reviewers will commend it for “thinking outside the box” or making things “conversational,” but in my mind it’s kicking a field goal at a chess match: it might have been better to do DVD things on a DVD.
The final color, yellow, has to do with engaging pop culture as a site for theological reflection, a rather uncontroversial point which they insist flies in the face of “religious thinking.” I did find some of their choices for pop culture theology amusing (extended meditations on Green Day’s “Good Riddance/Time of Your Life” and Goo Goo Dolls’ “Iris,” just for starters), but since this is something that I try to do (to the extent that I keep up with pop culture) in my own ministry, I don’t have all that much to say about it.
In sum, I think Colors of God is a good example of one way that folks have taken historical theology (in this case Luther’s doctrine of grace) and attempted to articulate that theology in actual ecclesial communities. It’s also a helpful reminder that Emergent, whatever else it might be, is a place where radical Lutheran psychotherapy can, for the moment, exist comfortably along side Hegelian evolution-theology and the environmentalist-liberation theologians, and even if the hard-nosed, foul-mouthed Calvinists have left the party, there’s still room for genuine difference in that strange cloud called Emergent. And for my money, that’s not entirely a bad thing.
Aug 30th, 2010
TheLogo
Original Post: http://thelogo.blogspot.com/2010/08/colors-of-god-by-peters-phillips-and.html
Disclosure: This book was provided by TheOoze for the purpose of review. @viralbloggers
Colors of God is a book by three self-described ‘emergent church’ pastors which explains a new way of doing church. It might have been better titled Colors of Church. The book is written in the style of a conversation, with paragraphs and sections divided by the first names of the authors, making a kind of combination of book with script. In Part 1 the authors tell their own stories of how they came to be in this place with neXus, which is the church they have founded based on the principals espoused in this book. In Part 2 they go through their four colors: Blue – Gospel Faith. Green – Healthy Living. Red – Inclusive Community. Yellow – Cultural engagement.
Theologically, they argue for several distinct positions. A moderate universalism, in the sense that we are all forgiven but some choose not to join God’s party. An inclusive view of our vertical relationship with God, such that God is always delighted in us, though we can grieve the Holy Spirit we cannot disappoint God. Strong two covenant theology, in which the entire OT is basically God working to bring His people to their collective knees in despair so they will be ready to accept Jesus good news of unconditional acceptance posited only the necessary first step of accepting God’s universal love and grace (does anyone else see the massive problems with a theology of this sort? What does this say about God? Why wouldn’t he be spreading his universal love and grace from the beginning? and on it goes…).
I could go on, but I will stop there. This book was an odd mix for me. The authors correctly diagnose many of the problems of mainstream evangelicalism, but the solutions they offer are as bad as the disease. Stylistically, the book failed. Reading this ‘conversation’ just felt awkward. The only times it meshed was when each author took an entire section, otherwise it felt very disingenuous. This feeling was, in fact, one which never left me throughout this book. From the staged conversations to the staged Q&A to the descriptions of the authors and their stories. I always felt like more was left out than included. As for the colors, they were meaningless; a gimmick, nothing more.
Theologically, this book started on fairly acceptable ground, but quickly swam into incredibly murky waters. As I have mentioned before, I strongly disagree with harsh two covenant theology on the basis that it makes such a mess of so much of the bible and of our view of God. The exegesis given as an attempt to back up this theology is terrible, as was most of the exegesis in general. This made me sad, as one of the authors graduated from the same school I did. They make assertions like ‘even if we are persecuted and recant our faith, we are still good with God’. Too bad for all those martyrs throughout Christian history who should have just taken the easy way out (note the heavy sarcasm). Too bad for these authors they seem to have missed Matthew 10:33, or at least ‘deconstructed’ it.
Not only that, but the language and emphasis choices made in the name of ‘inclusiveness’ and ‘cultural sensitivity’ were terrible. Health instead of holiness, avoiding ‘sin’, and replacing obedience with therapy? Like we don’t have enough problems from therapeutic views on life (Please Note: I am not anti-therapy in the sense that many people need help from trained counselors. However, I am against a therapeutic view of life in which happiness is the main goal).
Overall, this book failed to argue its points well. It failed to define its terms well. It failed to exegete the bible well. In other words, it failed. I really wish it hadn’t, but it did. This book started out with good questions, then it took a long walk off of a short pier. 1.5 out of 5 Stars. Not Recommended.
