this might be painful,
for all concerned.
I've been thinking more and more that if i really want change the Church and the world around me, instead of trying to tear down or separate into more boxes, maybe I should begin living a wholly Christ centered life.
living a Christ centered life is difficult when one denies the existence and divinity of Christ.
our faith needs to be dramatically reformed if any notion of a Historical Jesus will survive this century. some have asked in the past "where is our Moses?", but i want to plead, where is our Martin Luther? who is willing to ask the hard questions of church and state, who is willing to nullify the baptism of our state...who is willing to return to the ideas of unity through diversity?
will EKlesia ever mean what people 1,900 years ago thought it meant? will this Eklesia have to return underground?
what happens when the empire gets baptized?
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Is Our God Bigger Than the TV Screen? The Christian Experience in an Age of Hyperrealism
Since Craig and Shanna have brought out some issues concerning modernity, I figured it might be time to break out with a little post-modernity. This is a paper that I presented last December for the Adventist Faith and Culture Fellowship in Washington D.C., dealing with Christian responses to some of the major challenges of post-modernity. It's a bit long so I'm breaking it up into two parts for ease.
One of the most beautiful parts of the Christian experience comes out of the fact that God wants to have a relationship with us. Through the act of salvation we enter into this relationship and learn that in him “all fullness dwell.” Like all relationships it grows and deepens with time. Yet, as we continue to live in a world where “time is money”, and therefore a commodity to be spent, efficiency has become the name of the game, especially in our relationships. As the world progresses, we find ourselves in a movement that has been described by French sociologist, Jean Baudrillard, as a shift from reality to hyperreality. In this shift the traditional factors that help build a relationship, time and distance, change. In this paper we will examine some of the ways the hyperreal has changed our experience and relationship to God, by looking at ways in which we can move from a full relationship to a hollow relationship, based upon simulated models, and limits within our own cultural environment.
To begin, let us briefly look at the current cultural shift that we find ourselves in. I believe there is no denying that the past thirty years have seen a rapid development in technology, and that this led to a complete restructuring of our society. Marshall McLuhan in his classic work, Understanding Media, put it best when he said that “we shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.” Thus new technology not only shapes how we work but also how we relate to each other and the world. In the early eighties, Jean Baudrillard began looking at this phenomena, and noticed that not only was our change in technology reshaping our society, but also that this growth, was also leading to a change in the way we perceive reality, to a “blurring of distinctions.” Baudrillard charted this change as a shift from reality to hyperreality.
“The hyperreal for Baudrillard is a condition whereby models replace the real,
as exemplified in such phenomena as the ideal home in women’s or lifestyle
magazines, ideal sex as portrayed in sex manuals or relationship books, ideal
fashion as exemplified in ads or fashion shows, ideal computer skills as set forth
in computer manuals, and so on. In these cases, the model becomes a determinant
of the real, and the boundary between hyperreality and everyday life is erased.”
Thus reality in this sense can be associated with the fullness and presence of a being, while the hyperreal is associated with the hollowness and absence of a model. The hyperreal becomes in essence a simulated environment, and while it is divorced from reality we interact with it in the same way that we might interact with reality. However, while it seems as if our interaction within the hyperreal is the same, in reality it is rather different and not only changes the way we relate to each other but also some of the experiences within our relationships. The deception of the hyperreal lies in thinking that our relationships are based upon reality rather than that of a simulation.
One of the most common new forms of religious experience of our day is seen in what has become known as Prosperity Theology. Preached by televangelists across the nation, prosperity theology has swept America by force, preaching a method of procedure whereby one can measure their blessing by God based upon economic terms. The difference between those who are blessed and those who are not, reduces itself to the common “have and have nots”. In prosperity theology one can tell who has been blessed by God, for it not only shows in their hearts and faces, but also on their mortgages, bank accounts, kid’s college funds, and IRA’s. The have nots, on the other hand, find themselves struggling to live a life of mediocre existence, without the joy of security that the haves have. The path out of mediocre existence, is relatively simple, and can be summed up into one word: Believe. The phrase that best sums up the purpose of this belief, “Your Best Life Now,” also happens to be the book title of one of the leading preachers of prosperity theology.
