These changes are significant for believers and whether you identify yourself as a postmodern thinker or not, the postmodern world affects all of us. The contemporary believer is in a shift from a faith which had become too influenced by modern thinking, namely productivity, to faith that is influenced by postmodern thinking. One is not better than the other by itself, but an understanding of both philosophically and personally is required if you desire to mature in your faith. When discussing Sin Management, Dallas Willard writes, “What right and left have in common is that neither group lays down a coherent framework of knowledge and practical direction adequate to personal transformation towards the abundance and obedience emphasized in the New Testament, with a corresponding redemption of ordinary life.” Regardless of how postmodern a church thinks it is, the modern trapping of productivity defines how contemporary Christians pursue discipleship. The approach is simple: if you do your part, then God will do His. However, the gospel of Christ is about freedom. We experience Christ and are faithful to Him simply for the sake of being intimate with our Heavenly Father.
Being Near To God
I make this so clear because as I struggled with the faith issues I have struggled with for the past ten years, I found myself doing everything but strive to be nearer to God. I searched in philosophy and theology for the answers to my questions. I sought out answers in church and in anti-church environments. I evaluated everything about Christianity I could. But the one thing I didn’t do was seek to be nearer to God. Perhaps that is because I was relying too much on my own efforts or because I feared such intimacy. There are many factors which played into why I avoided the one thing I needed to do, but ultimately I discovered if you want to know truth mentally, emotionally, and spiritually, you have to sacrifice your own fears and agendas and allow God to come near to you. The philosophy of meta-physics teaches us that there are far too many causes on any one effect. Meta-physically, I, like the church, were unable to explore the various causes of a healthy relationship with Christ.
Being religious can be very productive spiritually. There are hundreds of religions out there. Each of them has followers who not only think they are meeting a spiritual need, but actually are meeting a spiritual need. Religion offers answers to difficult life questions. It promotes stability and greater purpose. It provides a community which is supportive and encouraging, and religion makes one think they are truly connecting to something bigger than themselves. These are good things. In fact, a relationship with Christ that is mature should do the same things. It is easy to think if you are practicing religion you are growing in your faith, and in a sense you are. But if your relationship with Christ only produces these things, regardless of how much your belief system believes it isn’t about religion, all you have accomplished is the same thing you would were you serious about any other religious belief system. This is not to say God can’t transcend our religious efforts. I believe God often, if not always, compensates for our religious efforts and offers genuine ministry. I believe He does this for Christians, Jews, and Muslims, however, just because God’s grace is so profound He makes up for our incompetence, it doesn’t mean we are doing what we are called to do in our relationship with Him. Committing to religious dogma isn’t the same thing as sacrificing our flesh, and being passionate about our religious system doesn’t mean we are actively partnering with God in our maturation.
Hopefully this gives you some insight into the cultural influences which have shaped the church over the past few hundred years. Church history, social anthropology, human development models, and more have written volumes of literature about any one of these topics, but I hope that this brief overview helps paint a picture. More specifically, this overview should give you the context needed to understand my journey.
Monday, November 30, 2009
THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION- Part 2
To further understand the context of postmodern influence on Christian thought consider these periods of thought. Primitive Christianity (1st Century) had a focus on mystery, community, and symbol. These were the foundational elements of this new group of believers. The Common Era (100-600) began the classical period of the church, but the focus was still on mystery, community, and symbol. During the Medieval (600-1500) period that came with the formation of the Roman system of Church under the leadership of Constantine, Catholicism was birthed and the institutional church was organized. Reformation (1500-1750) brought Protestantism. This began to be not just a sect in Christianity, but reformed all areas of the faith including the Catholic Church. The focus here became the Word of God. Authority of Scripture and its use as a tool for all people was the message. The Modern Era (1750-1980) brought denominations. This became not just a way for people to find a form which fit them and their relationship to God, but denominations became a means of analysis, reason, and individualism. Ultimately, the Modern Era caved in on itself. It attempted to bring people into the church through the arguments of reason, but this eventually drove people away as the church became more fundamental. Postmodern (1980- ) is the stage we are currently operating within. It has been a return to mystery, community, and symbol. Furthermore, there are three technological revolutions that radically affected the modern church and now the postmodern church. The Agricultural Revolution led to the formation of towns as people grouped together for trade and protection. The Industrial Revolution led to innovations that urbanized people. Production was the goal. Now the Cybernetic Revolution has brought exponential growth through efficient calculations.
To understand how postmodernism became postmodernism, let’s look at its short history. In 1870, John Watkins Chapman referred to his art is as post-Impressionism. In 1917, German writer Rudolph Panwitz referred to what we now call postmodernism as a nihilistic approach to rejecting European civilization. In 1940, Einstein embraces many postmodern approaches to science and philosophy. In the 1960s, pop art and the sexual revolution kick the movement into overdrive. Even in the church, the nationalistic approach to church growth was being challenged by ethicists such as Richard Neibuhr. To understanding postmodernism the first thing you need to know is postmodernism can’t completely be defined yet. It is still too early to know exactly what it all means. More importantly, to define it completely would be a modern need. For the sake of understanding it, however, it is a rejection of modernity. There are some defining characteristics of modernity and post-modernity. Modernity has its history and identity starting with the introduction of the printing press. Earlier than that though, Copernicus asserts the Earth is not the center of the universe. This was the birth of modern science with Galileo and Newton following as major leaders. The development of large ships for exploration also helped define modernity as well as market capitalism replacing feudalism. Modern guns and infantry also defined the modern world as they were new resources for conquest and control. For Christians, the Protestant Reformation was our modern equivalent for understanding our faith as we shifted to valuing rational thought above mystery and symbol.
For post-modernity, mass media, multiculturalism, post Einsteinian theories (quantum mechanics, expanding universe), contemporary philosophies that challenge the elite’s, air travel, e-commerce, new military technology, and a decline in institutionalism has shaped its identity. There are other defining characteristics of postmodernism such as no central reality, arena of dueling ideas, knowledge that is not inherently good, cooperation over conquest, truth not being limited to rational assumptions, knowledge being subjective because the world is relational, reality as relative, time not necessarily being linear, a community based understanding of good, an end to a single-minded world-view, deconstruction, and post-structuralism (or the synthesis of various areas of study in forming theory and beliefs). Language must be functional in postmodern theory and language must produce meaning rather than reflect meaning. This is significant for believers. The Christian who is heavily influenced by postmodernism seeks to find those elements within postmodernism which are beneficial to the Kingdom of God and deals with destructive elements of postmodernism in a way which are Kingdom building.
There has also been a significant change in the nature of self. In the pre-modern world, identity is social stability. In the modern world, and for the first time, personal identity could be in crisis due to wider range of social roles and possibilities, the availability of choosing our identities, and the need for achievement. This all led to an anxiety about fragile or false identity. In the postmodern world, opportunities change all the time. The acceptance of not having one stable identity is accepted and true self is without substance and superficial meaning is embraced. This is problematic because it leads to a nihilistic approach to identity. This is an incredibly important aspect of the paradigm shift that reflects how little emerging is actually happening in the current church. Identity development for believers should be firmly rooted in Christ. We are, above all else, His. The Kingdom is a loosely defined sociological idea where Christians are able to see a critical element of their identity within the social setting. This promoted a Kingdom perspective which when coupled with a single identity source made identity development for the supporting local church easy to nurture. With the advent of modernity the individual identity is challenged as new sources are introduced. The supporting local church should have assisted people with incorporating new sources of identity into the previous paradigm, but typically used a dogmatic approach to simply assert the original paradigm. This only lead to greater sense of identity crisis as now the individual had to deal with the guilt associated with identity development. In the postmodern world culture is embracing an ever-more loosely defined idea about what an identity actually means. The church responded to the multiple identities that people were beginning to embrace in the postmodern world in a way that would have been very appropriate in the modern world. They try to help people incorporate multiple sources under the same pre-modern concept. This would have a perfect ministry during modernity, but under post-modernity it is a muddied approach that is most often presented as how to be a church-goer in the post-modern world. The need for direction for having multiple identities is nowhere in the current institution.
