Once upon a time, I linked to an online quiz I took, including my results. Because I'm assigning this quiz to my World Religions students, I thought I'd take it again...
The quiz is titled "What's your theological worldview", and can be found here.
Here are my current results:
Emergent/Postmodern 79%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 75%
Fundamentalist 75%
Reformed Evangelical 54%
Neo orthodox 50%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 36%
Classical Liberal 25%
Roman Catholic 14%
Modern Liberal 11%
Here are my results from September, 2007.
Emergent/Postmodern 79%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 71%
Fundamentalist 71%
Reformed Evangelical 54%
Neo orthodox 50%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 39%
Classical Liberal 18%
Roman Catholic 11%
Modern Liberal 0%
--
In general, it appears that my theological head is in about the same place it was two years ago. One might note that the bottom of the scale changed a bit for me - I'm apparently a bit "modern liberal" now, whereas I was previously 0%. Your guess is as good as mine how that happened!
Though the quiz is a bit long and is, after all, just an online quiz, I do think it makes for good thought provocation. Should you choose to take it, I'd love to see your results and hear you thoughts.
Hatushili
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Food for thought
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Christian postmodernity ... ?
Most of you know that I've been beating the drum for a Christian understanding of cultural postmodernity for a long time now. But I think I've discovered that I'm either irrelevant, misguided, or cutting-edge...
What am I talking about? I'm beginning to think that few people are talking about postmodernity in specific cultural terms. Evidence: Google "cultural postmodernity" (with the quotes) and a few interesting things happen.
1) A post of mine is third on the list! I'm not that relevant, folks! So my presence in the top three likely indicates that my topic is not all that relevant...
2) The majority of the posts are from a spiritual/Christian perspective. If only followers of Jesus are using this term, it's well on it's way to being a part of some Christian subculture - the very last thing I want to be a part of!
3) None of the entries are really popular level. If I'm merely a part of some "intellectual" conversation, I'm not sure I'm on the right track...
So I'm left with the initial conclusion that I'm either wrong (there's no such thing as cultural postmodernity), misguided (there is such a thing, but everyone else is using different language) or cutting edge (soon everyone will be a part of my virtual self-conversation).
Right now I'm not sure which it is... but I'm still working on it. I'll keep you posted, eh?
Hatushili
Monday, October 20, 2008
The stuff that matters most
I continue to be amazed at the things we - meaning follower of Jesus - make an issue of. One of the things I most appreciate about my home church is that we've zeroed in on simply six "center circle" issues and work hard not to allow other things to be divisive.
Anyway, I've recently stumbled across a few very silly stereotypes that still continue to linger in our culture...
A good friend of mine, who happens to be a pastor, takes some time once in a while to visit the local bar and strike up friendships and conversations. You guessed it - one of the patrons recently expressed shock that a pastor would drink a beer! Are we still fighting that one!?! For reasons I'll not disclose here, I am a complete abstainer from alcohol. But it's not possible to argue that everyone must be an abstainer. Thus saith the Bible: don't get drunk, yo!
Another: I've had an ongoing discussion with a friend that thinks school-age students at Christian schools should have a hair code. Not too long, not too wild ... you know the stereotype. Part of his argument is that plenty of professions have dress codes that include standards for hair. I agree, but I'm also pretty sure that school-age students don't get that, and that they don't care right now (nor do they need to, in my opinion). More to the point, doesn't having codes like that reinforce all the wrong stereotypes about Christians?
If we're going to live as truly authentic follower of Jesus in our culture, we can no longer afford to reinforce all the wrong images. I'm certainly not arguing that we adopt all the culture has to offer, but where culture is just culture (and not immoral) why not?
Be the real you! If you really like rock music and long hair, listen to rock music and wear long hair ... and as you live your life be sure to talk about the Saviour.
If you really like emo and bald heads, listen to emo and shave your head ... and as you live your life be sure to talk about the Saviour.
You can't fake these things. As I've noted before, postmoderns have their "poser" sensors set to turbo! You be you. I'll be me. Together we'll authentically witness to His grace, His power and His desire to transform this world.
Hatushili
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Stuck on Ooze
I pretty much can't stand the theology of guys like Spencer Burke. Yet I find myself routinely reading posts on The Ooze. Why? Part of the answer, I suppose, is that I enjoy a good laugh now and then - some of the arguments made on that site are so ludicrous as to be laughable!
But I find some gems now and then, too. Seriously. I hate to admit it, but once in a while the Ooze really does post something challenging. Usually not; once in a while.
Today's reading of The Ooze is a case study in this truth. This article is utterly ridiculous; this one is actually good.
If you don't read the Ooze, I would encourage you to do so now and again. But keep in mind that you'll need the ability to sift through a lot of garbage to get to the good.
Hatushili
Thursday, August 21, 2008
The latest trend?
I often marvel at how silly we can be. By "we" I mean followers of Jesus in America. It seems we're always looking for the latest trend, the newest methodology, the best data to support our positions.
I came across another one of these sorts of tidbits just a moment ago. Well intended, for sure. But at least a tad bit silly.
It seems that some people with more money than I commissioned a study to find out some things about why people join churches and why they leave them. The full article is here, for your reading enjoyment.
The results? In a nutshell, people like friendly churches. Even more profound, people tend to like churches where they can develop strong relationships. More marvelous still, "younger" (read: culturally postmodern) people tend to value these attributes even more than others!
I must say, I'm shocked. I had no idea that pomos would be more interested in real community than most anything else. Seriously? Wow.
Okay, I'm done with the dripping saracasm. But let's think about this for just a second: if we're analyzing this data from a viewpoint of efficacy (which clearly this article is), aren't we missing the point? Is it really in the best interest of churches to study "what works" and not merely "what's right"? We end up with merely the "latest trend in research" kind of thinking... Sad.
The point is this: the Church of Jesus Christ must be founded upon relationships because it was designed by the Creator to be founded upon relationships. It is first and foremost about our relationship to Him - notice I said our relationship to Him, not merely my relationship to Him. We are to be a body, a family, a community ... not a collection of individuals.
Data or no data, local churches should be striving toward authentic community because it's the right thing to do. If articles like these make people hop on a trend-setting bandwagon only to switch to the next big thing a year or two down the road, we've missed the point. We've been given the blueprint for what a healthy church looks like (hint: it looks like a healthy family); let's just focus on that, eh?
