Introduction One of the major shortcomings of the church has been in its inability to adapt to the surrounding culture

. Unfortunately, this weakness has been upheld as an ideal throughout the history of the Church. Our tendency to identify perfection as something that is static and unchanging has its roots in Greek substance metaphysics, and has led to fixed forms of ecclesiology that lack the fundamental adaptability to acclimate to our constantly changing environment. This has been true of the church historically as it extended into the mission field, but it is even true within our own culture as social and technological evolution cause society to drift beyond the kind of environment to which the Church was originally native.1 Churches find themselves either rigidly and ineffectively opposing the culture, or succumbing to it. Both reactions reveal an underlying and uncharacteristic2 impotence. In this paper, I will explore the concept of emergence as a model of dynamic life in the church. It is my contention that by adopting a more dynamic ecclesiological structure modeled after living organisms, we can facilitate the church’s natural adaptability to its ever-changing social context. The Need for Adaptability Far too little attention has been given to the effects that social, economic, and technological changes have had on our ability to make and be disciples. If the church is locked into its “ideal” institutional form, it becomes the sole responsibility of the individual to make the necessary sacrifices and changes to follow through on her commitment regardless of the constantly morphing conditions of her life in the world. There are many examples of social, economic, and technological impact on the lives of disciples; for instance, we are critical of the lack of commitment many people have to the Christian community. It does not often occur to us that it may indeed be more difficult for us to commit to fellowship today than it was 100 years ago. How has the automobile contributed to the fragmentation of our social environment? Moreover, how has the shift from an agricultural to an industrial economy changed the role of women in the family? How has the shift to a 24-hour economy changed our social habits? How has the introduction of cell phones and pagers caused the boundaries between work and home to blur? The church is not insulated from these changes, nor can we expect Christians, merely, to make individual commitments to endure these trends as if the pressures of change have no effect on us. Technologies by their very presence alter our environment, our worldview.3 These new challenges must be met with some sort of adaptive

Gerard Kelly explains how the church’s expectation of synchronism in an asynchronous culture is causing the church to loose touch with growing numbers of people whose lifestyle and timestyle no longer fits the old norms. Retrofuture 72 2 If we are to take Matt 16:18 seriously, we must believe that the natural state of the church is not impotence. 3 Vaidhayanathan 19

response by the church lest we share the guilt of the Pharisees who laid heavy burdens on the peoples backs unwilling to lift a finger to help (Matt 23:4). We can no longer afford to be blind to the effects these changes have on our lives and our ability to be committed disciples. Emergence Actually, I stumbled somewhat sideways into the concept of emergence. The progression of my inquiry began with an article by Eben Moglen4 professor of law and history at Columbia University and pro-bono counsel for the Free Software Foundation. What intrigued me was Moglen’s argument against economic incentive as a necessary condition for creativity upon which intellectual property rights is mostly based. His analogy of the internet to the process of induction demonstrates the principal of emergence.
“incentives” is merely a metaphor, and as a metaphor to describe human creative activity, it’s pretty crummy. I have said this before, but the better metaphor arose on the day Michael Faraday first noticed what happened when he wrapped a coil of wire a-round a magnet and spun the magnet. Current flows in such a wire, but we don’t ask what the incentive is for the electrons to leave home. We say that the current results from an emergent property of the system, which we call induction. The question we ask is “what’s the resistance of the wire?” So Moglen’s Metaphorical Corollary to Faraday’s Law says that if you wrap the Internet around every person on the planet and spin the planet, soft-ware flows in the network. It’s an emergent property of connected human minds that they create things for one another’s pleasure and to conquer their uneasy sense of being too alone. The only question to ask is, what’s the resistance of the network? Moglen’s Metaphorical Corollary to Ohm’s Law states that the resistance of the network is directly proportional to the field strength of the “intellectual property” system.5