There have been six super-trends of the Great Transformation (All information here is given from “Futuring” by Edward Cornish). The first is technological progress, “All improvements being made in computers, medicine, transportation, and other technologies, as well as all the other useful knowledge that enables humans to achieve their purposes more effectively.” The next is economic growth. The Gross Domestic Product increased from $695 billion in the 19th century to $28 trillion in 1992. From 1500 to 1820 the per person average income went from $565 to $651 relative to 1990 standards (an increase of only 27 cents per year). From 1820 till 1994 the increase was $26 per year. The third is health care improvement. Due to more food, effective sanitation, better health services, and so on, the population has grown from 1 billion to about 6 billion in the past 50 years leading to population growth and longevity. The forth is increased mobility. People, goods, and information move from place to place faster and in greater quantity than ever before. The fifth is environmental decline. This includes the high use and disposal of petroleum and other natural materials and minerals, freshwater supplies, farming land, over-fished oceans, extinction of wildlife, and possibly global warming. And finally, increased deculturalization, or the loss of culture due to altered circumstances, has changed the world. The number of global languages is expected to dwindle from 6,000 to 3,000 by the end of the 21st century.
To understand how postmodernism became postmodernism, let’s look at its short history. In 1870, John Watkins Chapman referred to his art is as post-Impressionism. In 1917, German writer Rudolph Panwitz referred to what we now call postmodernism as a nihilistic approach to rejecting European civilization. In 1940, Einstein embraces many postmodern approaches to science and philosophy. In the 1960s, pop art and the sexual revolution kick the movement into overdrive. Even in the church, the nationalistic approach to church growth was being challenged by ethicists such as Richard Neibuhr. To understanding postmodernism the first thing you need to know is postmodernism can’t completely be defined yet. It is still too early to know exactly what it all means. More importantly, to define it completely would be a modern need. For the sake of understanding it, however, it is a rejection of modernity. There are some defining characteristics of modernity and post-modernity. Modernity has its history and identity starting with the introduction of the printing press. Earlier than that though, Copernicus asserts the Earth is not the center of the universe. This was the birth of modern science with Galileo and Newton following as major leaders. The development of large ships for exploration also helped define modernity as well as market capitalism replacing feudalism. Modern guns and infantry also defined the modern world as they were new resources for conquest and control. For Christians, the Protestant Reformation was our modern equivalent for understanding our faith as we shifted to valuing rational thought above mystery and symbol.
For post-modernity, mass media, multiculturalism, post Einsteinian theories (quantum mechanics, expanding universe), contemporary philosophies that challenge the elite’s, air travel, e-commerce, new military technology, and a decline in institutionalism has shaped its identity. There are other defining characteristics of postmodernism such as no central reality, arena of dueling ideas, knowledge that is not inherently good, cooperation over conquest, truth not being limited to rational assumptions, knowledge being subjective because the world is relational, reality as relative, time not necessarily being linear, a community based understanding of good, an end to a single-minded world-view, deconstruction, and post-structuralism (or the synthesis of various areas of study in forming theory and beliefs). Language must be functional in postmodern theory and language must produce meaning rather than reflect meaning. This is significant for believers. The Christian who is heavily influenced by postmodernism seeks to find those elements within postmodernism which are beneficial to the Kingdom of God and deals with destructive elements of postmodernism in a way which are Kingdom building.
There has also been a significant change in the nature of self. In the pre-modern world, identity is social stability. In the modern world, and for the first time, personal identity could be in crisis due to wider range of social roles and possibilities, the availability of choosing our identities, and the need for achievement. This all led to an anxiety about fragile or false identity. In the postmodern world, opportunities change all the time. The acceptance of not having one stable identity is accepted and true self is without substance and superficial meaning is embraced. This is problematic because it leads to a nihilistic approach to identity. This is an incredibly important aspect of the paradigm shift that reflects how little emerging is actually happening in the current church. Identity development for believers should be firmly rooted in Christ. We are, above all else, His. The Kingdom is a loosely defined sociological idea where Christians are able to see a critical element of their identity within the social setting. This promoted a Kingdom perspective which when coupled with a single identity source made identity development for the supporting local church easy to nurture. With the advent of modernity the individual identity is challenged as new sources are introduced. The supporting local church should have assisted people with incorporating new sources of identity into the previous paradigm, but typically used a dogmatic approach to simply assert the original paradigm. This only lead to greater sense of identity crisis as now the individual had to deal with the guilt associated with identity development. In the postmodern world culture is embracing an ever-more loosely defined idea about what an identity actually means. The church responded to the multiple identities that people were beginning to embrace in the postmodern world in a way that would have been very appropriate in the modern world. They try to help people incorporate multiple sources under the same pre-modern concept. This would have a perfect ministry during modernity, but under post-modernity it is a muddied approach that is most often presented as how to be a church-goer in the post-modern world. The need for direction for having multiple identities is nowhere in the current institution.
There have been six super-trends of the Great Transformation (All information here is given from “Futuring” by Edward Cornish). The first is technological progress, “All improvements being made in computers, medicine, transportation, and other technologies, as well as all the other useful knowledge that enables humans to achieve their purposes more effectively.” The next is economic growth. The Gross Domestic Product increased from $695 billion in the 19th century to $28 trillion in 1992. From 1500 to 1820 the per person average income went from $565 to $651 relative to 1990 standards (an increase of only 27 cents per year). From 1820 till 1994 the increase was $26 per year. The third is health care improvement. Due to more food, effective sanitation, better health services, and so on, the population has grown from 1 billion to about 6 billion in the past 50 years leading to population growth and longevity. The forth is increased mobility. People, goods, and information move from place to place faster and in greater quantity than ever before. The fifth is environmental decline. This includes the high use and disposal of petroleum and other natural materials and minerals, freshwater supplies, farming land, over-fished oceans, extinction of wildlife, and possibly global warming. And finally, increased deculturalization, or the loss of culture due to altered circumstances, has changed the world. The number of global languages is expected to dwindle from 6,000 to 3,000 by the end of the 21st century.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION- Part 1
The following essay will be presented in 3 parts. The second part will be posted next week. I would really enjoy any feedback you would like to give.
“Following the light of the sun, we left the old world” (Christopher Columbus)
Over the past few years the book of Hebrews has become one of my favorite books in the bible. One of the things I like most about the book of Hebrews is how relevant it is to me as a 21st century Generation X believer living in the Millennials’ world. Each significant period in time is a cultural snapshot and has both secular and religious significance. Each era has its strengths and weaknesses, and one is no more Christian than another. It is simply a cultural paradigm. However, postmodern influences have allowed disciples to explore new depths of their faith and wrestle with difficult questions. (I realize, by the way, the using the term “postmodern” is no longer the in word in the church.) It is important to realize postmodernism is not a generational issue. Academically, it stretches over many generations. Additionally, humanity and the human psyche are more complex than simple sociological descriptions of the overarching cultural themes. The preacher in Ecclesiastes teaches us nothing is new under the sun. People are people and from generation to generation, many themes and values remain constant. Scientifically, postmodernism itself has different levels. Postmodernism is typically much more abstract and philosophical than we understand it to be, but because these issues are so central to my journey, I would like to give a very quick overview of postmodernism in the early 21st century.