Like Baudrillard’s hyperreal, prosperity theology finds itself based upon a deception in which what we perceive to be as real is actually simulated. In prosperity theology, this is happens to be the way we view God, who blesses us not according to his own will and love, but rather in direct response to our petty pleas. The God of prosperity theology is based upon a model, and like Santa Claus, a strong belief coupled with good behavior will lead to merry blessings. However, this model inherently places limits on God, for he can only show his favor through blessings, thus those who are out of favor find themselves marginalized. In this model, God’s love is limited in its application, and inherently we place restraints not only him but also upon ourselves and the way we are to receive his blessings. In looking at this even closer we come to realization that even the blessings that we expect are directly related to other ideals we have within the hyperreal, such as the ideal home or the ideal car. Under this type of simulated environment, in which we have not only placed limits upon God but upon ourselves, how can we expect to have a genuine Christian experience? The core of God’s blessings in this theology seems more shallow than full of the rich blessings of his wonder.
There are many ways in which this theology sets us up for a hollow experience with God, but the first and most important lies in the way it treats our relationship to God. To use an example, imagine what would happen if instead of loving my Dad based upon his relation and love for me, I began to measure our relationship in regards to America’s favorite TV Dad: Bill Cosby. While our relationship might last for a period of time, it would not take long for it to fail because first and foremost my dad is not Bill Cosby, and nor should he be. What is great about me and my Dad’s relationship comes not out of the way he treats me like Theo, but out of the way he treats me like me. To base our relationship upon the model of the Cosby’s would be to fake our relationship, and to mistake reality for the simulated reality of the Cosby’s. The great tragedy in this is that not only am I placing unrealistic restraints upon his love through this model, but also that I would never have the chance to actually know who my Dad is, and fully experience his love.
Prosperity theology acts in the same way; it begins when we want our relationship to God to be like the God we see on TV. Thankfully God, unlike many products, is not “As Seen On TV.” To view him as such may be one of the most tragic deceptions of our day. As the theologian Miroslav Volf points out, “There is God. And there are images of God.” Deception lies when we subvert the reality of God, and substitute it for the simulated model of God we find on TV; an image of God, but not God. On TV, God is a God who shows his love like Santa Claus, dropping material blessings for the good from heaven, but only to those who believe. Thus we begin to focus on the gifts that he brings, and like Santa Claus, we only care to have him around when we are most in need of gifts. However, as Kierkegaard points out, “The inward person looks not upon the gifts but upon the Giver. He knows that God not only gives gifts, but gives himself with the gifts. And that alone is what is important.” Like my relationship with my Dad, the tragedy of this simulated version of God is that through it I may never actually get to experience the fullness of a true relationship, based not upon gifts, but upon the giver.
One of the most beautiful parts of the Christian experience comes out of the fact that God wants to have a relationship with us. Through the act of salvation we enter into this relationship and learn that in him “all fullness dwell.” Like all relationships it grows and deepens with time. Yet, as we continue to live in a world where “time is money”, and therefore a commodity to be spent, efficiency has become the name of the game, especially in our relationships. As the world progresses, we find ourselves in a movement that has been described by French sociologist, Jean Baudrillard, as a shift from reality to hyperreality. In this shift the traditional factors that help build a relationship, time and distance, change. In this paper we will examine some of the ways the hyperreal has changed our experience and relationship to God, by looking at ways in which we can move from a full relationship to a hollow relationship, based upon simulated models, and limits within our own cultural environment.
To begin, let us briefly look at the current cultural shift that we find ourselves in. I believe there is no denying that the past thirty years have seen a rapid development in technology, and that this led to a complete restructuring of our society. Marshall McLuhan in his classic work, Understanding Media, put it best when he said that “we shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us.” Thus new technology not only shapes how we work but also how we relate to each other and the world. In the early eighties, Jean Baudrillard began looking at this phenomena, and noticed that not only was our change in technology reshaping our society, but also that this growth, was also leading to a change in the way we perceive reality, to a “blurring of distinctions.” Baudrillard charted this change as a shift from reality to hyperreality.
“The hyperreal for Baudrillard is a condition whereby models replace the real,
as exemplified in such phenomena as the ideal home in women’s or lifestyle
magazines, ideal sex as portrayed in sex manuals or relationship books, ideal
fashion as exemplified in ads or fashion shows, ideal computer skills as set forth
in computer manuals, and so on. In these cases, the model becomes a determinant
of the real, and the boundary between hyperreality and everyday life is erased.”
Thus reality in this sense can be associated with the fullness and presence of a being, while the hyperreal is associated with the hollowness and absence of a model. The hyperreal becomes in essence a simulated environment, and while it is divorced from reality we interact with it in the same way that we might interact with reality. However, while it seems as if our interaction within the hyperreal is the same, in reality it is rather different and not only changes the way we relate to each other but also some of the experiences within our relationships. The deception of the hyperreal lies in thinking that our relationships are based upon reality rather than that of a simulation.