My introduction to the concept of emergence was therefore somewhat obscure but in it, I perceived something that seemed significant for the life of the church and that is this. Could it be that the headship of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is an emergent property of the church, a community, which is gathered by the proclamation of the Word? Is the resistance in the network directly proportional to the field strength of the Ecclesiological structure? Today, many theologians are calling for a more decentralized form of church government. Some, like Rosemary Radford Reuther, are exploring the empowering characteristics of basic Christian communities6, while others like Miroslav Volf are articulating the polycentric nature of the Church.7 What if church government is not a necessity; what if it is an expedient at best, and at worst an obstacle, to the life of the church? Most churches struggle with what is frequently referred to as the 80/20 split, which divides the inactive and active members respectively. Leadership struggles constantly with its desire to activate the laity. Reuther suggests that Clericalism, by definition, disempowers the people and turns them into “laity” dependant on the clergy.8
4 5

Moglen, Eben, Anarchism Truimphant: Free Software and the Death of Copywright. Moglen 7 6 Rosemary Radford Reuther, “Ministry and Community for a People Liberated from Sexism,” in Sexism and God-Talk: Towards a Feminist Theology (Beacon: Boston, 1983) 7 Volf 224 8 Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Sexism and God-Talk. 206

The Case for A Bottom-Up Ecclesiology According to Millard Erickson, attempts to develop a structure of church government that adheres to the authority of the Bible encounter difficulty at two points, 9
1. 2. Lack of didactic material No unitary pattern

Erickson concludes that the only way for us to come up with a viable form of church government is to ask ourselves what church government is designed to protect and promote, then to determine which form best serves these values.10 He puts forward three as essential: the value of order, the priesthood of all believers, and the importance of the individual.11 From our three main options, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Congregational - Erickson chooses the congregational form.12 Erickson gives little attention to his fourth option; the Non-Governmental form, practiced by Plymouth Brethren and the highly marginalized Quakers, even though by definition, these would most closely embody his stated values.13 On the one hand, he commends these groups for their accentuation of the Spirits role, however he ultimately concludes that there is no biblical evidence to support the universal and direct work of the Holy Spirit, and that these groups posit an unrealistic level of sensitivity to the Spirit for their members.14 “It's not a bug, it’s a feature.” I do not wish to single Erickson out for his assumptions. The majority of Christians have historically believed that governmental structure is essential for the healthy functioning of the church and the only realistic expression of the headship of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Even churches that emphasize the priesthood of all believers, and unmediated access to the throne of God find it necessary to advocate some type of church government15, but what if they are wrong? There is a story about a shoddy computer salesperson, who is reported to have tried evading the observation that his product had a bug in the system, by claiming, “it’s not a bug, it’s a feature”. In this case however the observation may just hold true. Instead of looking at the lack of any formal pattern of church government as a problem to be fixed, what if we saw it instead as the sign of the real headship of Christ, the direct reign of God. For

Erickson 1094 ibid 1095-1096 11 for biblical ref. see, Order: 1 Cor 14:40, Priesthood of Believers: Rom 5:1-5, 1 Tim 2:5, Heb 4:14-16, Importance of the Individual: Rom 12, 1 Cor 12, Acts 4:32, 15:22 (See Erickson 1095 for his reasons for choosing these passages). 12 One could argue that given his premise (the three values he chooses,) that his conclusion was inevitable. Perhaps an Episcopal or Presbyterian theologian would have chosen different values and arrived at different conclusions. This may be true, but the undeniable fact is that these are biblical values, however we prioritize them, and they must be affirmed and promoted regardless of ecclesiological suppositions. 13 Williams, Walter R. The Rich Heritage of Quakerism (Barclay Press, Oregon 1997). 89 14 Erickson 1004 15 Luther did not develop an ecclesiology, because the first generation of the reformation still expected to return to the Catholic Church. Calvin developed an elaborate ecclesiology. McGrath 482