The beginning of postmodernism can most easily be identified as starting at the end of World War II. Since World War II the world population has increased at an amazing rate. In 1950 there were approximately one billion people. Since then the world’s population has risen to approximately 6.1 billion people. It is projected that by 2050 there will be over 8 billion. There are also four times as many countries (100 new since WWII). The Gross National Product has also increased. From 1800 till 1940 the GNP increased by under 30 cents a year per person. Since WWII the GNP is over twenty-five dollars a year per person. The rate of knowledge is also increasing at an amazing rate. If we continue at the same rate as present, the next 100 years will be equivalent to 20,000 years of progress from any previous century. Every area of life is progressing at an exponential rate: military, science, religion. Experts considered the period from 1800 to 1950 rapid change, but since then it has been considered radical change. Meaning that industrialization and urbanization were incredibly significant, but nothing compared to what has happened since then. This is specifically interesting because most people (especially in the church) continue to approach life, faith, and human development from an industrial perspective. One of the largest social changes occurred as a direct result of WWII. When Baby Boomers hit maturity in the late 1960s the cultural dynamics shifted in ways we are still unwrapping. Among others shifts that were brought on in the 1960s was the shift in focus from the community good to the personal good, civil liberties, and personal expression. This liberating period in American history was more than a generational expression of identity. It was the culmination of what had been occurring around the world for the previous 25 years. Many of the issues that society continues to deal with today are a direct result of what was introduced nearly fifty years ago.
The church has also experienced radical change since World War II. Before WWII church was relatively consistent. There were obvious changes and periods of great highs and lows, but church was church. Major theological shifts were profound, however, and had significant impacts on church structure and spiritual development. The Reformation, the Enlightenment, the introduction of Sunday school, and racial integration are just a few of the major changes that occurred in the church that reflect the greater cultural and sociological landscapes of the time. But changes in church programming and activity from the Reformation to World War II were slow and reflected cultural interests more than radical shifts in paradigms and philosophies. The impact of great theology and church leaders such as John Wesley, Dietrich Bonheoffer, Charles Spurgeon, and many more brought great insight to Christianity and humanity. In fact, I see these men as some of the greatest thinkers of all time. However, despite the prophesy, teaching, and insight that these men and women brought, the impact on the local church’s paradigm was gradual, significant, but gradual. Most significantly, the church’s focus remained centered on reason and analysis for generations. The greater philosophical influences of individualism and industrialization which defined a couple of hundred years of human history were just as obvious in the theological discussions as they were political debates.
After World War II, in society at large, the major postmodern paradigm shift was in its infancy, but in the late 1960s new church leadership began to search for new ways to reach a culture which wanted enthusiasm, freedom, and social service. These were the first signs of the postmodern influence on the church. There seemed to be a church revival among certain churches. This ignited a “Jesus Movement” which was a bit misleading and naïve. By the 1970s the church’s response to the wants of the 1960’s was already losing connection to people whose desire for freedom was becoming blatant cynicism toward the establishment. Spiritually, the desire for freedom was being coupled with a desire for transparency. No wonder youth ministry in the 1970s was fail proof. Even though the spiritual maturity of this generation wasn’t necessarily stronger, the appearance for those involved to be more connected to the church in years. While this may have been a bright moment for some who were still active in the local church, the grand exodus out of church was picking up momentum. In the 1970s you begin to see mega-churches form as the new ideal. Larger programs, bigger buildings, and serving consumerism seemed to be the answer. This new movement became as institutional as the one it originally defied. However, due to its nationalistic and capitalistic approach, the church was losing more energy than ever. All that was really happening was the churches getting larger became that way at the expense of churches which were closing their doors. By the 1980s church competition is in full swing and due to how damaging this type of competition can be on the Kingdom, this is also when the institution shows its first signs or real injury. But the standard was established and church people liked the energy. All that could be done was to continue to compete against other churches for each church’s own survival. The institution had now become focused on simply existing. As people began to become frustrated with this and realize that programs are not enough, a genuine attempt at deeper intimacy was attempted starting in the early 1990s. Greater personal responsibility in society due largely to the consequences of the sexual revolution, was becoming more valued. The popularity of local coffee shops aided in this intimacy focus with countless number of local Christian bands playing in coffee shops to small intimate crowds across every city in America. But with the many major changes that had occurred in the church in such a short time period the church suffered from an identity crisis: wanting to be something more while still doing things that “worked”. By the time the 20th century ended church attendance was at a dismal number, church integrity was at a all time low, and the impact of institutionalization was so prolific that even churches with the greatest of intentions were unable to escape its reach. Whereas for centuries the church shaped culture as well as being shaped by it, over the past fifty years all the church has been able to do is respond to culture with the hopes of remaining relevant.
“Following the light of the sun, we left the old world” (Christopher Columbus)
Over the past few years the book of Hebrews has become one of my favorite books in the bible. One of the things I like most about the book of Hebrews is how relevant it is to me as a 21st century Generation X believer living in the Millennials’ world. Each significant period in time is a cultural snapshot and has both secular and religious significance. Each era has its strengths and weaknesses, and one is no more Christian than another. It is simply a cultural paradigm. However, postmodern influences have allowed disciples to explore new depths of their faith and wrestle with difficult questions. (I realize, by the way, the using the term “postmodern” is no longer the in word in the church.) It is important to realize postmodernism is not a generational issue. Academically, it stretches over many generations. Additionally, humanity and the human psyche are more complex than simple sociological descriptions of the overarching cultural themes. The preacher in Ecclesiastes teaches us nothing is new under the sun. People are people and from generation to generation, many themes and values remain constant. Scientifically, postmodernism itself has different levels. Postmodernism is typically much more abstract and philosophical than we understand it to be, but because these issues are so central to my journey, I would like to give a very quick overview of postmodernism in the early 21st century.
The beginning of postmodernism can most easily be identified as starting at the end of World War II. Since World War II the world population has increased at an amazing rate. In 1950 there were approximately one billion people. Since then the world’s population has risen to approximately 6.1 billion people. It is projected that by 2050 there will be over 8 billion. There are also four times as many countries (100 new since WWII). The Gross National Product has also increased. From 1800 till 1940 the GNP increased by under 30 cents a year per person. Since WWII the GNP is over twenty-five dollars a year per person. The rate of knowledge is also increasing at an amazing rate. If we continue at the same rate as present, the next 100 years will be equivalent to 20,000 years of progress from any previous century. Every area of life is progressing at an exponential rate: military, science, religion. Experts considered the period from 1800 to 1950 rapid change, but since then it has been considered radical change. Meaning that industrialization and urbanization were incredibly significant, but nothing compared to what has happened since then. This is specifically interesting because most people (especially in the church) continue to approach life, faith, and human development from an industrial perspective. One of the largest social changes occurred as a direct result of WWII. When Baby Boomers hit maturity in the late 1960s the cultural dynamics shifted in ways we are still unwrapping. Among others shifts that were brought on in the 1960s was the shift in focus from the community good to the personal good, civil liberties, and personal expression. This liberating period in American history was more than a generational expression of identity. It was the culmination of what had been occurring around the world for the previous 25 years. Many of the issues that society continues to deal with today are a direct result of what was introduced nearly fifty years ago.
The church has also experienced radical change since World War II. Before WWII church was relatively consistent. There were obvious changes and periods of great highs and lows, but church was church. Major theological shifts were profound, however, and had significant impacts on church structure and spiritual development. The Reformation, the Enlightenment, the introduction of Sunday school, and racial integration are just a few of the major changes that occurred in the church that reflect the greater cultural and sociological landscapes of the time. But changes in church programming and activity from the Reformation to World War II were slow and reflected cultural interests more than radical shifts in paradigms and philosophies. The impact of great theology and church leaders such as John Wesley, Dietrich Bonheoffer, Charles Spurgeon, and many more brought great insight to Christianity and humanity. In fact, I see these men as some of the greatest thinkers of all time. However, despite the prophesy, teaching, and insight that these men and women brought, the impact on the local church’s paradigm was gradual, significant, but gradual. Most significantly, the church’s focus remained centered on reason and analysis for generations. The greater philosophical influences of individualism and industrialization which defined a couple of hundred years of human history were just as obvious in the theological discussions as they were political debates.