Hatushili
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Spiritual Vertigo
A former pastor of mine used to speak a lot about balance. "What's so often lacking in the local church", he often said, "is balance." I have to agree. You and I both could list countless examples of how this is true, but today I want to talk about one particular example that I'm personally familiar with ... but it's a positive example!
As most of you know, I'm increasingly convinced that my home church is a very special place. Some of the usual hang-ups that often infect local churches have been effectively warded off (to date!). One in particular is the oft-noticed "worship wars" of other families.
Our worship pastor is that rare combination of a stellar musician and a humble servant leader. He makes a conscious effort to find a balance between what the more Modern section of our demographic might prefer (more polish; less improv) and what the more Postmodern section prefers (less polish; more improv). [Note: as usual, I'm referring to cultural Postmodernity in this context.]
As with any balancing act, he sometimes errs too far one way or the other. But there seems to be an abundance of grace given, knowing that this is how balancing usually works.
If it's true (and I believe it is) that Modern/Postmodern is the biggest cultural rift in America since ... ever, then this will be the most difficult period in our history to strike the right balance. We've always had issues of musical preference, but I would contend that they've never been couched in such significant cultural differences. In other words, those of us that would have local churches with both Modern and Postmodern family members will have to strive even harder to keep a sound and healthy balance.
The funny thing is that very few of us in this local body would ever talk about this issue in terms of Modern/Postmodern understandings and sensitivities. But that doesn't change the fact that grace is given and balance sought.
To God be the glory, in all aspects of our corporate worship.
Hatushili
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
It's all relative
One of the standard criticisms leveled against Postmodernity is its rampant relativism. In its extreme form, some even contend that everything is relative - there is nothing absolutely true.
While it's true that Postmodernity embraces relativism, the standard criticism doesn't quite hit the mark...
It is not my purpose to defend relativism. There are times when it is defensible (we all know this: think "self defense" versus "first degree murder" versus "manslaughter", etc.), but I want to move beyond that for a moment.
Or, more precisely, I want to move before that. It is my contention that the birth of relativism owes as much to Modernity as Postmodernity, if not more. No one within the Modern worldview likes to admit it, but relativism pre-dates Postmodernity.
It starts like this: "You need to be able to separate your business life from your home life". Generations of working people were fed that mantra over and over again. It became ingrained in our culture. The way you treat people in your work-life isn't necessarily the same way you treat them in your neighborhood-life.
Compartmentalization is one of the hallmarks of Modernity in recent American history. It's also one of the things Postmoderns like about Modernity the least. But ironically, it's was this very compartmentalizing process that gave rise to the prevalence of relativism.
If I come to believe that I am a different sort of fellow at work, at home, at church services, at play, at the store, etc... then I am implicitly establishing the foundation for believing that the answers to certain questions depend entirely upon the circumstances and situation I find myself in. For example, while no one would advocate "upselling" your mother, it became standard practice with strangers. Moving the models you're overstocked on is a perfectly acceptable business practice for many, but you wouldn't practice it on your pastor or good friend.
Language is another obvious example. How many tried-and-true Modern followers of Christ use coarse language on the job site, but never at home or in a church building?
All of this gave rise to the Postmodern mantra about "keeping it real". The lack of authenticity, the compartmentalization and the sense of falsehood that it promulgates weigh heavily upon Postmoderns.
But as I noted briefly above, the irony is that this same cultural phenomenon helped the rise of relativism tremendously. So we now have a situation where the average Modern blames relativism on Postmodernity, the average Postmodern think Modern compartmentalization is disingenuous, and neither party realizes what they "owe" to each other! Pots are calling kettles black all over the place.
Again, I'm not attempting to justify or defend relativism - those that know me or have read this blog much know that to be the case. I just find it very frustrating that there is so little understanding and so much blame be passed around.
Don't like relativism? You have both Modernity and Postmodernity to blame.
Hatushili
Monday, February 18, 2008
There is hope
I had a very encouraging experience this past Sunday evening. If you read me regularly, you know that I am often very frustrated at the inability/unwillingness of most evangelicals to wrestle through the implications of postmodernity. It sometimes seems that there's no hope beyond radical revolution.
But then I have moments like Sunday night; moments that renew my hope in the ability of Christ's followers to adapt, to think, to change...
I was graciously invited to be the guest speaker at a meeting for the parents of high school students at Blackhawk Christian school. I was impressed that a Christian school even has such a group, let alone that they invited me to speak. [Thanks, Ted; I owe you one!]
As soon as I began brain-storming topics to speak on, I quickly settled on postmodernity. But then came the real question: do I actually use the term "postmodernity" in this speech? After mentally going through my speech both ways, I opted not to use the term.
I'm glad I didn't.
By avoiding the term "postmodern", I was able to speak to this group of parents about the inner windings of their kids' minds (as much as I dare claim that ability). I was able to show them the great importance we (as postmoderns) place on community, environmentalism, multi-generationalism, etc... I was able to talk about the death of metanarrative, and the tremendous opportunity that affords us to share ideas on a level playing field.
The meeting was great. I couldn't have scripted a better response from these parents. We were able to talk in the abstract and the concrete, and I think I helped them. I know they encouraged me.
The best part? After my speech, I took questions from the group. One sweet mother reminded me of the beginning of my speech, when I spoke of the "new set of lenses" that today's younger culture sees the world through. "Do those lenses have a name?", she asked. "Postmodernity", I answered. You could see the gears turning in some of the faces. It was a great moment.
My thanks to Blair, to Ted, and to Blackhawk for making the evening possible. And for those of you that sometimes wonder if Christ's Modern followers will ever pull their heads out of the sand and seriously wrestle with the cultural implications of postmodernity, I offer this post as encouragement.
There is hope.
Hatushili
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Postmodern films
If you want to see a film that bears many of the marks of postmodernity, I would encourage you to see The Invisible. We watched it last night and I found myself routinely noting the postmodern themes.
So as not to spoil it if you haven't seen it, I'll talk in only broad brush strokes...
One major theme was community. The whole notion of certain people becoming "invisible" in a culture, and the brokenness that creates. The two main characters were truly "invisible" in their own way. Cultural postmodernity's premium on community was well-represented.