many Christians, especially those of the Free Church tradition the priesthood of all believers, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit uniting all believers and unifying the church is the ideal. It is, however an ideal that is trumped by practical concerns. Christ is the head of the church, but who will have the responsibility of making the decisions - really; the Holy Spirit is the bond of peace, but how will we achieve unity - really. What if these practical concerns, could be abated? Is the headship of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit something we can directly live by; or must it be mediated through some lesser structure? Emergent Systems Emergence is a new science, which studies the phenomena of how complex patterns “emerge” (in a seemingly spontaneous way) out of relatively simple systems under certain conditions. In his book Emergence, Steven Johnson describes the phenomenon as it developed historically through the scientific investigation of such seemingly unrelated subjects as slime mold cells, cities, ant colonies, and the human brain. Johnson’s primary interest lies in what he calls adaptive emergent systems. Adaptive emergence occurs naturally in and amongst biological systems like the human immune system, slime mold cells, ant colonies, and human cities. It is the most promising area the research into artificial intelligence. I believe in it we can find the resources for an ecclesiology which eliminates the resistance “in the wire” of ecclesiological structure, allowing the church to function more like a living organism capable of adaptive intelligence in its surrounding social context. In what follows, I will describe three overlapping characteristics of systems that display adaptive emergence, bottom up structure, self-organization, and collective intelligence. Bottom Up Structure Slime mold is essentially a collective organism composed of many smaller single celled organisms, which spend much of their time independent of each other. Under certain conditions however, they unite to form a single entity, which we know as slime mold. This behavior is triggered by a chemical known as acrasin, (Also known as cyclic AMP). Until the groundbreaking work of Evelyn Fox Keller and Lee Segal, it was believed that the aggregative behavior of slime mold cells was regulated by certain pacemaker cells16 that gave the signal for the community to unite. The problem was, these pacemaker cells could never be found. Keller and Segal proposed an alternate hypothesis based on mathematician Alan Turing’s work on morphogenesis17, whereby simple agents following simple rules could generate complex structures. They proposed that individual cells would emit varying levels of cyclic AMP, in response to their environment; under certain conditions, greater levels of AMP were emitted, giving the call to other cells in the

16 17

This theory was proposed by B.M. Shafer in 1962. See Emergence 16 ibid 14

vicinity to converge and form the collective body. When the environmental conditions would change, the levels of AMP emitted by the individuals in the community would drop thereby signaling their neighbors to break formation with the group. Does this apply to human relations; and more specifically the Church? Is any sign of this to be found in scripture? I believe so; for instance, the bible portrays human response to the proclamation of the Word in the terms of simple aggregative behavior. First and most notably people are compared to sheep. Sheep are herding animals, herding is a simple aggregative behavior much like the shoaling of fish or the swarming of insects. Under certain conditions, sheep gather into flocks. Shepherds make use of this aggregative behavior for the good of the sheep. In John 10:26-27 Jesus says, "You do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me”. When the Word of God is proclaimed, there is a fundamental separation of the believing and the unbelieving community, which happens all by itself. A central theme of Protestant understanding of the nature of the church focuses on the presence of Christ resulting from the proclamation of his word.18 Martin Luther’s early views on the nature of the church reflect his emphasis on the Word of God: the Word of God goes forth conquering and wherever it conquers and gains true obedience to God is the church.19 This emphasis is still characteristic of the 20th century theologian Karl Barth, who also held that the church comes into being in response to the proclamation of the word of God.20 Much like the acrasin of slime mold, or the pheromones of ant trails; human speech along with other nonverbal signals, comprise human communication. It is no small thing to note, that the most complete revelation of God comes not in words alone but in the form of a human person.21 As the self-communication of God, Jesus becomes a sign to be opposed 22 humanity is divided into those who embrace and those who reject this message.23 This fundamental division creates the body of believers that comprise the church. This is communicated in I Jn 1:3 by the author, who says, “what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, that you also may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ”. The proclamation of the gospel creates and sustains community.