After World War II, in society at large, the major postmodern paradigm shift was in its infancy, but in the late 1960s new church leadership began to search for new ways to reach a culture which wanted enthusiasm, freedom, and social service. These were the first signs of the postmodern influence on the church. There seemed to be a church revival among certain churches. This ignited a “Jesus Movement” which was a bit misleading and naïve. By the 1970s the church’s response to the wants of the 1960’s was already losing connection to people whose desire for freedom was becoming blatant cynicism toward the establishment. Spiritually, the desire for freedom was being coupled with a desire for transparency. No wonder youth ministry in the 1970s was fail proof. Even though the spiritual maturity of this generation wasn’t necessarily stronger, the appearance for those involved to be more connected to the church in years. While this may have been a bright moment for some who were still active in the local church, the grand exodus out of church was picking up momentum. In the 1970s you begin to see mega-churches form as the new ideal. Larger programs, bigger buildings, and serving consumerism seemed to be the answer. This new movement became as institutional as the one it originally defied. However, due to its nationalistic and capitalistic approach, the church was losing more energy than ever. All that was really happening was the churches getting larger became that way at the expense of churches which were closing their doors. By the 1980s church competition is in full swing and due to how damaging this type of competition can be on the Kingdom, this is also when the institution shows its first signs or real injury. But the standard was established and church people liked the energy. All that could be done was to continue to compete against other churches for each church’s own survival. The institution had now become focused on simply existing. As people began to become frustrated with this and realize that programs are not enough, a genuine attempt at deeper intimacy was attempted starting in the early 1990s. Greater personal responsibility in society due largely to the consequences of the sexual revolution, was becoming more valued. The popularity of local coffee shops aided in this intimacy focus with countless number of local Christian bands playing in coffee shops to small intimate crowds across every city in America. But with the many major changes that had occurred in the church in such a short time period the church suffered from an identity crisis: wanting to be something more while still doing things that “worked”. By the time the 20th century ended church attendance was at a dismal number, church integrity was at a all time low, and the impact of institutionalization was so prolific that even churches with the greatest of intentions were unable to escape its reach. Whereas for centuries the church shaped culture as well as being shaped by it, over the past fifty years all the church has been able to do is respond to culture with the hopes of remaining relevant.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
My Story
“What can we gain by sailing to the moon if we are not able to cross the abyss that separates us from ourselves?” (Thomas Merton)
When I was in junior high I went to the altar at church camp to accept a “calling into ministry”. I accepted the calling with much enthusiasm; I was, in fact, already very active in my church and youth group. However, with the new calling on my life I quickly began to map out my path. Here’s how it was going to work out: I would begin with youth ministry and then after going to seminary and become a renowned scholar. From there I would begin to take on leadership positions in the local church. This would naturally lead to opportunities to become a national voice where I would be given opportunities to speak at conferences, summer camps, and be a bestselling author. It was quite a plan and I held to it well into college. Despite the arrogance associated with mapping out my own course without seeking or waiting on God, my adolescent optimism was centered on serving God from my youth. I am sorry to say that my testimony doesn’t begin with being down and out. I was never at the end of my rope or on the verge of despair. My family life was and is good. I was a good kid with good friends. And I knew God’s love from a very early age. My testimony begins with me being “good.” Not the kind of good that comes from God, but the kind of good that comes from being religious, well trained, and dogmatic. As someone who appreciates the necessity of spiritual development, I understand that all maturity must be dogmatic at some point. But my situation goes beyond normal zeal for missions or evangelism. My zeal came from the insidiousness of institutionalization. I realize that these are strong words, but still very true. I was committed to the organization of church and the culture of Christianity far more than a recipient of grace who’s desire to serve was birthed out of obedience and the Spirit of God.
Despite what is apparent to me now as self-destructive, the paradigm worked to my favor for some time. Besides keeping me “safe” through high school and college it kept me connected to God or at least His mercy. During the critical identity development stages of my life, my identity was securely rooted in the church. However, as I began to move beyond that stage and needed something to question, I naturally questioned the self-imposed dogma that ruled my life for so long. I began to ask questions about why I believed what I believed. This, in turn, developed something that has come to shape my spiritual identity more than anything else: doubt. I doubted everything. I doubted my own ability to live up to anyone’s standards or expectations and I doubted how God could use someone like me. But I also doubted the very existence of God. I was still committed to the church and to the best of my understanding, committed to Christ, but the doctrines of my beliefs were beginning show signs of deterioration. My faith and identity in the institution and the culture surrounding it caused me to question my entire identity as I knew it. I became obsessed with apologetics and built detailed arguments for the existence of God. (I laugh at that approach now.) I was beginning to wonder that if I couldn’t trust those things which I put so much of my identity into then how could I trust my own identity? This put an exorbitant amount of pressure on the institution to meet my spiritual needs and it just wasn’t capable of carrying that burden despite its best promises. The problem, as I see it now, wasn’t that the institution was unable to meet these deep and complex needs, but that it insisted that it could. Or said plainly, the institution promised that it had the answers and could give me the direction I needed, but the direction and guidance the institution was attempting to give me was easy, palatable, and to some extent, a substitute for Christ. This is not a criticism of the church’s potential contribution toward spiritual development, but an honest assessment of the extent to which a subculture or organization’s programming can make toward an authentic relationship with Christ. What I was plainly ignorant to is that growth comes from God. He often uses the institution as a vessel for this renewal, but the organization’s programs, social networks, and ministry model can never become a substitute for a genuine relationship with Christ. Increased participation in an organization’s culture couldn’t replace the need for active partnership with Christ in my spiritual maturity.
However, I took my first professional church ministry position while I was a junior in college. Despite the fact that I had come to believe that the institution’s approach to spiritual development was seriously flawed, I resorted to organizing my youth ministry the same way that I had always known it to be. The ministry position was part time and, in all truth, it was a great experience. It was in a small church in a small neighboring town. I drove forty five minutes two times a week to lead bible studies during the week and Sunday activities. I had very limited exposure to church administration and politics and, due to the enjoyable experience and the support of a pastor who was very encouraging and supportive, when I graduated, I took a full time position in a much larger church in the same area, but a larger town. The church where I became youth minister had gone through a lot of turmoil with the previous youth minister leaving to start his own church while taking many of the youth and adults with him. I spent more than two years there before I began to succumb to the fatigue and existential angst that I hoped would come later than sooner. The opportunities for genuine ministry and friendship were overshadowed by what felt to me as politics and personal agendas that were entrenched in the fundamental organization of the church. It was at that church that I also first started developing relationships with a prolific organization of pastors. Through these new relationships with other professionals while attempting to navigate the political landscape of my own church, I began to question the whole profession of ministry. In retrospect I can see that many of the problems I faced were due to my own inexperience. I did many things wrong and was not prepared for the amount of work it would take to develop the program the way it needed to be developed. But I can honestly say, while I was there, I got a taste of a reality which forever changed me. As I saw it then, I was exposed to an organization (not the people, but the paradigm) that was more focused on success than offering genuine ministry. This was particularly frustrating because I knew many in the church leadership and congregation wanted to experience Christ in radical ways. When I left I was so exhausted I vowed to never work in a church again.