Aug 30th, 2010
addowns
A pretty good picture of the Kingdom
Original post at: http://uncollusion.wordpress.com/2010/08/31/a-pretty-good-picture-of-the-kingdom/
I’ve had countless conversations about preaching and it seems that people see only two methods: with a script and without; or perhaps in the pulpit vs. walking around. For many, there is a distinct dividing line between these two seemingly opposing methods. Those of us that have a ministry that includes preaching within the context of a congregation can tell you that there are many more methods and methodologies than those two. It is in this context that Colors of God opens up and talks about the way preaching is done at the authors’ church. Preaching is shared simultaneously as a dialogue. Both preachers prepare and have a conversation in the midst of the liturgy, wrestling with the Scripture, sometimes together, and sometimes in opposition. It is a strangely kinetic and visual environment that is both radically different from the current practice most of us are used to, while also theologically consistent with how we actually think of Scripture and how we actually describe our liturgy: as a response.
As I read this book, I felt an interesting tension: that it defied my ability to define it, not in the normal way that refers to our own inability to place a book in a genre, but in that as easily as it slips into a genre, it rejects its labels and presuppositions. It is a strange little book that can truly best be described as the result of three guys sitting in a coffee shop with a tape recorder. Who then take that tape recorder home and have someone type it up. This may be seen as positive or negative, depending on whether or not you find this idea compelling and the book is at times both. But it is earnest and believable, and that goes a long way.
The premise of the book is pretty simple, these three leaders (former capital-E evangelicals, but abiding by the small-e moniker), struck out on their own and formed an emerging church called neXus. And in their ministry, they have found four important components of faith, which they describe with colors. They seem to intend the colors as a gnomonic device for referring to each of these components, while also demonstrating that the presence of each color brings vibrancy to a picture.
The authors use the colors, however, not as a congregational creed or as a simple Rorschach test, but as a means of describing the most important elements to their church, in some ways basing an entire book on what a church might try to put on its webpage. But instead of sounding like a pitch, it does sound mostly right. They begin with Blue, saying the Gospel and historic faith is central to their identity, and the other three serve to demonstrate what is unique about neXus. They are about healthy living (which is in intentional contrast to sin-avoidance), creating a community that truly welcomes all people (as opposed to claiming this and then marginalizing different groups as greater sinners), and fully engaging the culture, especially pop culture.
Though this is the format of the book, the most compelling, and at times difficult part of the book, is something living within and without that structure: their eagerness to share of themselves constructively and precisely. This isn’t to say that they don’t wander or that this book couldn’t be summed up in 25 pages instead of 225 (which it easily could). But that they are very adept at stating and describing the gospel message that they profess. This was difficult for me at times because I really do think that they are much more Protestant than I am. However, the consistency and compassion of their message always won me over, sometimes leaving me struggling to think of a better way of putting it and failing.
Though I liked this book and would encourage many people to read it, I can’t give it an enthusiastic blanket recommendation. I want to give it caveats, depending on to whom I am talking. I’m thinking something like this:
Q: Are you an evangelical that is struggling with your church’s stance on issue X?
R:Then you should read this, noticing how faithful they are being to the Scripture.
Q:Are you a cradle Episcopalian or other mainliner?
R: Maybe; observe how comfortable they are in communicating their message and with dealing with the messiness of life.
Q: Are you a lapsed ______ and looking for a reason to go back to church?
R: Skip it and find something more akin to your place, like Brian McLaren or Marcus Borg.
Q: Are you looking to enhance diversity in your congregation?
R: Sure, but only if by diversity, you are using the term broadly or generationally, not so much in terms of race.
I don’t give these caveats because I think the book is bad or difficult or insufficient; far from it. I do this because I wanted the book to shout at me or drive me or motivate me or shake me up in some way, and what I received was a very readable, engaging, and occasionally intriguing book that fits within the paradigm it hoped to. In other words, it rarely surprised me. And yet, I read it all, pretty quickly, and found myself liking these guys, even though I had some issues with the way the describe the connection between the “Old Covenant” and “New Covenant”. Though I did want more literary punch, I did get into the conversational tone and felt like I could hang out with them and talk about Jesus.