Another major theme was spirituality. It's not evident at first, but trust me - it's there. As is typical of postmodernity, the spirituality was of a general sort. Science as metanarrative is rejected with the fundamental premise of the film, too - another aspect of the spirituality latent in the film.
There is much more to be said on this topic, but I'd really rather wait to see if any of you have watched the film. I'd love to hear your take if you have.
Hatushili
Saturday, February 9, 2008
What is beauty?
The question has vexed humanity for generations. Ultimately, most of us come to a position characterized by "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". For most, that's good enough - I have my particular tastes in art and music, you have yours.
For others, that apparently leads down a slippery slope toward "today's anti-Christian worldview"...
That quote is taken from an article by a man I respect a great deal. Gene Edward Veith is a primary contributor to World Magazine, a publication I've been reading for years. I generally appreciate the insight Mr. Veith brings to his articles - you can tell he hasn't been striving merely to meet a deadline. But once in a while he takes his anti-postmodern thinking too far for my comfort. A recent article on the nature of beauty was just such an article.
Here's the pivotal paragraph that sets the battle ground:
Often, Christians reject the claims that truth and morality are relative while agreeing with the postmodernists that beauty is relative. But to think that beauty is nothing more than a subjective preference—unconnected to standards that originate in God Himself—is to buy into a foundational principle of today's anti-Christian worldview.
First, can we please all take a vow to stop using the phrase "buy into" in this way? It's demeaning and doesn't make for good dialogue. It's a hard habit to break (I've been working on it for years!), but worth the effort.
More to the point, the real comparison here is not "Christians" to "postmodernists", but "Moderns" to "Postmoderns". There are Christians of both persuasion, just as one would naturally expect.
Unless, that is, you believe Christianity and Postmodernity are incompatible. That, I think, is Mr. Veith's real point, and one that I wholly reject. But setting this aside for today, let's think about the substance of his contention regarding the nature of beauty.
In the very next paragraph, Mr. Veith makes a somewhat audacious claim:
The Bible tells us to set our minds on "whatever" is "excellent" and "of good report" (Philippians 4:8). Beauty does involve personal taste, but our tastes need discipline. Growing in taste means learning to take pleasure in what is objectively good.
Really? Am I seriously to believe that Paul had in mind music and the arts when he spoke to the Philippians about "excellent" and "of good report" things? The word "excellent" simply means "a virtuous course of thought, feeling or action". It was used by the ancients to describe what we today might call "manly character". Honesty, integrity, self-reliance, respect, responsibility - these are the present day American "virtues". But are they absolutes? Can we objectively define these virtues?
Take honesty, for example. "Honey, do I look fat in these jeans?" - the question no husband ever wants to hear. Depending on your cultural context, the "honest" answer will differ. What one might call honest another might call rude! So one's definition of "honesty" should make room for tact, right? What about when being "honest" causes great and unnecessary harm? What about simple cultural differences? Consider Mexico - if you ask for directions you're likely to be given them ... even tough the person you asked has no idea where you want to go! They consider it rude and socially unacceptable to leave the asker in greater stress than they found her, so they will simply give you false directions as a way of easing your immediate stress level. Wrong? Dishonest? In America, absolutely. In Mexico ... it's hard to say, since I'm not Mexican.
The point is that attempting to take an ancient word with at least a somewhat subjective meaning and force it into a Modern box of "divine objectivity" is unfair at best. There is no slippery slope here, folks. Beauty has always been in the eye of the beholder, and I for one think that's the way God intended it.
The full article is worth the read, so I encourage you to do so if you haven't. But far be it from me to decide for you whether you should consider his writing beautiful or not!
Hatushili
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Bad news?
If you poke around missional circles very long, one of the threads that bind these folk together (and, incidentally, I consider myself very much one of them) is their understanding of "sharing the Gospel" in today's culture.
Part of the complaint has to do with the difference between Modern and Postmodern understandings of the world in which we live. For example, to the average Modern, the Four Spiritual Laws make a great deal of sense. They're very logical, to the point, and hard to misunderstand.
Postmoderns, on the other hand, find them entirely unconvincing precisely because those very positive qualities to Modern ears make them altogether impersonal to Postmodern ones.
But there's more than that going on...
One of the biggest gripes missional folk have with what is considered "traditional" expressions of the Gospel is that it seems to always start with bad news. Right off the bat, we are told that we must inform people of their status as sinners.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not denying that we are all vile sinners, thoroughly and completely depraved to our core. But why must every "presentation of the Gospel" start with this truth? Consider the following hypothetical conversation between two co-workers who are just now meeting:
Joe: Good to meet you! How long have you been with the company?
Chris: Nice to meet you, too. I've been here about a year now. By the way, is that a picture of your wife there on your desk? Dude, she's ugly!
Now let's pretend in our hypothetical situation that Joe's wife really is hideously ugly. So what? Is this any way to start a conversation with someone? Is it possible he doesn't know she's ugly? Sure. More likely, he knows but has chosen to ignore the truth.
Okay, it's a silly analogy. But I think you get the point. In "polite company" these days it's simply not acceptable to start off a topic of far more importance than the relative beauty of one's wife with such a harshness.
Consider a real example I just witnesses on the telly. Survivor started tonight, and I'll admit to being a fan. So here are these 10 perfect strangers on a beach. They've known each other not even one day, and one walks up to another and says (I kid you not):
"So, your homosexual, right? Or do you prefer 'gay'? I'm not even sure what term to use..."
This lady wasn't trying to be mean. On the contrary, she said it in the nicest possible way. But come on! Is this any way to strike up a conversation?!
Here's all I'm saying: let's not water down the Gospel by trying to deny or hide the total depravity of people. But let's be far more kind, gentle and loving in the way we approach the issue. I'm sitting here running through the examples in the life of Jesus, and I'm struggling to think of a time He "presented the Gospel" anything like we so often do today...
If you followed the so-called Friendship Evangelism methodology back in the day, you might be hearing echoes in your mind. But only to a point, please. I'm not advocating that we befriend people solely and only in an effort to be able to share the Gospel with them. If that's the whole goal of your friendship and they refuse Christ, what then? You likely abandon them and create even greater bitterness in your wake... Aren't we commanded to love like Christ loves? Doesn't He love those that He knows will never accept His sacrifice for them? Doesn't the Father send rain on the just and unjust alike?