I went back to work on a graduate degree in Educational Psychology. During that time I worked part time in ministry positions, but was able to distance myself from the organization. I also met my wonderful wife who has been a partner with me in this journey. After I graduated from my master’s program, I was offered a job as a college minister in a very large, wealthy and influential church. I was reluctant to take the job because I was fairly jaded by the idea of large, wealthy, and influential churches by this point, but I saw a potential I couldn’t get past. This church was capable of great ministry that reached deep inside the structure and far beyond the walls of the church. It was located downtown, allowing it the opportunities to minister to the poor and outcast. It was rooted in tradition, which allowed it the opportunity to offer a very counter cultural form of spiritual formation. And it had money and powerful people who attended, which gave it the opportunity to stretch the ministry to every corner of the city. I accepted the job focusing on what could be. I spent more than three years there with times of great “success” and times that were not so impressive. I was allowed to do what I felt God calling me to do as long as it produced the results that were broadly accepted by the church paradigm. For the first couple of years the direction I felt the ministry going did produce results that made people happy. However, during the third year I felt a strong calling to take the ministry to a deeper level. The numbers crashed, but for awhile the ministry got better. The unwavering support I previously had was gone. Eventually, the ministry began to suffer as well. Many of the students attending struggled with comparisons to other college ministries that were enormous productions that we just couldn’t compete with even if we wanted to. I was struggling as well at the church with issues that went beyond my scope of influence within the college ministry. For example, disagreements with church leadership regarding the purpose of ministry and program level questions regarding the true impact of what we could offer our congregation. More poignantly, my own church paradigm was changing and I couldn’t determine how to align what I was coming to believe with how I approached and participated in institutional ministry. By the time I left the church my admittedly cynical description of the church was that it was simply a country club with moral bylaws which were only expected during Sunday morning worship. However, more generously I would suggest that I was becoming aware that, for the most part, the institutional influences on church which valued organizational growth and success, promoted the establishment of political structures within the organization, and supported a cheaper form of grace than I desired were far too embedded to support healthy spiritual development.
In addition to struggling with the institutional influences of what I still considered to be my calling, I was going through seemingly unrelated life changes. Not only did I begin my doctorate work in higher education, I also had two sons. The oldest was born with severe medical problems which required numerous surgeries and therapy. It was as I dealt with these stressors while still on staff at the church, especially with my son, that I quickly learned I was not much more than paid help. The church, while full of many amazing people, never seemed to see me as “one of their own”. That doesn’t mean that people were not supportive or didn’t show concern or care. But rather that they supported me as a minister and not a brother. I was separate in a way that is still difficult for me to articulate, but in a way that many in ministry are very aware of. I honestly wasn’t hurt by this realization, simply found it to be the product of program-driven ministry. This did, however, add to the many concerns I had about that church and how it (when I speak of the church I am referring to church leadership and culture, not individuals) viewed members, visitors, and the staff. Church staff was a means to an end. That sounds incredibly critical, but this view was reaffirmed every Tuesday, at staff meetings.
At the end of three years on staff I was let go. There were a few reasons for this which added to my frustrations with the institution. Significant budget cuts needed to be made due to building an expensive and financially demanding activity center. The building was a Christian Life Center. I still find that title amusing. It was a very impressive structure though. It was large, beautiful, and a symbol of the power and respect the church felt it deserved. The building used by some in the church to provide a free meal was planned to eventually be renovated to the same scale, but years after the self indulgent Christian Life Center was finished the soup kitchen remained un-renovated and door security measures were taken seriously to keep the “street people” out of the rest of the building. I vividly remember at the high-end grand opening of the building overhearing numerous people comment about how now people would stop going to the more conveniently located competing church and start coming to this church. Additionally, I was not very successful toward the end of my time there. My fatigue and cynicism were negatively affecting my ability to support the church the way I should have. I had ideas to reinvigorate my ministry, but they just wouldn’t pan out as I couldn’t find the energy to get students excited about them. And finally, there was a growing conflict between me and the senior pastor regarding what I can only quickly describe as a fundamental disagreement on the definition of Christian ministry and the role of the church. This disagreement was usually indirectly tied to the building campaign, but at times it was directly tied to the building campaign. My frustrations with exploiting the congregation, misuse of the pulpit, and using small groups for fundraising strategies was the focus of the church as it tried to recoup the losses it took on the building. This focus determined what would and would not be important to the church for years. What was already a very institutional church was now becoming an embarrassment. I was not resentful about being fired, though. I knew my time there was up. I simply couldn’t be what that church wanted me to be. In the time I spent there I met great people who were seriously seeking a deeper intimacy with Christ, but I was tired and needed out. My entire spiritual life had become more about the problems I saw in that church than anything else. I was becoming increasingly cynical and unable to enjoy basic Christian conversation. Despite not having a job, not being there anymore was the happiest I had been in years. And again, I swore off professional ministry forever.
I know not all churches are the same as the ones that I have been a part of, but each of my experiences (and there are more than the ones mentioned here), with the exception of my simple part-time youth ministry experience, resulted in me swearing off working in the church forever. Each of these churches held the institution above ministry. Each of these churches was willing to exploit its members’ genuine desire for spiritual guidance and comfort to meet church growth goals. And each of these churches, despite God’s obvious presence and work He did within individuals, for the purposes of building the institution, taught people to exploit God’s name in return. Again, I know not all churches are the same as the ones I have been a part of, but the more I talk to different people in ministry, the more I believe that most churches are like the ones I have described. I listen to minister after minister talk about the same issues I have with a sense of burnout and exhaustion. I celebrate that there are churches throughout the world that are enjoying faithful, obedient ministry who are able to perceive accomplishments and failures as blessings from God. I take great joy in listening to ministers and church members who are participating in ministry founded on integrity discuss how God is working in and through them. And I believe that despite the institutional influences that are at some level in every church, God continues to use those who genuinely seek Him to do great things. But I am becoming increasingly aware that God is doing something new in the organization of the Kingdom and that many are leaving the church or focusing on their small groups and Sunday school classes for community. I am becoming increasingly aware that despite the enthusiasm of many within the church that the enthusiasm is more about celebrating church growth than Kingdom growth. And I am becoming increasingly aware that many who speak of their church with fondness are lost and frustrated in their spiritual journey falling into the same trap I once did: trusting on the promises of the church to rescue them from struggle and sin.
Despite what you might think by this point, my posts are not going to be an attack on the church. In fact, I believe the church could accomplish much good for the Kingdom if it is willing to make significant changes and reevaluate its role and identity. There is a good chance that at some point I will reengage the church and possibly at the professional level. But four things are becoming increasingly clear. (1) The church is for church people. (2) There are fewer church people every year. (3) Plenty of people are active in churches that are not maturing in their faith. (4) And finally, it is often the church that prevents these people from maturing in their faith. But this blog is actually not about the church at all. It is about my experiences as a person who for his entire life was actively involved in the church and the Christian culture who came to realize that despite the constant talk about the emerging church in the postmodern world, little was actually emerging. New formats and cultures were developing, but the conversations were the same. If anything was emerging, it was not much more than the organization of church. People for sure weren’t emerging. It was assumed that the emerging church was more relevant to the postmodern world and that because people were drawn to the emerging church because it reflected postmodern values that the church somehow was creating new levels of Christian discipleship. Don’t get me wrong. The emerging church structure is very appealing in many ways and has ignited a passion for Christ in new and exciting ways for many people, but what emerging church looks like in most places is simply throwing some bean bag chairs around the room and putting in a coffee shop. This isn’t going to help people emerge to new levels of growth and understanding. It may create an environment more favorable for intimacy for a select few, but the promises of renewal are greatly exaggerated.
However, much of the literature from within the church, but mostly from outside of the church has begun shaping me into something very different than I ever imagined. Naturalism and post-structuralism, for example, have been shaping my views on theology, psychology, sociology, and philosophy more than anything had ever shaped it before. I am beginning to see the world, the church, and my faith in new, exciting, and often frustrating ways. This blog is a series of essays that explore how I am emerging. It is not a comprehensive personal doctrine nor is it a fundamental approach toward spiritual development. This blog is a series of expositions on elements of my own personal journey that are having the greatest impact of my spiritual development. It is neither a church growth handbook nor more postmodern rhetoric. This is the story of a once frustrated and broken servant of the church who learned of a new way to experience the power of the Holy Spirit through community and spiritual formation. The ways I am changing, the ways I am thinking, the ways that I am engaging God are beyond any formula or model that I had ever experienced. I see that the greatest contribution of the emerging church movement is that it uses the word “emerging”, not “emerged”. My faith development is a process that I feel that I am just now beginning to grasp. I am emerging from dogma, religion, and isolation into something new. This blog is not intended to be the truth, but simply how God is working on me today. I hope that in five years when I look back on what I have written I will examine my thoughts and laugh at their immaturity. But I also hope that the things that God is doing in me today will lay a foundation for greater growth and faithfulness. And I hope that in some way my journey gives you insight into your own journey.