One of the most common new forms of religious experience of our day is seen in what has become known as Prosperity Theology. Preached by televangelists across the nation, prosperity theology has swept America by force, preaching a method of procedure whereby one can measure their blessing by God based upon economic terms. The difference between those who are blessed and those who are not, reduces itself to the common “have and have nots”. In prosperity theology one can tell who has been blessed by God, for it not only shows in their hearts and faces, but also on their mortgages, bank accounts, kid’s college funds, and IRA’s. The have nots, on the other hand, find themselves struggling to live a life of mediocre existence, without the joy of security that the haves have. The path out of mediocre existence, is relatively simple, and can be summed up into one word: Believe. The phrase that best sums up the purpose of this belief, “Your Best Life Now,” also happens to be the book title of one of the leading preachers of prosperity theology.
Like Baudrillard’s hyperreal, prosperity theology finds itself based upon a deception in which what we perceive to be as real is actually simulated. In prosperity theology, this is happens to be the way we view God, who blesses us not according to his own will and love, but rather in direct response to our petty pleas. The God of prosperity theology is based upon a model, and like Santa Claus, a strong belief coupled with good behavior will lead to merry blessings. However, this model inherently places limits on God, for he can only show his favor through blessings, thus those who are out of favor find themselves marginalized. In this model, God’s love is limited in its application, and inherently we place restraints not only him but also upon ourselves and the way we are to receive his blessings. In looking at this even closer we come to realization that even the blessings that we expect are directly related to other ideals we have within the hyperreal, such as the ideal home or the ideal car. Under this type of simulated environment, in which we have not only placed limits upon God but upon ourselves, how can we expect to have a genuine Christian experience? The core of God’s blessings in this theology seems more shallow than full of the rich blessings of his wonder.
There are many ways in which this theology sets us up for a hollow experience with God, but the first and most important lies in the way it treats our relationship to God. To use an example, imagine what would happen if instead of loving my Dad based upon his relation and love for me, I began to measure our relationship in regards to America’s favorite TV Dad: Bill Cosby. While our relationship might last for a period of time, it would not take long for it to fail because first and foremost my dad is not Bill Cosby, and nor should he be. What is great about me and my Dad’s relationship comes not out of the way he treats me like Theo, but out of the way he treats me like me. To base our relationship upon the model of the Cosby’s would be to fake our relationship, and to mistake reality for the simulated reality of the Cosby’s. The great tragedy in this is that not only am I placing unrealistic restraints upon his love through this model, but also that I would never have the chance to actually know who my Dad is, and fully experience his love.
Prosperity theology acts in the same way; it begins when we want our relationship to God to be like the God we see on TV. Thankfully God, unlike many products, is not “As Seen On TV.” To view him as such may be one of the most tragic deceptions of our day. As the theologian Miroslav Volf points out, “There is God. And there are images of God.” Deception lies when we subvert the reality of God, and substitute it for the simulated model of God we find on TV; an image of God, but not God. On TV, God is a God who shows his love like Santa Claus, dropping material blessings for the good from heaven, but only to those who believe. Thus we begin to focus on the gifts that he brings, and like Santa Claus, we only care to have him around when we are most in need of gifts. However, as Kierkegaard points out, “The inward person looks not upon the gifts but upon the Giver. He knows that God not only gives gifts, but gives himself with the gifts. And that alone is what is important.” Like my relationship with my Dad, the tragedy of this simulated version of God is that through it I may never actually get to experience the fullness of a true relationship, based not upon gifts, but upon the giver.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Thoughts on Modernity
Shanna's post (which I was very glad to see more people start contributing!) relates a good deal to the some thoughts I have been having about the dominant ideas of Modernity. So I thought I would lay these out in parallel to her thoughts.
By "modernity," I mean the philosophical movement or system which developed among intellectuals initially out of the Enlightenment or "Age of Reason" in the 17th & 18th centuries, and spread to more mainstream audiences in the 19th century. Of course, all movements have diversity within them, but there were notable ideologies which were central to the movement which are worth identifying.