Love people because ... just because. Let your conversations about God and Christ flow as naturally as your conversations about a hard day at the office and whether the weather is likely to change soon. And by all means, don't ever start another conversation with "so, you're a wretched and vile sinner completely separated from God ... want to hear more?"
Hatushili
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Still trying to define "Postmodern"...
I spend a little time on a particular Christian internet forum now and then. As is typical of these sorts of sites, the topics range all over the map! Just for grins, I thought I'd ask folk what they thought of when they hear the word Postmodern.
If you read this blog often, you know that the response frustrated but did not surprise me.
Though I sometimes think I've beaten this topic into the ground, let me once again attempt to offer some food for thought on the subject. My fundamental premise is that when using the term Postmodern, we must differentiate between what I call Ivory Tower Postmodernity and Cultural Postmodernity...
First, what do I mean by Ivory Tower Postmodernity? I refer to the Ivory Tower of academia. These are the guys who have tenured professorships, know they will never lose their well-paying jobs, and can afford to do nothing but speculate about hypothetical worlds that really can't ever exist in reality. Unfortunately, these guys write books. Even more unfortunately, most people come to believe that what they say represents the norm. So what do they say?
They say that there's no such thing as absolute truth. Period. They can afford to believe this because they don't live in the real world. No one I personally know that identifies with Postmodernity believes in a complete lack of absolute truth. Much more gray than black and white? Yes. But absolutely no absolutes? No.
More to the point, I don't know of a single Postmodern follower of Christ that rejects absolute truth. Again, the list of what we consider absolute is certainly smaller than what other (more Modern) folk hold to, but there's still a list.
Okay, so what do I mean by Cultural Postmodernity? I mean the rubber-meets-the-road, real world cultural understanding of Postmodernity that you'll find in virtually everyone that could be labelled "Postmodern". These folks (and I consider myself one of them) see far less black and white than gray, but still believe in at least some absolutes.
So why do I use the label Cultural Postmodernity to describe myself? There are many reasons, but here are a few of the biggies:
1. I reject the notion that the human mind is capable of ascertaining foundational truth all by itself. (If your taking philosophical notes, this means I reject Foundationalism. I also reject the concept of meta-narrative, because by definition a meta-narrative is supposed to be self-evidently true.)
2. I have much more room in my heart for diversity than those that came before me. For the moment, we'll leave it at that.
3. I am passionately concerned about our environment. I consider myself an Environmentalist, even though I don't believe in human-induced Global Warming.
4. I put great stock in context. There is little that is not influenced by context. What's true for one culture sometimes may or may not be true for another. I could give copious examples of this, but if you've read this far you likely don't need me to.
5. I don't believe linear logic alone is usually the best way to resolve issues. There's a time and a place for it, but very often relationship is more important.
6. I believe God created humans to live in true community. Rugged individualism must die. Dialogue over monologue.
---
More than trying to define Postmodernity (because you really can't define it in a monologue), my real hope is that having read this post you don't immediately think "he rejects absolute truth!" if ever you hear someone use the term Postmodern. Remember, Cultural Postmodernity is a whole different animal than Ivory Tower Postmodernity.
Hatushili
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Book Review: Postmodern Children's Ministry
If you search around for books on Children's Ministry from a postmodern perspective, you'll soon be disappointed. There aren't a whole lot of choices. But Ivy Beckwith's Postmodern Children's Ministry usually comes to the top of this short list of choices. She is unashamedly postmodern and an emerging church advocate. For these reasons, I felt her book should be on my reading list.
I just finished it, and found it an exercise in frustration. One minute I'd be loving every word she wrote; the next I found myself laughing at the inconsistencies and folly of other concepts...
Her first chapter is a fine synopsis of what most of us mean by "cultural Postmodernity". In particular, she discusses the impact that this worldview is having on children and the need for changing our methods and ways of thinking with regard to CM. The book started out on a very good note, in my opinion.
Chapter 2 lost me a bit. In this chapter, our self-stated postmodern turns to and leans heavily on (apparently) decidedly Modern sociologists. She walks us through the theoretical stages of childhood development and faith development. While there is surely merit in some of these theories and they deserve to be considered, I found it fascinating that the same author who will (in a later chapter) embrace the notion that all truth is dependent upon context and community is in this chapter so sure that these psycho-social principles are valid. Not awful; not particularly awe inspiring.
I found Chapter 3 more valuable. Here the author talks about (among other things) the folly of insisting our children grow up so fast and the unBiblical notion that children must be groomed for the best paying job possible. She talks about focusing on their spiritual development as much or more than their academic development. In particular, I love this quote:
"Spiritually forming children means we help them see that in the economy of the kingdom of God being successful is loving others, showing mercy, fighting for justice, and walking humbly with God."
Though she doesn't specifically reference Micah or any of the other Minor Prophets, this concept is draw directly from them. We would all do well to remember this. In this age when the ultimate goal of most parents is to see their children graduate from college and get a "good job" it is the duty of pastors and other concerned folk to remind these parents of their truly God-given responsibilities and to challenge them to be about the business of spiritually forming (read: discipling) their children.
Chapter 4 is a short but good reminder of the value of community. Children are much more likely to remember the relationships they had as small children than to remember any specific Sunday School lessons. Children are as much a part of community as any adult.
Chapter 5 takes the concept of community and addresses children specifically. There are some good thoughts in this chapter, but for the most part I found it frustrating. For example, in her discussion of "Citizenship" she completely ignores the very important truth of sheltering and protecting children. It is our God-given responsibility to watch over and guard them, slowly letting up our guard as they begin to develop their own. But for the author, this is tantamount to creating a "Christian ghetto". She finds it frustrating that so many churches want to offer their children alternatives to the godless activities of public schools and local communities. She asserts that children need to learn about being "salt and light".
But at what point are children prepared to be salt and light? Surely we cannot simply cast them to the wolves from their earliest elementary school years, can we? Aren't we charged with watching what they see, hear, experience and regard? While I agree that we cannot foster an "us versus them" mentality with our children, I am not willing to cast my children before the wolves of Satan until they are good and ready!