When I was in junior high I went to the altar at church camp to accept a “calling into ministry”. I accepted the calling with much enthusiasm; I was, in fact, already very active in my church and youth group. However, with the new calling on my life I quickly began to map out my path. Here’s how it was going to work out: I would begin with youth ministry and then after going to seminary and become a renowned scholar. From there I would begin to take on leadership positions in the local church. This would naturally lead to opportunities to become a national voice where I would be given opportunities to speak at conferences, summer camps, and be a bestselling author. It was quite a plan and I held to it well into college. Despite the arrogance associated with mapping out my own course without seeking or waiting on God, my adolescent optimism was centered on serving God from my youth. I am sorry to say that my testimony doesn’t begin with being down and out. I was never at the end of my rope or on the verge of despair. My family life was and is good. I was a good kid with good friends. And I knew God’s love from a very early age. My testimony begins with me being “good.” Not the kind of good that comes from God, but the kind of good that comes from being religious, well trained, and dogmatic. As someone who appreciates the necessity of spiritual development, I understand that all maturity must be dogmatic at some point. But my situation goes beyond normal zeal for missions or evangelism. My zeal came from the insidiousness of institutionalization. I realize that these are strong words, but still very true. I was committed to the organization of church and the culture of Christianity far more than a recipient of grace who’s desire to serve was birthed out of obedience and the Spirit of God.
Despite what is apparent to me now as self-destructive, the paradigm worked to my favor for some time. Besides keeping me “safe” through high school and college it kept me connected to God or at least His mercy. During the critical identity development stages of my life, my identity was securely rooted in the church. However, as I began to move beyond that stage and needed something to question, I naturally questioned the self-imposed dogma that ruled my life for so long. I began to ask questions about why I believed what I believed. This, in turn, developed something that has come to shape my spiritual identity more than anything else: doubt. I doubted everything. I doubted my own ability to live up to anyone’s standards or expectations and I doubted how God could use someone like me. But I also doubted the very existence of God. I was still committed to the church and to the best of my understanding, committed to Christ, but the doctrines of my beliefs were beginning show signs of deterioration. My faith and identity in the institution and the culture surrounding it caused me to question my entire identity as I knew it. I became obsessed with apologetics and built detailed arguments for the existence of God. (I laugh at that approach now.) I was beginning to wonder that if I couldn’t trust those things which I put so much of my identity into then how could I trust my own identity? This put an exorbitant amount of pressure on the institution to meet my spiritual needs and it just wasn’t capable of carrying that burden despite its best promises. The problem, as I see it now, wasn’t that the institution was unable to meet these deep and complex needs, but that it insisted that it could. Or said plainly, the institution promised that it had the answers and could give me the direction I needed, but the direction and guidance the institution was attempting to give me was easy, palatable, and to some extent, a substitute for Christ. This is not a criticism of the church’s potential contribution toward spiritual development, but an honest assessment of the extent to which a subculture or organization’s programming can make toward an authentic relationship with Christ. What I was plainly ignorant to is that growth comes from God. He often uses the institution as a vessel for this renewal, but the organization’s programs, social networks, and ministry model can never become a substitute for a genuine relationship with Christ. Increased participation in an organization’s culture couldn’t replace the need for active partnership with Christ in my spiritual maturity.
However, I took my first professional church ministry position while I was a junior in college. Despite the fact that I had come to believe that the institution’s approach to spiritual development was seriously flawed, I resorted to organizing my youth ministry the same way that I had always known it to be. The ministry position was part time and, in all truth, it was a great experience. It was in a small church in a small neighboring town. I drove forty five minutes two times a week to lead bible studies during the week and Sunday activities. I had very limited exposure to church administration and politics and, due to the enjoyable experience and the support of a pastor who was very encouraging and supportive, when I graduated, I took a full time position in a much larger church in the same area, but a larger town. The church where I became youth minister had gone through a lot of turmoil with the previous youth minister leaving to start his own church while taking many of the youth and adults with him. I spent more than two years there before I began to succumb to the fatigue and existential angst that I hoped would come later than sooner. The opportunities for genuine ministry and friendship were overshadowed by what felt to me as politics and personal agendas that were entrenched in the fundamental organization of the church. It was at that church that I also first started developing relationships with a prolific organization of pastors. Through these new relationships with other professionals while attempting to navigate the political landscape of my own church, I began to question the whole profession of ministry. In retrospect I can see that many of the problems I faced were due to my own inexperience. I did many things wrong and was not prepared for the amount of work it would take to develop the program the way it needed to be developed. But I can honestly say, while I was there, I got a taste of a reality which forever changed me. As I saw it then, I was exposed to an organization (not the people, but the paradigm) that was more focused on success than offering genuine ministry. This was particularly frustrating because I knew many in the church leadership and congregation wanted to experience Christ in radical ways. When I left I was so exhausted I vowed to never work in a church again.
I went back to work on a graduate degree in Educational Psychology. During that time I worked part time in ministry positions, but was able to distance myself from the organization. I also met my wonderful wife who has been a partner with me in this journey. After I graduated from my master’s program, I was offered a job as a college minister in a very large, wealthy and influential church. I was reluctant to take the job because I was fairly jaded by the idea of large, wealthy, and influential churches by this point, but I saw a potential I couldn’t get past. This church was capable of great ministry that reached deep inside the structure and far beyond the walls of the church. It was located downtown, allowing it the opportunities to minister to the poor and outcast. It was rooted in tradition, which allowed it the opportunity to offer a very counter cultural form of spiritual formation. And it had money and powerful people who attended, which gave it the opportunity to stretch the ministry to every corner of the city. I accepted the job focusing on what could be. I spent more than three years there with times of great “success” and times that were not so impressive. I was allowed to do what I felt God calling me to do as long as it produced the results that were broadly accepted by the church paradigm. For the first couple of years the direction I felt the ministry going did produce results that made people happy. However, during the third year I felt a strong calling to take the ministry to a deeper level. The numbers crashed, but for awhile the ministry got better. The unwavering support I previously had was gone. Eventually, the ministry began to suffer as well. Many of the students attending struggled with comparisons to other college ministries that were enormous productions that we just couldn’t compete with even if we wanted to. I was struggling as well at the church with issues that went beyond my scope of influence within the college ministry. For example, disagreements with church leadership regarding the purpose of ministry and program level questions regarding the true impact of what we could offer our congregation. More poignantly, my own church paradigm was changing and I couldn’t determine how to align what I was coming to believe with how I approached and participated in institutional ministry. By the time I left the church my admittedly cynical description of the church was that it was simply a country club with moral bylaws which were only expected during Sunday morning worship. However, more generously I would suggest that I was becoming aware that, for the most part, the institutional influences on church which valued organizational growth and success, promoted the establishment of political structures within the organization, and supported a cheaper form of grace than I desired were far too embedded to support healthy spiritual development.
In addition to struggling with the institutional influences of what I still considered to be my calling, I was going through seemingly unrelated life changes. Not only did I begin my doctorate work in higher education, I also had two sons. The oldest was born with severe medical problems which required numerous surgeries and therapy. It was as I dealt with these stressors while still on staff at the church, especially with my son, that I quickly learned I was not much more than paid help. The church, while full of many amazing people, never seemed to see me as “one of their own”. That doesn’t mean that people were not supportive or didn’t show concern or care. But rather that they supported me as a minister and not a brother. I was separate in a way that is still difficult for me to articulate, but in a way that many in ministry are very aware of. I honestly wasn’t hurt by this realization, simply found it to be the product of program-driven ministry. This did, however, add to the many concerns I had about that church and how it (when I speak of the church I am referring to church leadership and culture, not individuals) viewed members, visitors, and the staff. Church staff was a means to an end. That sounds incredibly critical, but this view was reaffirmed every Tuesday, at staff meetings.
