Why "the why" matters.

We gotta go back a few steps

As usual I started writing this weeks ago, right after the Mockingbird Conference. But when I returned home, life started right back up without my permission. Our family now has eight(!) baby chickens (much to my dismay), we completed a bathroom renovation, and our boys started swim lessons, among other things.

At this point in my life I’ve experienced the “conference high” enough times that I should both expect it and the fact that it’s an impossible feeling to sustain at home. I usually leave conferences feeling inspired and refreshed; bestowed with new confidence to tackle all those projects I’ve been thinking about (and more!). But then I get home and the reality of appointments and to-dos and unexpected needs takes over. I guess that’s one more reason - if you are a “Christian conference go-er” - to make sure you are going to conferences and events that don’t center around the goal of giving you more to do, but instead remind you of God’s doing-ness and his faithfulness. This is the only way I’ve found to make my continued disappointments in time management and productivity somewhat bearable during the inevitable after-conference lows.

Anyway, while this won’t be a full recap of the Mockingbird conference, (and perhaps that would be boring to read anyway), but I did have one point I thought was worthwhile to make. What I’ve noticed about Mockingbird’s content in general is their unique ability to creatively and effectively diagnose the why behind the condemnation of the law - both the little-l laws we create and follow and try to construct into our salvation in this life as well as God’s law, which is always reminding us how much we fall short and how much we are in need of a savior.

It’s one thing to say “the law condemns you because you are a sinner.” This is certainly a true statement, and yet it lacks any understanding of the context and background of a hearer. Does the person you speak to understand what sin is? Do they even understand what is meant by condemnation? Do they feel their fears and concerns and worries are seen or understood enough to even be able to listen to you? To assume such is to simultaneously assume the language of salvation is inherent, which I would argue, is no longer the case for most. This is where Mockingbird excels – both for the Christian and non-Christian alike. Over and over again at the conference I heard amazing analysis of why and how my to-dos, my goals, my very way of life not only falls short but leaves me wanting.

The language of Christianity (even for Christians) can no longer be assumed. We cannot expect people to have any context for what we are talking about. And so we need to start two or three steps back from Romans 7. Why do we not do the things we want to do? And why do we keep doing the things we don’t want to do? Why is life so hard? And why are we constantly faced with burdens no matter how hard we try? It’s not that the answer, “this is sin,” full stop isn’t correct. It is. But I think oftentimes starting here is not the best way to help someone with no biblical language identify both the problems they are facing as well gently guide them to why such problems exist. Such conversations begins with empathy and compassion, with a push to listen a little extra as well as say, “I hear you and I have felt the same way, let me tell you why I think this is the case.” That extra effort is very much a part of speaking God’s law and gospel in today’s context.

There is, of course, also a very important why on the flip side. Because while we can easily say: “The gospel solves your problems” or “Grace is a salve” as true statements, the why and how and even what of the gospel is also worth our time to explore. And Scripture clearly gives us language for all of these in multiple ways and at multiple times; language that explicates itself throughout our own lives. This is where I would argue 1517, and language which returns again and again to Christ crucified for you, excels.

I admit this may all be quite obvious to you. But for whatever reason, it’s hit me anew during this season. The depth of the law and the depth of the gospel will be necessary for each of us at different times and in different ways. Sometimes we need a fuller picture of the law to draw us back to Christ. And sometimes we need a richer vision of the gospel to keep us in his arms, to assure us of who he is. I think specific theologians excel at each point. As long as we are hearing both, I trust the Holy Spirit to work to afflict and assure consciences. What a gift it is to have ministries and people capable of both.

Anyway, if you didn’t go to the Mockingbird conference OR the 1517 NWA Conference which happened just a week later and of which I attended in theory but not actuality (because I had a one year old and three year old in tow), I hope you’ll listen to some of the content. Below are some of my faves from Mbird (and here’s my breakout if you want to listen!). The 1517 Talks should be out shortly - keep an eye on their Youtube channel:

David Zahl, “Is Anything Not a Cry for Help?”

Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, “Martin Luther’s Guide to Becoming a Saint in Five Easy Steps”

Rina Raphael, “The Gospel of Wellness”

Jonathan Linebaugh, “‘Of What Value Is It?’ Honesty and Hope, ‘with a little help from my friend’ — St. Paul”

---

Latest Outside Ourselves

The latest episode is a couple weeks late at this point but it’s worth mentioning. To be honest, my conversation with Bruce Hillman on deconstruction did not go the way I thought it would at all, and let me tell you, that can make a gal nervous. But I think it’s one of the most informative episodes yet (perhaps as a result of the surprising turns the interview took).

I think there’s also something hopeful and uplifting to the reclamation of the original intent of postmodern deconstruction Bruce undertakes in this episode. So often, the conversations around Christian deconstruction feel tiresome to me. And I think this is in part because we don’t have our definitions straight. What is a person who is “deconstructing” their faith doing anyway? And (here’s my favorite question again) why are they doing it in the first place? If we were to start from a shared definition of deconstruction, I think we would find ourselves on a much better track.

You’ll notice Bruce does a lot of time explaining both postmodern philosophy and the concept of deconstruction from a pretty neutral perspective. At times, he gives these his defense, but I think his approach is something to keep in mind if you’re wary about all this to begin with. In other words, I didn’t leave the conversation ready to burn stuff to the ground, but instead encouraged that challenging preconceived binaries can have some pretty helpful advantages even in the realm of theology.

---

This doesn’t feel like a full Substack entry in the way I’ve sort of been doing them (or maybe imagining them?). I am short on recommendations because, to be perfectly honest, I haven’t had time to read and consume as normal. Hopefully that will pick up again this summer. I sure would like it to. Be on the lookout for the next Outside Ourselves episode with theologian John Kleinig at the end of this week.