I appreciated Chapter 6. Here the author focuses on the family - the fundamental unit God first created. She bravely points out that too many well meaning churches have usurped the authority of family over the spiritual formation of their own children. She also discusses how church community naturally emulates family (by being multi-generational and composed of families itself) and suggests that churches would do well to incorporate this truth into their work of discipling children.
Chapter 7. What can I say? I wish Chapter 7 hadn't been written. Here the author discusses the Bible. She talks about how one should and should not read and teach the Bible. Here is where her postmodernity runs amok - "And since we all bring our own stories and our community's story to any reading of the Bible, we all read the Bible subjectively [so far, she's making a valid point]. There is never an objective exegesis or analysis of the biblical text. We'll never know for sure what the original writers of the story were intending to say."
That's an awfully absolute statement to be making, no? It is defeatist, and it underestimates the purpose of God in recording Scripture. Even more frustrating, within the span of just a few pages, the author is talking about the critical importance of understanding the historical and cultural context of a given passage of Scripture, and asking the question "why did God choose to have this passage recorded". It appears she wants to have her postmodern cake and eat it too!
What's good about this discussion is it points out an inherent weakness in postmodern philosophy. Those in the ivory towers tell us that there is no such thing as absolute truth, and those on the cultural ground try to buy into that thinking. But in reality - unless you have a tenured position at a university - no one can really live this way. We all understand that certain things are objectively true. In this case, the author somehow knows that context and culture are absolutely imperative to an understanding of Scripture. She knows this deep within her being, yet she's refusing to acknowledge the implicit truthfulness of her claim. There is great tension where the ivory tower meets the street.
Chapter 8 ended the book on a good note for me. Here the author talks about ways to incorporate children into the weekly worship service of the church. She acknowledges the difficulties, but believes the benefits outweigh the challenges. I think she's right, personally. But whether a church family chooses to always include children in worship or chooses to do so on regular occasions, the choice belongs to the elders of the community of faith. I would simply argue that we must make every effort to help children feel a legitimate, valuable part of the community of faith.
All things considered, I'm glad to have read Beckwith's Postmodern Children's Ministry. Like so many things in life, you take the good and throw out the bad after chewing on it for a while. There are concepts and ideas she shares that need to gain a broader audience. I stand with her in her opposition to what she calls Disney-esque children's "ministry". Parents must be about the business of discipling their children. The community of faith has an obligation to help in any way it can.
Hatushili
Monday, January 21, 2008
Have we really done this poorly?
As you know, I really enjoyed Donald Miller's book Blue Like Jazz, so when I saw my local paper carry a feature story on him I was delighted. It's the anchor article for the "Faith" section of the Sunday paper and also bears an enormous colour picture of Don. [Though not bearing the same picture or title, here's the article from another source.]
What really surprised me about the article (written by an AP writer) was not its existence (Don's been very popular for a while now) but the misunderstanding and partial understanding it propagates...
Start with the article's title: "Redefining Christian". That's an attention getter, for sure! The subtitle expresses the editor's main point - Author [Don] disavows notion that faith is conservatism. I found it very distressing that this newspaper editor felt that Christianity was primarily defined by it's attachment to the Republican party and conservatism in general. Don, of course, wants to dispel that notion among Christ's followers. Sadly, we've obviously been so attached at the hip that the non-believing world has made the connection...
But the emerging church has fared no better in being understood by this AP author. Read this line from his article slowly:
"The book also debuted at a time when the emerging church movement - which emphasizes the individual's faith experience and varied worship styles - is flourishing, signaling a fertile audience for such religious musings among more socially liberal evangelicals."
No mention of postmodernity. No talk about social justice. No word of community.
At least for one AP writer, "emerging church" can be condensed into "individual faith experience and varied worship styles"!
Many of us have long believed that Christ's followers have done a terrible job at proclaiming who we really are, and who Jesus really is. I offer this article as yet another proof that this belief is well founded.
Hatushili
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Book review: Blue Like Jazz
This won't be a review in the traditional sense. I just wanted to share some thoughts on the book, as I've just recently finished it.
As I noted before, I really enjoyed Miller's book. It's refreshingly (and sometimes brutally) honest. It's charming and funny. It's challenging and gripping. In short, it's a really well-crafted book.
I was surprised by the humor of the book, to be honest. I guess I didn't expect the book to be so funny in places...
Take this example (one of my favourites from the book):
When I was in Sunday School as a kid, my teacher put a big poster on the wall that was shaped in a circle like a target. She had us write names of people we knew who weren't Christians on little pieces of paper, and she pinned the names to the outer circle of the target. She said our goal, by the end of the year, was to move those names from the outer ring of the circle, which represented their distance from knowing Jesus, to the inner ring, which represented them having come into a relationship with Jesus. I thought the strategy was beautiful because it gave us a goal, a visual.
I didn't know any people who weren't Christians, but I was a child with a fertile imagination so I made up some names; Thad Thatcher was one and William Wonka was another. My teacher didn't believe me which I took as an insult, but nonetheless, the class was excited the very next week when both Thad and William had become Christians in a dramatic conversion experience that included the dismantling of a large satanic cult and underground drug ring. There was also levitation involved.
After I stopped laughing (and making Carmen read it!), I finished the chapter. He goes on to talk about a booth he and some friends set up on a college campus during a festival that sounds very much like Michigan's "Hash Bash"... I'll not give it away, because you should read it for yourself. But this chapter (11) was one of the most convicting things I've read in quite some time. Would that all Christians would truly "come out of the closet" (as Miller writes) as authentic and sincere followers of Christ.
As for the criticism I hear now and again that the theology of the book is weak ... it's not a theology book! Challies' review, for example, followed along the "bad theology makes for a tainted book" approach. I generally appreciate his insights, but in this case (as is often the case) he went too far. The book is basically Miller's memoirs on faith and practice. Sure, he'll say some theologically-tinted things you may or may not like. But that's OK, folks. I completely disagree with the theology criticism of Challies (and others).
If you're anything like me, this book will resonate with you in a very real way. I hope it will do more than that. I hope it will challenge both of us to live our faith in a more meaningful, moment-by-moment way before a culture that is interested in Jesus but not American Christianity.
Hatushili
Friday, October 26, 2007
Children's Ministry and Postmodernity
As promised here, I'd like to explore the intersection of Postmodernity and children's ministry.