I did have an interesting experience when reading this and I’m not sure what to make of it. Twice, while reading the book in public, I had an African American Christian make note of the book and ask me what I thought of it. Not something that happened when I was reading John Caputo or Philip Clayton in the last couple of months. I trust that they were taken by the title, and cover image, which does give the impression of a book about our ‘traditional’ use of the term diversity. The authors, however, don’t really engage racial diversity, but a more universal diversity (Kingdom of GOD diversity, perhaps) through the atonement.
My bottom line: 3 stars (out of 5)
Pros: I like the book for its readability and its earnestness. My personal learning from the book is in the clarity of voice and keeping to the message. The diversity in their theology and placing their emphasis on health is pretty unique and is relatively easy for anyone (outside of hardcore fundamentalists) to go along with.
Cons: Not as snappy as the stuff to which I am normally drawn. I have some trouble with their theology with regards to the covenants and the atonement.
Aug 31st, 2010
ricknier
OK, so the Church is broken, now what?
If you’re like me, you’ve read a lot of books containing theory as to the why and the what of church problems and solutions. But what if we had a collaborative effort of church theorist-practitioners who produce solid paradigms, but do so in the context of sharing and testing in a local congregation? We do: It’s called The Colors of God.
That’s what the review for this book said, so how could I pass it up? After all, my church isn’t perfect. And if someone has usable ideas, I would like to use them. Plus, I like colors.
Lots of books propose to start a conversation. This book accomplished that, helped along by the fact that it was a conversation already. It was written as if the three authors sat down and talked about stuff and some poor fourth guy got the enviable job of writing it all down. This made the book easy-to-read as the authors did a good job of stopping each other when clarification was needed.
They divided the book into four colors. For those of us born before sienna and chartreuse were popular, they went with Blue, Red, Green and Yellow.
Blue = Gospel Faith. This is where they tackled some big topics, like discussing how scandalous God’s grace may actually be.
Green = Healthy Living. This is where they took their foundation and presented a new paradigm for thinking about Church and relationships.
Red = Community. Lots of conversation about community and authenticity.
Yellow = Cultural Engagement. How? Why?
The conversational style helped. By the last section I felt like I knew where they were coming from and why they felt the way they did. This is not to say that I agreed with everything they said or their interpretation about all the scriptures they used. But I felt safe to disagree because of the openness in which they shared. They even conclude with a short section on how they see their role with the larger church.
The biggest strength of this book is that it does not leave everything concluded. It leaves me free to think and ponder and share the ideas with friends.
So what the authors, Randall Peters, Dave Phillips & Quentin Steen, did was to write about the core beliefs that drove their actions. This first part was by far the largest section. But laying a foundation is the most important part of any building or project, right?
The part that forced me to pay attention was in their explaining what kind of church they wanted to be. They were at a National Pastors Convention (always a rowdy party) and were listening to an exchange between ‘someone from the floor’ and Doug Pagitt, an Emerging Church pastor and author and also a presenter at the convention.
Someone: You must have some non-negotiables. I mean, certainly, we must maintain the deity of Christ beyond all other things, right?
Pagitt: Or not.
The Colors of God authors loved this line. I paused.
This was clearly new ground for someone who had been raised, and continues to work in, admit-ably conservative corners of the Church. If nothing else, it made sure I paid attention for the rest of the book, for fear that something would just be slipped in.
As I continued in this book, it became clear that while they were not attempting to start a new fad or religion, they did think that questions were good. I’m not sure I can disagree. If questions lead us to truth, then questions are a very good thing. Why should we fear the process? Is God too small to reveal Himself to a new generation? The language may change a bit and the process may look more like a pre-school art contest than a C.S. Lewis essay.
This book was provided for free review by my new best friends at theooze.com.
http://nexuschurch.com – the congregation these authors started
My original review is posted at http://ricknierwoo.blogspot.com/2010/09/colors-of-godpart-1.html
Sep 2nd, 2010
pomotheo
I think it’s a bit ironic that theooze.com sends these cool books, many of the ‘Emergent’ flavour, to a bunch of bloggers for review. It’s ironic because half of the books I’ve taken in thus far would do much better and receive a far larger readership if they were blogs instead of books. At some point some of these authors will realise this and stop attacking old paradigm in their books while simultaneously using old paradigm medium (and perhaps the prestige of a published book?) as a primary means to share ideas.
Colors of God was interesting for two reasons: format and content. The format was a ‘conversation’ between three people. I found this confusing at best and it certainly shaped the quality of the book (for better or worse I can’t really say). The other was content: the exploration of an emerging Emergent church from a classic Canadian evangelical context. Given this is a Canadian blog I can say the materials about Canadian church plants are scarce so it’s a treat to read about one.
