Despite the title, this book
is nothing like Dallas Willard’s spiritual disciplines, such as fasting,
studying, praying, or confessing. Earl’s book lays out his ideas on how to
reach the next generation with the Gospel. His enemy is postmodern (or
post-Christian, later in the book) thinking – but Earl is quick to show that it
need not be an enemy since it can be harnessed to more effectively communicate
with Generation Y. This approach is, however, likely to create some tension
with biblical principles.
Introduction: Somewhat arbitrarily
accusing prayer and Bible study as being practiced in disconnection with real
life (which may be true for some but could certainly be corrected), Earl
proposes a number of other ‘disciplines’ needed to live a missional life, i.e.
six for personal development and six for the church as an organization. We
ignore his advice at our peril, since “the alternative is to reduce mission to
evangelism, [1]
evangelism to a program, etc.”
Earl’s
‘Emerging Church’ orientation becomes clear once we stumble upon terms such as
‘seeing Jesus in the world’ and ‘making ways for the culture to come to Christ’,
‘loving culture without being owned by it’, or ‘the illusion of objectivity’
with respect to theology. His idea of missions in a North American context is
to immerse into the culture around us in order to reach the ‘sought’. This
concept of the ‘sought’ is probably one of the most helpful in the book, and
introduced in Chapter 5: “A missional person, then, cultivates ‘Seeker [God]
sensitivity’ by staying attuned and cooperative with God’s efforts to reach the
sought by expressing the power of Christ’s death and resurrection through the
Church in its many forms.” Earl reminds us that ‘seeker friendly’ is a
misguided approach: since Paul clearly teaches that noone seeks after God (Rom
3:11), we do better to follow Jesus’ concept of a loving God who goes out of His
way to seek His treasure – representing the lost sheep (unlike some popular CCM
we sometimes sing at church that suggests Jesus is our treasure). As it turns
out, the seeker-friendly movement is somewhat of a nemesis to the Emergent
Church.
Chapter 1: To be missional, Earl
writes, we first need to have some of our paradigms crashed. We need to die –
die by crucifying aspects of our culture, leadership, and (our kind of)
spirituality (p.4). Often we first need to fail (have a church crisis during
which many are leaving) to realize that old paradigms no longer work. For the
church to be missional, it needs to renounce templates that “ask culture to
meet us on our terms” (p.10). What
Earl wants is that we come to realize that no formula will work and that we
need to reconsider all our past convictions about culture and how to reach the
sought in light of an openness towards whatever God may show us. Some of what
that might be is unfolding over the following chapters.
Chapter 2: Here, Earl promotes ‘sacred
realism’ over ‘critical realism’, the traditional Christian approach that
believes absolute truth exists but that our means of knowing are limited (we
see through a glass, darkly). Whereas Earl never clearly defines what sacred realism
is, it becomes clear throughout the book that is does not accept absolute truth (apart from some very general biblical
statements) and does not want to change culture - it wants culture to change us (p.26). Rather than optimistically
trying to take on post-Christianity with the tools of the past, sacred realism
advocates accepting uncomfortable realities. Neither denying or ignoring
postmodernism, nor quick fixes like youth ministry will work to ensure the
survival of Christianity in this new millennium.
Chapter 3: Earl explains we have to
reverse-engineer our missional point of view out of culture. Despite the
discussion among experts as to how significant postmodernism really is for
missions (pp.28,33), Earl has decided that this discussion should be over – or
rather, that postmodernism can prevail or maybe not, depending on the situation
(p.34). Consequently, we all find ourselves somewhere further up or down on the
‘Torino Scale’ which starts with ‘no impact’ from postmodern thought and ends
on a certain collision with disastrous impact.
Earl
struggles to define postmodernism but correctly describes one of its facets as
“nothing can be known” for sure – a “rejection of all certainty” (p.30).
Likewise, it entails “incredulity toward metanarrative” – such as the story of
the Bible, which needs to be ‘deconstructed’ to remove its potential for abuse.
It also rejects uniformity in favor of the celebration of difference (p.32). According
to the Handbook of Cultural Sociology
(p. 175), postmodernism is a rejection of modernism, with its sense of progress
and the possibility of control. Together with the confidence of modernism, it
also rejects tradition. In the case of the church, this aversion to tradition
may well mean throwing out the baby with the bathwater - at least in some cases
(such as worship styles). Crucial in this context is the observation that
postmoderns generally “hold a hybrid view that is picked up from various
sources along the way without much critical reflection” (p.31). Worse, it turns
out that postmodernism can be a ‘folk religion’, some versions of which may
accept all spiritual options as equally true (pp.38f.). In other words,
cross-cultural missions have entered Western society – didn’t we already know
instinctively?