In terms of epistemology, or means of determining what is knowable, modernity was committed to empiricism- that which can be discerned through the senses. In terms of presuppositions, modernity held to naturalism, a pre-commitment to physical matter as the only empirically valid reality. In terms of anthropology, view of humanity, the movement developed over time. During the enlightenment, most early or proto-moderns endorsed philosophical deism. Deism posited some manner of creator of both the physical universe and human beings. (This language of creation is evident in Jefferson's Declaration, for instance.) Deism holds that this deity created the universe according to natural law as a clockmaker creates a clock. This deity was necessary in their philosophical system primarily to answer questions of origins, and was desirably absent in most ways traditionally held by theism. (Other gods, possible imperfections of this deity, this deity's origins and present activities are all left undefined by deism.) After Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1858, its explanation of human origins allowed for a jettisoning of deism in favor of pure naturalism. With Darwin, the anthropology associated with modernity by the end of 19th century grew out of and reinforced its empirical epistemology and naturalistic presuppositions. As a system. these three items work well together.
A fourth ideology of modernity that may not be as solid a fit is that of optimism or progress. The thrust behind this was a confidence in the triumph of science and humanistic progress. Moderns could look to the advancements in technology from 1850 to 1900 and could be positively glowing in their projections for where humanity would be by 1950. (It was in this era that projections were made of flying cars for everyone by 1980.) The central ideologies of modernity set themselves up in diametric opposition to the epistemology, presuppositions, anthropology and pessimism of traditional theistic Christianity.
The ideologies of modernity moved into the mainstream of American life with the coming of large-scale urbanization during the late 1800s. As the modern cities grew, so did the ideas which accompanied the spread of electricity, the germ-theory of medicine, etc. As these ideas triumphed, first in the University and later the industrial city, traditional Christian ideologies came to be seen as antiquated, hopelessly mythological, or ignorant barriers to progress.
Part 2 looking at Christian responses to Modernity to come
By "modernity," I mean the philosophical movement or system which developed among intellectuals initially out of the Enlightenment or "Age of Reason" in the 17th & 18th centuries, and spread to more mainstream audiences in the 19th century. Of course, all movements have diversity within them, but there were notable ideologies which were central to the movement which are worth identifying.
In terms of epistemology, or means of determining what is knowable, modernity was committed to empiricism- that which can be discerned through the senses. In terms of presuppositions, modernity held to naturalism, a pre-commitment to physical matter as the only empirically valid reality. In terms of anthropology, view of humanity, the movement developed over time. During the enlightenment, most early or proto-moderns endorsed philosophical deism. Deism posited some manner of creator of both the physical universe and human beings. (This language of creation is evident in Jefferson's Declaration, for instance.) Deism holds that this deity created the universe according to natural law as a clockmaker creates a clock. This deity was necessary in their philosophical system primarily to answer questions of origins, and was desirably absent in most ways traditionally held by theism. (Other gods, possible imperfections of this deity, this deity's origins and present activities are all left undefined by deism.) After Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1858, its explanation of human origins allowed for a jettisoning of deism in favor of pure naturalism. With Darwin, the anthropology associated with modernity by the end of 19th century grew out of and reinforced its empirical epistemology and naturalistic presuppositions. As a system. these three items work well together.
A fourth ideology of modernity that may not be as solid a fit is that of optimism or progress. The thrust behind this was a confidence in the triumph of science and humanistic progress. Moderns could look to the advancements in technology from 1850 to 1900 and could be positively glowing in their projections for where humanity would be by 1950. (It was in this era that projections were made of flying cars for everyone by 1980.) The central ideologies of modernity set themselves up in diametric opposition to the epistemology, presuppositions, anthropology and pessimism of traditional theistic Christianity.
The ideologies of modernity moved into the mainstream of American life with the coming of large-scale urbanization during the late 1800s. As the modern cities grew, so did the ideas which accompanied the spread of electricity, the germ-theory of medicine, etc. As these ideas triumphed, first in the University and later the industrial city, traditional Christian ideologies came to be seen as antiquated, hopelessly mythological, or ignorant barriers to progress.
Part 2 looking at Christian responses to Modernity to come
the scopes monkey trial
just had a great conversation with a coworker about the scopes monkey trial being the point where our nation started moving from Christian to post-Christian and the way the church reacted to that change. i'm going to work on a true blog post about this and how it applies to basic concepts of congregation, service, etc. for us today, but while i'm collecting my thoughts i wondered if anyone else had any ideas or comments (or sources) to help me think through this idea?
Monday, December 24, 2007
The Reason for the Season?
.jpg)
So which of these is more correct?
It is definitely the second one. Jesus is not the reason for Christmas, we are. It was not for Jesus' edification that he came to an animal-stenched stable but to redeem our animal-stenched lives. The problem is that most people wearing sweatshirt #2 don't know why they are right.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Burn one down
From Stupid Church People:
I have a suggestion for Christians.
Please take Christ out of Christmas. Now.
I don't think he would want to have anything to do with it to be quite honest.