I didn’t find the premise of three separate voices in print conducive to the creation of a memorable reading text. The trio essentially used their DNA from the church plant and translated into book form complete with some anecdotes.
There are some interesting sections, particularly around their take on the gospel and its contrast to the shame-filled evangelical gospel peddled by the majority of conservative churches today, that were insightful. In fact, that’s probably the books best trait, a good read for evangelicals who think they’ got it made, or people exposed to evangelicalism and wondering if their faith is worth more.
Having said this there is little in this book that separates it from other Emergent books about groups of people striking out from the mother ship and starting a church that’s not afraid to ask questions and accept raw humanity. That is apart from one crucial aspect, they are Canadians and they come from a Canadian context. That’s rare to find in book form.
2 stars out of 5, but an extra .5 of a star for being Canadian. 2.5 out of 5.
Sep 7th, 2010
Bill Nieporte
The tag-line on the back of this book says, “OK, so the church is broken, now what?” As soon as I saw that line, I was drawn into a discussion. The majority of books coming out of the “emergent” movement have been very good at describing what is broken about the church. They’ve even done a good job at breaking some of the mainstays of the church as it comes out of modernity. What has been lacking in most books, however, has been discussions about the “now what?”
So, the authors of this book aim to address the “now what” question. They address this question by telling the story of their departure from a more traditional church and their efforts to birth a new expression of church which they call nexus (http://nexuschurch.com/), located in Canada. In a conversational style (each author taking turns speaking) the authors share their personal experiences and describing their ecclesiology and how that is played out in their church.
To begin, the authors share how they no longer feel like they fit in the Evangelical Movement. As I read these sections of the book, I felt drawn back to a previous book I reviewed, specifically The Naked Gospel, by Andrew Farley. Like Farley, the authors react to the highly legalistic trends in much of the Evangelical Movement, instead opting for what I would call “radical grace.” They (both Farley and the authors of this book) make it clear that pleasing or impressing God is not the aim of the Christian faith. Rather, Christianity is about God’s work of redemption and sanctification.
Unfortunately, the authors of the Colors of God did not clearly talk about the transformational work of grace (as did Farely). They are correct, in my opinion, that a person’s relationship with God “doesn’t need management” (on our part). What they fail to clearly state that it DOES requirement management from God. That’s the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. That’s not to say that humans are passive in the process, but rather that faith is the constant surrender of the self to the work of God.
The bulk of the book following the authors time of “story sharing” has to do with the development of neXus and how their non-legalistic, emergent style and theology is played out in that fellowship. At this point, they begin to speak Colors. Four primary colors are identified as being expressions of what is primary about faith and practice of neXus. These are not to be understood as creedal formulas, but rather the base from which the congregation expresses its ecclesiology.
Blue refers to FAITH in the finished work of grace in Jesus Christ, through which we find rest in the knowledge that we are loved, accepted, and offer peace with God.
Green is the color of HEALTHY LIVING. The scriptures offers guidance, the authors says, that directs us to spiritual, emotional, relational, and physical health and well-being. These are all intertwine, valid, and necessary, according the neXus community.
Red is the color of COMMUNITY. Such community, as a fulfillment of the Gospel, is inclusive and diverse, characterize by the biblical virtues of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and self-control.
Yellow is the color of CULTURE. neXus aims to be meaningfully engaged in its culture. Their understanding is that God is already intimately connected and actively involved in culture. To not be engaged in culture, then, disconnects them from experiencing a full expression of God, while also hindering their efforts to embody and proclaim the Gospel.
As I read this book, I was struck by the Anabaptist flavor of their ecclesiology. Sure enough, when visiting their website at http://nexuschurch.com/ you will find a series of sermons drawing on the Anabaptist tradition as foundation to their life together as a faith community. I have been writing extensively on my own blog (http://nieporte.name) about the idea that the Anabaptist tradition has a great deal to offer churches emerging from post-modernity. Feel free to read my posts under the subject: “the transition zone.”
While the book has some flaws, I still feel it is an excellent read and I highly recommend it.
Sep 8th, 2010
for “The Colors of God by Dave Phillips, Quentin Steen & Randall Peters”
You must be logged in as a VIRAL BLOGGER to post a review.