At the end of three years on staff I was let go. There were a few reasons for this which added to my frustrations with the institution. Significant budget cuts needed to be made due to building an expensive and financially demanding activity center. The building was a Christian Life Center. I still find that title amusing. It was a very impressive structure though. It was large, beautiful, and a symbol of the power and respect the church felt it deserved. The building used by some in the church to provide a free meal was planned to eventually be renovated to the same scale, but years after the self indulgent Christian Life Center was finished the soup kitchen remained un-renovated and door security measures were taken seriously to keep the “street people” out of the rest of the building. I vividly remember at the high-end grand opening of the building overhearing numerous people comment about how now people would stop going to the more conveniently located competing church and start coming to this church. Additionally, I was not very successful toward the end of my time there. My fatigue and cynicism were negatively affecting my ability to support the church the way I should have. I had ideas to reinvigorate my ministry, but they just wouldn’t pan out as I couldn’t find the energy to get students excited about them. And finally, there was a growing conflict between me and the senior pastor regarding what I can only quickly describe as a fundamental disagreement on the definition of Christian ministry and the role of the church. This disagreement was usually indirectly tied to the building campaign, but at times it was directly tied to the building campaign. My frustrations with exploiting the congregation, misuse of the pulpit, and using small groups for fundraising strategies was the focus of the church as it tried to recoup the losses it took on the building. This focus determined what would and would not be important to the church for years. What was already a very institutional church was now becoming an embarrassment. I was not resentful about being fired, though. I knew my time there was up. I simply couldn’t be what that church wanted me to be. In the time I spent there I met great people who were seriously seeking a deeper intimacy with Christ, but I was tired and needed out. My entire spiritual life had become more about the problems I saw in that church than anything else. I was becoming increasingly cynical and unable to enjoy basic Christian conversation. Despite not having a job, not being there anymore was the happiest I had been in years. And again, I swore off professional ministry forever.
I know not all churches are the same as the ones that I have been a part of, but each of my experiences (and there are more than the ones mentioned here), with the exception of my simple part-time youth ministry experience, resulted in me swearing off working in the church forever. Each of these churches held the institution above ministry. Each of these churches was willing to exploit its members’ genuine desire for spiritual guidance and comfort to meet church growth goals. And each of these churches, despite God’s obvious presence and work He did within individuals, for the purposes of building the institution, taught people to exploit God’s name in return. Again, I know not all churches are the same as the ones I have been a part of, but the more I talk to different people in ministry, the more I believe that most churches are like the ones I have described. I listen to minister after minister talk about the same issues I have with a sense of burnout and exhaustion. I celebrate that there are churches throughout the world that are enjoying faithful, obedient ministry who are able to perceive accomplishments and failures as blessings from God. I take great joy in listening to ministers and church members who are participating in ministry founded on integrity discuss how God is working in and through them. And I believe that despite the institutional influences that are at some level in every church, God continues to use those who genuinely seek Him to do great things. But I am becoming increasingly aware that God is doing something new in the organization of the Kingdom and that many are leaving the church or focusing on their small groups and Sunday school classes for community. I am becoming increasingly aware that despite the enthusiasm of many within the church that the enthusiasm is more about celebrating church growth than Kingdom growth. And I am becoming increasingly aware that many who speak of their church with fondness are lost and frustrated in their spiritual journey falling into the same trap I once did: trusting on the promises of the church to rescue them from struggle and sin.
Despite what you might think by this point, my posts are not going to be an attack on the church. In fact, I believe the church could accomplish much good for the Kingdom if it is willing to make significant changes and reevaluate its role and identity. There is a good chance that at some point I will reengage the church and possibly at the professional level. But four things are becoming increasingly clear. (1) The church is for church people. (2) There are fewer church people every year. (3) Plenty of people are active in churches that are not maturing in their faith. (4) And finally, it is often the church that prevents these people from maturing in their faith. But this blog is actually not about the church at all. It is about my experiences as a person who for his entire life was actively involved in the church and the Christian culture who came to realize that despite the constant talk about the emerging church in the postmodern world, little was actually emerging. New formats and cultures were developing, but the conversations were the same. If anything was emerging, it was not much more than the organization of church. People for sure weren’t emerging. It was assumed that the emerging church was more relevant to the postmodern world and that because people were drawn to the emerging church because it reflected postmodern values that the church somehow was creating new levels of Christian discipleship. Don’t get me wrong. The emerging church structure is very appealing in many ways and has ignited a passion for Christ in new and exciting ways for many people, but what emerging church looks like in most places is simply throwing some bean bag chairs around the room and putting in a coffee shop. This isn’t going to help people emerge to new levels of growth and understanding. It may create an environment more favorable for intimacy for a select few, but the promises of renewal are greatly exaggerated.
However, much of the literature from within the church, but mostly from outside of the church has begun shaping me into something very different than I ever imagined. Naturalism and post-structuralism, for example, have been shaping my views on theology, psychology, sociology, and philosophy more than anything had ever shaped it before. I am beginning to see the world, the church, and my faith in new, exciting, and often frustrating ways. This blog is a series of essays that explore how I am emerging. It is not a comprehensive personal doctrine nor is it a fundamental approach toward spiritual development. This blog is a series of expositions on elements of my own personal journey that are having the greatest impact of my spiritual development. It is neither a church growth handbook nor more postmodern rhetoric. This is the story of a once frustrated and broken servant of the church who learned of a new way to experience the power of the Holy Spirit through community and spiritual formation. The ways I am changing, the ways I am thinking, the ways that I am engaging God are beyond any formula or model that I had ever experienced. I see that the greatest contribution of the emerging church movement is that it uses the word “emerging”, not “emerged”. My faith development is a process that I feel that I am just now beginning to grasp. I am emerging from dogma, religion, and isolation into something new. This blog is not intended to be the truth, but simply how God is working on me today. I hope that in five years when I look back on what I have written I will examine my thoughts and laugh at their immaturity. But I also hope that the things that God is doing in me today will lay a foundation for greater growth and faithfulness. And I hope that in some way my journey gives you insight into your own journey.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
INTRODUCTION
I hope this introduction introduces the following essays in such a way to give appropriate context since they cover such a prolific diversity of topics. There are a couple of things that I think you, the reader, should be aware of before you start reading this very personal collection of essays that I don’t think I will make clear enough in the various posts. Primarily, my criticisms on the modern church are not a criticism on individual churches or what I believe is the very genuine desire of most churches to be faithful in their ministry. My criticism is on what I will refer to as institutionalization. At times I my say “the church” or “the institutionalized church”, but I am always referring to the influence of this abstract idea of institutionalization. I think that I define what I mean by that term pretty well in various places throughout the essays, but even though I state this repeatedly I still worry that the reader will misunderstand my criticisms and believe that I am attacking the local church. That simply is not the case. In fact, since the time that I began these essays to the time that I am writing these words, I have considered becoming involved in the local church again. But as you read, contextualize my criticisms under the umbrella of this philosophical and abstract notion of institutionalization. Institutionalization in short is that influence on a church to sustain itself at the cost of the core values of the organization. Richard Neibuhr has a definition for the institutionalized church that is very helpful in understanding what I mean. He argues that a sect is often birthed out of the church with the intention and function of organic ministry and communal relationship, but once that original group incorporates new generations the role of the sect becomes one of teaching new generations the values of the original group. It then becomes an organization with doctrine and creed dictating the development of ministry and relationships. It is at this point that the sect becomes an institution.