If you wander around the landscape of Postmodern Christian thinking, you'll discover that many people just aren't sure how to engage children's ministry into the conversation. Consequently, you end up with churches that are decidedly Postmodern in their adult and youth ministries, but look exactly like their more Modern brothers and sisters when it comes to ministry to young children.
Oh, by the way, ...
This is a great point to remind you that Postmodernity can be (and in this post, is) used as a cultural term, not an intellectual one. In the near future I hope to have a glossary of (my) terms up on this blog. I hope it will help clear up some of this ambiguity.
Since we're talking about children, and the way they think and act in today's culture, it should be obvious that by "Postmodern" I certainly don't mean "deniers of absolute truth" (the standard far-right definition). I'm talking about culture - that set of values, beliefs and assumptions that make you like (or unlike) the people around and about you. Postmodern culture is largely the only thing today's children have ever known. Take a guy like me: at 34 years of age, I was raised in a Modern context, but have developed a leaning toward Postmodern culture. Today's children have little connection with the world of Modernity. It only seems natural that we therefore try to integrate our approach to children's ministries with an understanding of Postmodernity.
The problem, of course, is two-fold:
A) Most people doing the hard work of children's ministry have never given the Modern/Postmodern discussion any thought whatsoever - many don't even realize there is such a discussion, and ...
B) Most every tool (be it book, program, video, seminar or otherwise) designed for children's ministry was created in a decidedly Modern context.
Therefore, it should be obvious that I'm not going to have all the answers. We as a community of Christ-followers need to be working these answers out together. But I do have some thoughts, and I'd love to hear yours too.
1. We have focused too much on competition in the past. Most children's ministries (think AWANA, or Word of Life, or whatever...) are ingrained with a competitive element. Don't hear me wrong - I'm not against competition! Observe me watching a University of Michigan football game and you'll understand! But I am saying that all of this competition detracts from a focus on community. Postmodern kids want community. They likely can't articulate that, but they want it just the same. Pitting one kid against another doesn't do much for community.
I know what you're thinking - what about group competition? Much better than individual, but (in my opinion) still overdone in children's ministry. I'm not saying we cut it out, but I'm saying we need to rethink the ways we utilize competition, understanding that it carries both potential for good and for ill.
What's the major ill? Besides conflicting with their natural cultural inclinations, it can implicitly teach children that the Christian life is fundamentally about competition. What a horrible thing to teach them, really. Do you want your kids to think - in any way at all - that following Christ is a competition? We are not to be in competition with one another; we are to be in conformity to Christ.
2. We have focused too much on the entertainment model. It has become so well entrenched in today's thinking that to even suggest that children can learn without the latest, greatest technological thingee is looked upon with incredulity. "What do you mean, my kids don't have to have electronic flashing lights to learn their math skills?! You mean to tell me edu-tainment isn't necessary?!"
Let's think this through. A major trouble with teaching kids today is their ridiculously short attention spans. Doubt me? Just ask any elementary teacher! So because of this short attention span, we've decided to try to trick the kids - give them a "game" that is actually teaching them useful information. But what are we sacrificing long-term? Likely, we're doing nothing but encouraging and rewarding their short attention spans!
We're also setting ourselves up for failure. If children learn to believe from an early age that learning is all "fun and games" we are doing them a great disservice when they become adults. Is it any wonder why 2 out of 3 kids graduate from high school and then leave the life of the local church? We've entertained them for years; now we expect them to "grow up" and get to work?! It's unfair. We've set them up for failure, and failing is exactly what they're doing.
Perhaps a better model is the mentor or tutor. It requires a lot more energy and more people power, but pouring the lives of our adult into the lives of our kids has to be more effective than just entertaining them, doesn't it?
3. Compartmentalization. We still have a tendency to see children's ministry as something separate from the other ministries of the local church. This fosters a mentality that children's ministry is mostly about freeing adults to participate in adult's ministry! Instead, we should be thinking in terms of the the family - both the individual families that comprise the local church as well as the collective church "family". Again, don't hear hear me wrong - there's nothing wrong with children being with children and adults being with adults. But we need to recognize that such a condition is somewhat unnatural and should not be the norm.
Again, let's think this through. What responsibilities do we have as parents? Certainly we are to provide for their material needs and some of their material wants. We are to oversee their education, both of things earthly and heavenly. We are to be their guide, leading them to Christ and discipling them to Christlikeness. We are, in short, to care for them as God cares for us. There's a good reason that most children's conception of God the Father mirrors their view of Daddy.
So how in the world are we supposed to accomplish all of this without being around our kids? How can we live up to our responsibilities if separation is the norm, not togetherness?
We can't.
----
As usual, no firm answers here. I won't pretend to have answers. I, like many, find myself asking hard questions and struggling to come up with answers.
So what should ministering to Postmodern kids look like? I don't know. But I do know that it looks a lot less competition-driven and more community/relationship driven, a lot less entertainment-focused and a lot more mentor-focused, a lot less compartmentalized and a lot more family oriented.
What do you know?
Hatushili
Friday, September 21, 2007
Senior Saints and Postmodernity
I've spent a fair bit of time wondering out loud how cultural postmodernity might affect Christian ministry. We've together spent many posts and comment sessions debating the merits of many different thoughts. But they've virtually always been related to adult ministry generally, and mostly to young adult ministry in particular.
But what about, say, ministry to children? Or ministry to "Senior Saints"? Does postmodernity have any tools to offer us in these endeavors?
As you might have guessed, I think they do. In this post, I'll wrestle with the implications for Seniors ministry. Later on I'll tackle children. [Wait, that sentence doesn't quite sound right, does it?!]...
One of the biggest upsides to postmodenity is its inherent (and fierce) desire for community. Whereas most churches in the Modern era really had/have to work hard to foster a sense of genuine community (at least larger churches; smaller churches had/have a built-in help - their size!), churches that embrace cultural postmodernity more or less insist on community. The individual is as de-emphasized as s/he can be in American culture, and the group (the church) is lifted up. So what has this to do with ministry to seniors?
For whatever reason, most seniors share this desire for community, but primarily in the context of their blood family. If we can convey the concept that Christian community can be even more meaningful than blood relationships, I believe we'll find seniors more engaged and more encouraged by the ministry of the local church. But how to do this?