While you are at it, take Christ out of the word Christian. Why? Because you suck as a representative. You really do.
So starting now, if I was you, I would begin to work really hard at disassociating Christ from everything you hold so dear... and you might as well start with Christmas. Oh, and your church...that would be a good idea to.
He's really better off on his own without you.
i think we should get serious about some of the rhetoric floating around right now...specifically this notion that someone has 'taken the christ out of christmas'. if we're willing to be a little honest, i think a better question is:
why have i taken Christ out my everyday life?
the same thing happens around halloween. we should first be willing to take off the masks we wear everyday, before we even try addressing the spiritual merits of a dress-up holiday.
Please take Christ out of Christmas. Now.
I don't think he would want to have anything to do with it to be quite honest.
While you are at it, take Christ out of the word Christian. Why? Because you suck as a representative. You really do.
So starting now, if I was you, I would begin to work really hard at disassociating Christ from everything you hold so dear... and you might as well start with Christmas. Oh, and your church...that would be a good idea to.
He's really better off on his own without you.
i think we should get serious about some of the rhetoric floating around right now...specifically this notion that someone has 'taken the christ out of christmas'. if we're willing to be a little honest, i think a better question is:
why have i taken Christ out my everyday life?
the same thing happens around halloween. we should first be willing to take off the masks we wear everyday, before we even try addressing the spiritual merits of a dress-up holiday.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
agnus dei
Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy on us
Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy on us
Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace.
Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, have mercy on us
Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
A look at three current models of ministry in American churches
In one of my Trinity classes this semester, we have been talking through philosophy of ministry and looking at how people "do church" in America. My professor, Dr. Phillip Sell, articulated this chart, which I have reproduced below. I thought it was an interesting and insightful summary.
| Issue | Traditional | Contemporary | Missional |
| Cultural Orientation | Assumes the support of Christendom Minimal passion for evangelism | Accomodation to culture “Church can be attractive to lost people” Marketing approach and image management | Penetration of culture with the Gospel Church as missionary to the unsupportive culture |
| Image of the Christian | Representative of the dominant culture Civil Religion | Successful and happy Alternative to dominant culture | Resident aliens within the pluralistic culture |
| View of the Church | A place where religious things happen The country club/dues | A vendor of religious goods and services The mall/consumer | A people sent on a mission The web/relational |
| Orientation | Content-centered Right ideas | Program-centered Right activities | Relationship-centered Right relationships |
| Central Structures | Pulpit, Sunday School (one way communication) Age-graded Christian Education (mimic the public school) | Seeker-oriented services Needs-oriented ministry Market segments/generational ghettos | Equipping venues Discipleship/Mentoring Small Groups Spiritual formation |
| Organizational Structure | Hierarchy Committees Recruitment to church ministries | Pastoral oligarchy Teams Mobilization into church and world | Networked teams Empowerment to interpersonal ministry and team formation |
| Role of Pastor | Preacher/Caregiver | Evangelist/Leader/CEO | Equipper/Model/Leader |
| Learner Orientation | Cognitive processing through teaching | Cognitive processing Social learning in groups | Experiential learning Social learning Cognitive processing |
| Media/Era | Print/Oral | Broadcast | Digital |
| Internet/ Website | Source of information | Advertising and promotion | Interactive community |
| Social origins | Rural | Suburban | Urban |
| Dominate Generation | Builders | Boomers | Busters/GenX, Millennials |
| Evangelism | An isolated program Proclamational Come-see approach Reach the churched Adult convert growth rate? | A consistent emphasis Need-oriented event Come-see approach Reach the dechurched How do you gather a crowd? | A life-style, relational, incarnational and service-oriented Listening, dialogical Go-seek mentality Reach the unchurched |
| Worship | Predictable Historically anchored Hymns, hymnals, choirs, organs and pianos Not in cultural idiom In some cased liturgical | Scripted excellence In cultural idiom and popular instrumentation Historical disconnect Celebrative, upbeat choruses and worship ensembles Use of other media added | Laid back, serendipitous Ancient and vintage worship practices creatively mixed with contemporary media Multimedia, multi-sensory, participatory |
| Ethical Orientation | Subcultural taboos | Personal ethics | Social ethics |
| Other Churches | Cordial Denomination-building | Competitive Congregation-building | Networked Kingdom-building |
| Problems | Irrelevance Minimal evangelism Come-see approach | Cultural captivity Marketing/Consumer orientation How change consumers into disciples? Come-see approach | Establishing Biblical authority Maintaining the uniqueness of Christ Becoming a generational ghetto? |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