Similarly, I believe there is a typical pattern to this institutionalization. Let’s say a new community has formed. The church is small and, for the most part, individuals who have left a church that believing it was time to “do church differently”. To the best of their knowledge, the community is committed to genuine ministry, but as time passes the church begins to develop an identity of its own. Structures form and various ministries develop. It is a good time for the church as they begin to see what is happening as the power of Christ. The charter members and new people who came to the church because it was growing, however, are beginning to become frustrated with lose of power and control. Factions are established. Programs and ministries are the priority. Soon there are two core values of the church: the original core values of community and the new values of territory and control. The church, simultaneously, is increasing its membership and ministries and sees the need to increase its facilities. Once the church has increased its facilities it needs to increase its resources to maintain the facilities and ministries. With such a vested interest in the church by now there is also a growing need to ensure the continued life of the organization. This requires more facilities, ministries, and resources putting increased demand on the organization to bring in new members. Ultimately what you have is an organization that must continue to grow to survive, members who are required to give more of themselves financially and with time, and factions in the church who lay claim to various levels of control. This is institutionalization of the church. It is when two core values exist simultaneously within an organization: the values of Christian ministry and the values of organizational survival. These two can co-exist for some time, but eventually the organization will have to choose between the primarily goal of survival and integrity to the gospel. The influence of institutionalization has already occurred. It is when the church is faced with this choice and chooses survival that the church has become institutionalized. The church can and likely will continue to do great ministry, but the organization is no longer what it once was.
I will explain this institutionalization throughout the next several posts, but it is imperative that it is understood that I consider this a force. The force has spiritual, psychological, and sociological elements. Each one of these influences varies depending on the context, but it is these three elements and the multitude of elements that make up each one of them that creates an institutionalized church. It is, therefore, bigger than the parts. The people will likely range in spiritual maturity and interpersonal skills as much as any other organization. And the quality of real ministry will likely continue, but that deviation from the core values is no less real. Richard Neibuhr also says, “Christendom has often achieved apparent success by ignoring the precepts of its founder. The church, as an organization interested in self-preservation and in the gain of power, has sometimes found the counsel of the Cross quite as inexpedient as have national and economic groups.” He said this in 1929 and the truth of his words are no less true today. The institutional church can take on many forms. It can be traditional or contemporary, high or postmodern, urban or rural. It can even be an “emerging’ church. When looked at on paper, the emerging church is actually as non-institutional as possible. For example, Emergent Village embraces many values that I value. The emergent church can value multiplicity, missional relationships, diversity, and apostolic ministry. However, emergent can also be the new thing. As groups run from the religion of mainstream churches they will often find something that looks more like what they value. The problem with this is that this type of emergent community is founded on rebellion. True emergent ministry and communities have embraced something new and allowed that to take them out of the church in some instances and called to reinvent the church in other instances. This said, there might be times that it appears that I am critical of emergent ministry. Not at all. Even though I would not call myself an emergent Christian, I do highly value their contribution. I am, however, critical of those that use the label for marketing or sub-cultural reasons.
Additionally
Something else that I realize is that I don't come close to identifying those things that are so influential in my spiritual development over the past few years. I hardly spoke of my wife at all. I think this is because I have largely written this book as a description of my paradigm shift. My wife, however, has been a constant source of stability. If it wasn’t for her patiently standing by and letting me struggle then I don’t think I would have come out healthy on the other side. I also don’t spend much time referencing my community, my family, or my friends. Finally, it isn’t until now that I realize how much I struggle with what to do with these essays. It was written as an exercise in focused journaling. Throughout the process I hoped I could get it published, but that was never the purpose. I wrote it to work through my struggles. Now that it is finished I have to ask myself what I am going to do with it. I have chosen to use a blog instead of seeking publication because (1) it probably wouldn't quite make it and (2) for the value of personal integrity. Despite the format, by sharing it with other, I ask that you first and foremost forgive me for what I can only see as hypocrisy. Other than that I am not sure what else to say. Enjoy.
Similarly, I believe there is a typical pattern to this institutionalization. Let’s say a new community has formed. The church is small and, for the most part, individuals who have left a church that believing it was time to “do church differently”. To the best of their knowledge, the community is committed to genuine ministry, but as time passes the church begins to develop an identity of its own. Structures form and various ministries develop. It is a good time for the church as they begin to see what is happening as the power of Christ. The charter members and new people who came to the church because it was growing, however, are beginning to become frustrated with lose of power and control. Factions are established. Programs and ministries are the priority. Soon there are two core values of the church: the original core values of community and the new values of territory and control. The church, simultaneously, is increasing its membership and ministries and sees the need to increase its facilities. Once the church has increased its facilities it needs to increase its resources to maintain the facilities and ministries. With such a vested interest in the church by now there is also a growing need to ensure the continued life of the organization. This requires more facilities, ministries, and resources putting increased demand on the organization to bring in new members. Ultimately what you have is an organization that must continue to grow to survive, members who are required to give more of themselves financially and with time, and factions in the church who lay claim to various levels of control. This is institutionalization of the church. It is when two core values exist simultaneously within an organization: the values of Christian ministry and the values of organizational survival. These two can co-exist for some time, but eventually the organization will have to choose between the primarily goal of survival and integrity to the gospel. The influence of institutionalization has already occurred. It is when the church is faced with this choice and chooses survival that the church has become institutionalized. The church can and likely will continue to do great ministry, but the organization is no longer what it once was.
I will explain this institutionalization throughout the next several posts, but it is imperative that it is understood that I consider this a force. The force has spiritual, psychological, and sociological elements. Each one of these influences varies depending on the context, but it is these three elements and the multitude of elements that make up each one of them that creates an institutionalized church. It is, therefore, bigger than the parts. The people will likely range in spiritual maturity and interpersonal skills as much as any other organization. And the quality of real ministry will likely continue, but that deviation from the core values is no less real. Richard Neibuhr also says, “Christendom has often achieved apparent success by ignoring the precepts of its founder. The church, as an organization interested in self-preservation and in the gain of power, has sometimes found the counsel of the Cross quite as inexpedient as have national and economic groups.” He said this in 1929 and the truth of his words are no less true today. The institutional church can take on many forms. It can be traditional or contemporary, high or postmodern, urban or rural. It can even be an “emerging’ church. When looked at on paper, the emerging church is actually as non-institutional as possible. For example, Emergent Village embraces many values that I value. The emergent church can value multiplicity, missional relationships, diversity, and apostolic ministry. However, emergent can also be the new thing. As groups run from the religion of mainstream churches they will often find something that looks more like what they value. The problem with this is that this type of emergent community is founded on rebellion. True emergent ministry and communities have embraced something new and allowed that to take them out of the church in some instances and called to reinvent the church in other instances. This said, there might be times that it appears that I am critical of emergent ministry. Not at all. Even though I would not call myself an emergent Christian, I do highly value their contribution. I am, however, critical of those that use the label for marketing or sub-cultural reasons.
Additionally
Something else that I realize is that I don't come close to identifying those things that are so influential in my spiritual development over the past few years. I hardly spoke of my wife at all. I think this is because I have largely written this book as a description of my paradigm shift. My wife, however, has been a constant source of stability. If it wasn’t for her patiently standing by and letting me struggle then I don’t think I would have come out healthy on the other side. I also don’t spend much time referencing my community, my family, or my friends. Finally, it isn’t until now that I realize how much I struggle with what to do with these essays. It was written as an exercise in focused journaling. Throughout the process I hoped I could get it published, but that was never the purpose. I wrote it to work through my struggles. Now that it is finished I have to ask myself what I am going to do with it. I have chosen to use a blog instead of seeking publication because (1) it probably wouldn't quite make it and (2) for the value of personal integrity. Despite the format, by sharing it with other, I ask that you first and foremost forgive me for what I can only see as hypocrisy. Other than that I am not sure what else to say. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)