18 19

McGrath 489 ibid 481 20 ibid 489 21 Heb. 1:1 22 Luke 2:34-35 23 Matt. 10:34-36

Self Organization The second characteristic is self-organization. One might be tempted to think, “Though such behavior is possible in simple organisms like slime mold, it could not possibly be a significant factor in more complex, organized behavior”. That assumption however, is wrong. Take for instance, the myth of the ant queen. A widely held misconception is that ant colonies operate under the direction of a social hierarchy.24 This is based on the philosophical assumption that complex social systems need a leader; however, no particular ant or group of ants can take credit for the grandiosity of the colonies organization. No single ant has the mental capacity to comprehend the complexity of the colony as a whole. Therefore, there are no city planers to designate where the colonies waste dump and cemetery will be located,25 and there are no general managers, assigning tasks for the day based on the number of workers and the physical needs of the community. All of these things are regulated by a relatively simple process of communication (i.e. pheromone trails and frequency of social contact,) the ant colony as a whole thereby regulates its behavior through the social interaction of its individual members.26 The experience of an individual ant or slime mold cell is limited to its local interactions or “street level” knowledge. The same is true of human interaction on the massive scale.27 If we turn again to the Gospels, we find Jesus is quick to dismiss disputes over prominence among his disciples. At least twice in Matthew 18:1-4 and 20:25-2 he directly confronts their ambition. There is also a story in Mark 9:38-40 where the disciples attempt to silence others “we tried to hinder him because he was not following us”. Jesus tells them not to oppose them "For he who is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40). We find no instance of control over a local church by outside organizations or individuals. The apostles made recommendations and gave advice, but exercised no real rulership or control.28 If there is no top down organizational structure imposed from the outside, what about the structure inside. Can we feasibly do away with the clergy/laity distinction? In Acts 1:15-26 the disciples choosing a successor to Judas allow the body to put forward a suggestion, rather than making the final decision, they decide to cast lots. The decision to choose this procedure is significant because it could reflect the fact that the disciples did not feel they were in a position to make the final decision where the body had not reached consensus. This however is the primary argument against consensus models of decision-making and egalitarian as opposed to hierarchical models of ecclesial structure. There are other indications that the ideal mode of decision-making was consensual. The epistles are not addressed to leaders but
24 25

Emergence 31 ibid 32-33 26 ibid 74 27 ibid 98 28 Erickson 1098

to the congregations as a whole. When the first deacons are selected in Acts 6, they are chosen by the whole church. The whole church also settled the dispute over circumcision in Acts 15:22. In Acts 8:27-40 there is the story of the Ethiopian who becomes a follower of Jesus and is baptized, he returns home – no official advisor, as far as we are told, is ever said to have been dispatched. Furthermore, it would seem that the growth and spread of the church in this early stage is not planned or strategized, by a group of leaders it occurs organically. The Gospel reaches Rome far ahead of the missionary activity of any of the Apostles including Paul. The letter to the Romans shows us that the church emerged from the proclamation of the Word spontaneously through the day-to-day actions of believers. Collective Intelligence Learning is not just about being aware of information; it’s also about storing information and knowing where to find it. It’s about recognizing and being able to respond to changing patterns.29 Cities, says Johnson, have the latent ability to act as a large information storage and retrieval device that connects the individual lives of human beings whose population density has grown beyond the ability of individual agents or groups of individuals to regulate. This is an emergent property that arose from the simple desire of people to aggregate together for protection. By bringing together minds and putting them into coherent slots, ideas and goods flowed with unprecedented ease leading to a superproductive cross-pollination that guaranteed good ideas would not die in rural isolation. Cities have an innate intelligibility that makes communal life on a massive scale possible - effectively cities become the brain outside our head. Conditions may not be ideal from the standpoint of the individual, but the overall success rate of the human species has multiplied exponentially. Hebrews 10:25 exhorts believers not to forsake coming together. Many theologians have begun to turn away from individualistic notions of the spiritual life, toward a more communally based understanding. For instance, Miroslav Volf makes the passage in 1Cor 14 central to his ecclesiology.30 The various gifts of the spirit are given to the community for the sake of building up the community. This turn away from individualistic notions of spiritual life is probably one of the most positive turns in recent times. In the practical section of this paper, I will explore some of the ways we can begin to try to tap into the collective intelligence of the body.