Most postmodern younger adults really want to spend time in multi-generational contexts. We don't want to only or primarily be around those exactly like us. Nor do we really want to even be categorized by our age. This lends itself naturally to mentoring relationships within the local church. Those with a more postmodern bent will need little persuasion to spend time around those with more/different life experiences than themselves. Thus, a practical path to the hypothetical community I mentioned above.
Local churches should be actively seeking and promoting ways to encourage such relationships to grow. They can't be forced, though - remember, one of the key concepts in cultural postmodernity is that relationships develop organically and community be authentic. So how do we do this?
I think the local church should officially conduct a funeral service for the concept of strict age-step Sunday School classes and/or small groups. Nothing discourages the kind of organic community I'm talking about more than forcing people to be isolated with only people in the same age group. Once one reaches a certain age, don't the substantive differences between ages largely disappear? Surely there are major pathmarkers on the journey of adulthood (marriage, children, empty-nest, retirement, etc...), but shouldn't these different experiences be shared with others? Can't we learn more together than we can apart?
For me personally, one of the greatest ministries I have been involved with in the last ten years was an adult elective Sunday School class that was intentionally multi-generational. We had members from 20-something to 80-something! It was really a wonderful mini-community within the context of the larger local church. I miss it, frankly.
Here's another thought: I've long maintained that one of the primary ways a pastor conducts the business of ministry is by trying to place people in contexts where they are most likely to feel and follow the Spirit's leading. Surely multi-generational classes/small groups is a way to do this. But there are others. How many churches actually have some kind of strategy for encouraging mentoring? I don't think this is something you can necessarily have a program for, but there are things a church can do to encourage the process.
For example, as simple as it sounds, why not spend some time preaching about mentoring? The Bible is full of examples of younger men learning at the feet of older. Samuel and Eli come to mind. Show that it's important to your local church by using time in the pulpit to encourage it.
Or how about a pastor/elder specifically seeking out some of the older and wiser people in the assembly and regularly discussing the mentoring concept with them. Then set in place "social" events that might put the right people in the right place...
I could go on, but you get the point. We can leverage cultural postmodernity within the life of the local church to better minister to seniors, as well as to be better ministered to by by them.
The great Roman Catholic-Emerging conspiracy!
Having recently read and engaged with an article claiming to link Emerging Church with Roman Catholicism, I've had my curiosity piqued: Do others also think this way?
The answer, it appears, is 'yes'. I've found another one. This particular critique is longer and (sometimes) more sensible, but equally as mean-spirited and reactionary. Read it if you like; I'll hit some of the positives and negatives...
On the positive side, this author (Richard Bennett, who is a former Roman Catholic priest) makes a few good points. His article is basically a critique of Brian McLaren's A Generous Orthodoxy, and I share some of his concerns about this very influential book.
For example, Bennett takes issue with McLaren's "God A vs God B" paradigm, noting that "By this fictitious contrast he entices his readers to choose between two highly subjective conceptions of a god of his own imagination". Back in June, I made this observation regarding the same subject:
Chapter 2: Jesus and God B - Here McLaren contends that God should not be seen as merely "'God A', a single, solitary, dominant Power, Mind, or Will, but as 'God B', a unified, eternal, mysterious, relational community/family/society/entity of saving Love" (p.85).
If that isn't terribly confusing enough, there's more: "In English, there just isn't a personal pronoun to express this kind of Life/Personality that isn't either exclusively male or exclusively female. The only nongender pronoun in English is impersonal (it)" (p.83). I especially dislike this quote because it implies to the average reader that such a pronoun exists in the original Greek manuscripts, but not in English. As grammar would have it, though - there is no such pronoun in Greek either!
I found many occasions in this book when McLaren's lack of theological training became obvious. This chapter was one of those.
The truth is that - to use McLaren's somewhat odd language - the God of the Bible is both God A and God B. The Bible clearly paints Him (not It) so.
Also like Bennett, I was deeply troubled by the way McLaren attempts to redefine the old standard TULIP acrostic to better suit his own tastes in theology. Kudos to Bennett for pointing out the foolishness of such an attempt.
But the bad in this article far outweighs the good, folks. Right off the bat, Bennett tries to import a Roman Catholic context to this whole debate, one that is foreign to every discussion I've ever had with emerging-type folk. It comes across as nothing more than a conspiracy theory when he insists that:
Thus rather than looking for unity based on truth, the Papacy, as ever, is seeking to secure visible outward conformity through the compromise of others. This is the larger context into which the Emergent Church is set.
or that:
McLaren is in the early stages of presenting the same protocol as Papal Rome. But then, Rome said that the induction of Protestant churches was to be "little by little" as their thinking was changed by dialogue with Catholics.
Moreover, Mr. Bennett is clearly not very well-versed in the fine art of sarcasm. I know that as a (cultural) postmodern, I have an advantage on this front. But Bennett seems to be completely missing the rampant sarcasm in A Generous Orthodoxy. He actually thinks it's bitterness! For example, quoting McLaren ("you should know that I am horribly unfair in this book, lacking all scholarly objectivity and evenhandedness"), Bennett claims the he "shows by his own admission what amounts to bitterness against his conservative Protestant heritage...". Clearly Bennett doesn't understand the tenor in which McLaren meant these words. Perhaps if he ever read any of McLaren's other works, or listened to him speak, or even familiarized himself with the culturally postmodern context that McLaren runs within... But that's too much effort, I suppose.
Further adventures in missing the point: Bennett takes McLaren to task for saying "But the Bible requires human interpretation, which was a problem [for Reformers]...". To Bennett, this is nothing short of a denial that "Scripture is to be interpreted by Scripture". But that's not the point. The point is which Scriptures? How do they interpret one another? By what method do we come to conclusions? Etc... The point is that the very act of interpretation necessarily involves humans.
And my personal favourite: when speaking of Martin Luther, McLaren (correctly) points out that Luther lived at the beginning of what we now call the Modern era (as opposed to the new Postmodern era). Apparently Bennett is wholly unfamiliar with the actual modern/postmodern debate, as he actually says:
In this way, he [McLaren]is able to use Martin Luther as simply a man of another time, not relevant for today because that time, which he calls modern, is now over.
Did you catch that? Bennett is throwing in the "which he calls modern" bit as a dig! As if McLaren is simply making up these terms to confuse people. I knew a Christian leader once who described postmodernity as a "camp" that he was not in! Much the same here. One more time, folks - modernity and postmodernity are not terms that heretics made up, nor are they "camps" to be in or out of, nor do they inherently carry value judgements. They are merely very common words used to describe a philosophical shift of massive proportions.
---
Mr. Bennett (and others), you may deny the existence of the 40 foot wall of water if you wish. You may insist that it is, in fact, merely a "fad". You may even claim that the word "tsunami" has merely been fabricated by a heretical group. But that does not change the facts.
They are (in case you're taking notes):
1.) Postmodernity has already come.
2.) It will soon be the dominant view within all Western culture (it already is in many areas).
3.) It is not necessarily any better or worse than Modernity; it's just different.
In light of these facts, it is my goal to help craft a cultural Postmodernity that better reflects His glory and that better equips Christ's followers to serve His mission.
Others, it would appear, would prefer to stick their heads in the sand or claim it's nothing but a Roman Catholic conspiracy.
Hatushili
Friday, September 14, 2007
An annoying quiz
From the same website that brought me the quiz in the post below this one, I found a quiz entitled "How emerging/postmodern are you?" These quizzes can be written by anyone, and the guy/gal that wrote this one has serious issues.
Those of you that keep up with my ramblings on postmodernity and emerging thought know that I think one of the biggest problems in the debate is the failure of people to distinguish between what could be called "academic postmodernity" (ie, the worldview held by the ivory tower-bound professor types) and the "street version" of postmodernity (what I usually call cultural postmodernity). This quiz is horribly guilty...
There are precisely eighteen questions on this particular quiz. I'll list them below (in red) and comment thereafter:
[Apparently the order of the questions is randomized each time you visit the site, so don't expect to find them in the order I've listed.]
1. There is a definate [sic] line of right and wrong. Not a bad question, frankly.
2. 2+2 is 4, but it may be something else too, we just don't know it yet. This is precisely the kind of "academic" nonsense I'm talking about. Is it possible that "2+2=4" has implications that we don't already understand? Sure. Is it possible that "2+2=4" for additional reasons beyond what we already understand? Sure. But this kind of question just points to the extreme/ivory tower postmodernity.
3. We can't know anything for sure about God, because that would put God in a box. If the question read "everything" instead of "anything", it would better reflect cultural postmodernity.
4. There are theological reasons why Christians don't go to the same churches, and this is good. What's good? That there are theological differences among Christ's followers? That we often separate over minor points of theology? That we often separate over major points of theology? That we separate in some ways but not others? What are we getting at here?!
5. The overall moral teaching of the Bible is more important than whether or not it is literal history. Please define "moral teaching", first. Then, explain how it is that we could possibly separate these two discussions when it comes to the Bible. Jesus, after all, predicated much of his "moral" teaching on "literal" history!
6. Every religion leads to the same end. That's not postmodernity so much as universalism. There are universalists in the Modern world as well as the Postmodern.
7. It is possible that God may choose to save all in the end. See #6.
8. God reveals himself to us through the Bible and through our experiences. Now that's a good pomo question. Finally!
9. The Bible doesn't tell us specific truths as much as it tells us general truths. Way too vague. Is the fact that Jesus is the Son of God a "specific" or a "general" truth?
10. The books of Romans, Ephesians, and Hebrews tell us as much about God as the Gospels do. Another good pomo question for the Christ follower to wrestle with.
11. There is nothing that we can know for sure. Including the answer to this question, I suppose. Silly. Ivory-tower silly. No one really believes this. Now, can we say "We can no much less for sure than the previous generation held as sure"? That might work.
12. The Bible should be interpreted literally. The Bible should be interpretted as it was intended to be interpretted. Perhaps if we said "in a woodenly literal fashion" it might work.
13. Everyone who has not received Christ as Savior will go to hell. Another good question (and one where I leave my more pomo brethren behind).
14. There are no such things as absolutes. Right, like this statement. It doesn't really exist, because it sets itself up as an absolute, but absolutes don't exist, so the question you just read you didn't really read. Now we're asking about existentialism, not postmodernity! Again, more ivory-tower stuff.
15. What we call good may be bad. What we call bad, may be good. That depends entirely on the basis one calls something "good" or "bad". But it does not get at the core issue of whether some things can be absolutely good or absolutely bad, nor does it address motive.
16. Some of the miraculous stories in the Bible may just be myths. That's a good pomo question (and another where I leave the pomo path).
17. God may be male, female, or even both. Another good one.
18. I see things in black and white, with very little grey. And a final good one.
---
I know a lot of people who self-identify as postmodern. I am one of those people! But there's a world of difference between cultural postmodernity and academic postmodernity. This quiz utterly fails to capture that distinction.
Hatushili
An interesting quiz
Once upon a post, I attempted to come up with some questions to test one's level of comfort with postmodernity. Today I stumbled across a similar, but much broader, attempt. Emergent/Postmodern Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan Fundamentalist Reformed Evangelical Neo orthodox Charismatic/Pentecostal Classical Liberal Roman Catholic Modern Liberal
This quiz attempts to find your "theological worldview". As with any such quiz, many of the questions are subject to interpretation. But they allow you to scale your answers along five points, so there's some wiggle room in there.
I'd encourage you to click the link and take the test yourself - it doesn't take long. Report back on your findings, if you like.
As for mine...
Here are my official results:You scored as Emergent/Postmodern, You are Emergent/Postmodern in your theology. You feel alienated from older forms of church, you don't think they connect to modern culture very well. No one knows the whole truth about God, and we have much to learn from each other, and so learning takes place in dialogue. Evangelism should take place in relationships rather than through crusades and altar-calls. People are interested in spirituality and want to ask questions, so the church should help them to do this. 79% 71% 71% 54% 50% 39% 18% 11% 0%
---
Note that the actual answer page had a picture of Brian McLaren on it ... I felt compelled to remove it.
Also of interest to me: I'm nearly as much "Fundamentalist" as I am "Emergent/Postmodern". I know many don't see how the two can co-exist, but trust me - at least in my own life, they do.
Hatushili
Read More......