29 30

Emergence 103 Volf 224

Believers today, search for a context in which they play an active role. If we go back to Erickson’s values, we see that the “priesthood of believers”, and the significance of all members of the body would seem to answer directly this human longing, and his third value, “order” makes it possible. Miroslav Volf writes, People in modern societies, however, have little sympathy for top-down organizations, including for churches structured top-down. The search of contemporary human beings for community is a search for those particular forms of socialization in which they themselves are taken seriously with their various religious and social needs, in which their personal engagement is valued, and in which they can participate formatively.31 If we truly believe, along with Erickson, that there is no pattern imposed on us by scripture, then we must consider the area of ecclesiology to be wide open to human creativity and reason, putting the best of our understanding to use in creating ecclesiological forms that promote the kind of values that Erickson espouses. The modern study of Emergence opens the door to the possibility of a more hands off approach to Ecclesiological life that empowers the laity by downplaying or altogether eliminating top-down governing structures. I believe that by increasing the participation of the so-called laity and increasing flow of communication among members of the body the church will manifest a collective, adaptive intelligence that will be able to handle the rapidly changing social environment in a way a single leader, or leaders could only do slowly, with imprecision, if at all. In the final part of this paper, I will look at some practical ways to work towards fostering an emergent ecclesiology. Theology and Ministry In the Past decade, we have stopped analyzing the phenomenon of emergence and have started creating it. Our day-to-day lives have become overrun with artificial emergence. We have begun building self-organizing systems into our software, video games, art, music; it is beginning to inform our political movements and the structures of our businesses.32 Of course, the progress from organization to organism cannot happen instantaneously, certain key factors must be in place for an emergent system to work, they correspond to Johnson’s principles of emergence: Neighbor Interaction, Pattern Recognition, Feedback, and Indirect Control.33 Neighbor Interaction You need a high level of communication and interaction for higher level of corporate intelligence and adaptability to emerge. Modernist individualism has done much to erode the values of community. Many of us live in total isolation from our neighbors; our churches have become more like social clubs than the communities they ought to


Volf 17 Emergence 21, 221 (ebay), 225 (the Seattle Protest). 33 ibid 22

be. We do not feel a strong bond to the people we worship with. This however, is not merely the result bad choices made by individuals that can be changed by a mere act of will. It is a societal shift caused by the decisions of billions of people over many years. It is unrealistic to expect individual people to stand against the force of such an overpowering force. The church has a responsibility to explore changes to its cultural and structural life, to look for new and innovative ways to network the members within their church as well as network between churches. Some have put forward the incorporation of online communities into the ecclesiological structure as a solution to the problem34 but, as Johnson points out there are drawbacks to online community that keep it from fulfilling the hopes of futurist visionaries.35 Technologies can do much to increase the fluidity of communication, but they cannot take us all the way to community between human persons. One way to address the social fragmentation of our day might simply be to begin sharing a common meal together as believers did in the early days of the church. In the fast food generation where most people eat out most of the time anyway, eating together might be one way to mend the social fragmentation of our day. Our church, the Salvage Yard, has a common meal every Wednesday, hosted by one of our community houses. I know of other churches like Elim Baptist who also share a common meal after their Sunday Worship Service. With a little work, these could be transformed into a genuine service to the body rather than a social function. Another thing to consider might be an open door policy, having the church building open beyond the hours of Worship Service. Services like a Library, Spiritual Counsel, and meeting rooms could be made available to the community. Another means of connection implemented by our Church is a Gifts and Needs Board, where the services and resources of the community can be exchanged between members. Pattern Recognition Human beings are much better at pattern recognition, than we are at linear and logical reasoning. This is why the switch to an icon-based environment saw an explosion in the number of PC users. What had formerly been the obscure domain of the few, suddenly became intelligible to the masses. I had mentioned how cities can become the brain outside our heads. By taking information and putting it into coherent slots, we can exist in a kind of collective, intelligent space. Again, modernism must be identified as the culprit for much of the traditional wisdom that was lost. The reintroduction of narrative preaching, and the arts as a part of Christian life runs contrary to the modernist trend of linear reasoning and iconoclasm. We must learn again to be a symbol making community. This goes beyond the mere comodification of symbolism. The significance of art and story goes beyond its mere esthetic value. Ideally, it should

34 35

Retrofuture 73 Emergence 150

provide a way for the individual to contextualize her spiritual life, to find her place in the story as it were. We must give greater thought to the structure of our corporate space; does it have meaning? Is it user friendly? Indirect Control and Feedback When we look at a colony of ants and determine that the biggest one in the center of the colony is the leader; when we look at a flock of birds heading south for the winter and determine the one in front is leading the way – what are we doing but simply reading our philosophical assumptions into the natural world? If emergence truly underlies the adaptive structure of biological organisms including human cities then we must conclude that leadership itself is not what we assumed it was. The reformation’s break with Catholic Hierarchy did not result in the rejection of strong top down models of leadership. Leaders from Luther and Calvin right down to today see strong leadership as necessary to guide direct and hold community together. Calvin so much as stated that people who advocate dismantling the top down model of the church are plotting its destruction.36 Even emerging church thinkers like Brain McLaren cannot conceive of organization without it. He states, “Systems are interactive in an organism – it takes careful design and leadership to keep them coordinated.”37 When is the last time you told your immune system how to function or your heart how to beat? This is the way machines work, not organisms. Organisms have built in redundancies and back up systems, they are messy but they get the job done. From many statements he makes, it is apparent that McLaren still operates from a mechanistic worldview. History has shown us that even the most authoritarian models of leadership can at best exercise only indirect control, it is the attempt to manifest direct control, which results in harsh and coercive policies. Emergence provides us with the opportunity to take this insight and develop more liberating Ecclesiological Structures. Leadership, in fact, has very little to do with direct control at all. Rather, leaders are innovators, with good instincts, the first to act, and the ones who the body looks to most often for these very reasons. This is not the same as an office; a good leader in one situation is not necessarily a good leader in every situation. Ideally, an emergent ecclesiology should have a consensus model of decision-making. Where the headship of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit is taken literally – the broader the base of the decision making body, the greater is the certainty, and the less the possibility of influence of personal bias. Course adjustments to the direction of the community should come in the form of cultural modifications rather than the proliferation of rules and policies.

36 37

Calvin, John. Institutes 4:3:2. McLaren, Brian. The Church on the Other Side 45-46

Theology and Spirituality I have already stated in this paper, that emergence offers Christian communities the possibility of designing ecclesiological structures that have a built in ability to adapt to the surrounding cultural context. I believe that we can eliminate much of the difficulty experienced around so called “relevance issues” by tapping into the collective intelligence of the body, rather than limiting the contribution of individual members and restricting formation of new ministries under a strong centralized leadership. Our church’s can become social contexts in which people experience genuine freedom. An emergent ecclesiology would also answer the longing of the majority of people today who want a faith in which they play a formative role, and where their contribution is valued. The Christian community could be a place where the priesthood of all believers finds genuine expression, and where the headship of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit are experienced directly.

Questions and Answers At this point, I would like to answer some possible objections to the course I have laid out.

Q First, is adapting to the surrounding culture merely a way of accommodating the sin of the culture? A I do not believe so. In the introduction, I stated that we have a philosophical pre-disposition to associate change with imperfection. We cite verses like James 1:17, which states, that there is no change in God. Careful reflection on this idea however must lead us to the conclusion some aspects of God must change, in order for God to remain the same toward us. God changes the way he relates to us, in order to remain true to the eternal aspects of his divine nature. For instance, God’s love is expressed in the act of giving, and God is a giver of good gifts; but not all the time – sometimes love means taking good things away. The church too must constantly change in order to stay the same. If we value community, we must adapt to counter those forces, which would erode it. It is not enough to ask believers to “renew their commitment”.

Q How would anything get done without leaders? A This was actually the point of this paper. To demonstrate that many things happen naturally without top-down management. Consider your immune system, it adapts and responds automatically without the direction of the brain. If

you will recall my example with Paul and Rome, the church emerged there before Paul ever got their; most likely carried back by believing Jews who were present at Pentecost, Acts 2:5&6. There will undoubtedly be much skepticism around what I am saying, however, I hope that Christians will have the courage to begin working with some of the dynamics of emergence, like increasing neighbor interaction, pattern recognition, and indirect control. Perhaps as we begin to see a more empowered laity we can back off of the heavy top down models of ecclesiology and surrender to the direct headship of Christ and guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. by Tony Lane and Hilary Osborne (Baker: Grand Rapids 1987). Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 2nd edition (Baker: Grand Rapids. 1998). Johnson, Steven. Emergence (Scribner: New York. 2001) Kelly, Gerard. Retrofuture (IVP: Downers Grove 1999). McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction (Blackwell: Oxford, 2001). McLaren, Brian. The Church on the Other Side (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, 2000). Moglen, Eben. Anarchism Triumphant; Ruether, Rosemary Radford. Sexism and God-Talk (Beacon: Boston 1983). Vaidhayanathan, Siva. The Anarchist in the Library (Basic Books: New York 2004). Volf, Miroslav, After Our Likeness (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids: MI, 1998). Williams, Walter R. The Rich Heritage of Quakerism (Barclay Press, Oregon 1997).