Chapter 4: In one of the weaker
chapters, Earl tries to convey that the old need to learn from the young
(reverse mentoring). Asserting that Paul needed Timothy (I guess the church
needed Timothies but not necessarily Timothy), Earl promotes tapping the wisdom
of the young: friendships need to be built based on the elder learning from the
younger (apparently, the topic does not matter – it can be about how to use a
new electronic gadget). Really, though, it’s about “simply spending time with
them” (p.44), which is a great truism that may indeed get neglected in many
churches (or is left up to the youth pastors). To me, it means we need to mix
the ages, rather than having separate meetings for young and old, since creating
such artificial barriers only makes the generational gap larger. But Earl says
that to connect with the younger generation, we need to be immersed in pop
culture and should be able to operate our gadgets: our ‘get it quotient’ will
determine whether we are accepted by the young or not. Earl does not engage in
any critique of electronic communication and the potential drawbacks and
implications of remote communication versus being physically present with
others,[2]
and leaves us no room for a conscious decision not to engage in the gadget
culture: to relate with the next generation, we are ordered to immerse
ourselves into the electronic age.
Really, what Earl seems to be describing is living together – asking each other
for help with specific questions or problems. Maybe he simply means having
social interaction and being interested in each others’ lives – of course, that
should be a given among Christians, but sadly it is not.[3]
As a recent Barna publication confirms, reverse mentoring is indeed something
millennials want.[4] The article
even specifically mentions electronic media as one thing the elders can learn
about but also brings the main focus back to a less hierarchical church
structure (something that appears more biblical to me than the current
pastor-CEO model) and especially, participation in terms of gifts and giftings.
The key to reaching millennials appears to be to provide them with a vision:
they need to identify with their church and find causes within and through it.
On the whole, reverse mentoring may be less significant than the guidance
seasoned Christians can provide to the younger generations, as Barna Group’s
President David Kinnnaman says: “Millennials need the help of faithful
believers from older generations if they are to make sense of it all and move
meaningfully forward in their life and faith.”
Chapter 5: In his chapter on spiritual
relationships, Earl takes issue with ‘preaching down’. Rather than teaching
authoritatively, we need to adopt a participatory format. General Booth’s “try
tears” or Hudson Taylor’s "You must go forward on your knees” (in order to
see missionary success) don’t cut it anymore: what we need is a new understanding
of how to communicate. Rather than preaching down to the heathens, we need to
discover truth together with the ‘sought’ in an interactive manner.
The
result of his insights led Earl to reduce the length of his talks by a third,
use simpler concepts and vocabulary, and use more images than text on his
slides. The reverse, I guess, worked for Tim Keller in Manhattan, who created a
megachurch by preaching more academically, reaching the postmodern by presenting
a more intelligent gospel. But let’s move on to the next chapter.
Chapter 6: Discussing humility, Earl
criticizes a Christian radio host who does not share his own postmodern-adapted
views. According to Earl, defending denominational views is not worthwhile, and
only exposing Christianity as opposed to other religions has value (p.72). Yet,
his critique does not stop at how truth is presented and how the radio host
criticizes some movements that are part of the Christian spectrum, but goes
further in criticizing anyone who would even claim to know the Truth – a truly postmodern position. He goes on to say, using John the
Baptist as an example, that we are not to take the place that only pertains to
Christ. In his mind, we are to concentrate only on ‘the Jesus story’ and ‘his
redemptive purpose’ – a reduction of the Bible to some very basic elements (which
are not further defined) that we may all be able to agree on (I might add, as
reflected in the songs we sing). Suffice to say, there is a whole body of
literature against this view. Baptist preacher John A. Broadus is only one of the
authors:
"Brethren,
we must preach the doctrines;
we must
emphasize the doctrines;
we must go back
to the doctrines.
I fear that
the new generation does not know the doctrines as our fathers knew them."
Surely,
Broadus lived in the 19th century and did not know anything of the
problems of our generation which Earl attempts to address in his book. Yet,
Christ Himself said that ‘living water will flow from those who believe as the Scripture says’ (Jn 7:38) – a
clear reference to correct doctrine. If we as Christians do not ’live the big
story’ and must remain at the ‘I don’t know’ stage despite being called to be
‘truth arbiters’ (p.74) then what are we worth in this world? Certainly John ‘lived
the story’ until he was beheaded for his strong beliefs! And the first
Christians understood themselves as guardians of the Truth (e.g., Ac 26:25; Rom
1:25; 2Cor 6:7; 2Th 2:13; 2.Tim 2:18). Does Earl think we cannot know the Truth
that sets us free? Is he falsely associating humility with not insisting on
right doctrine? Surely we can (and should) admit it when we don’t know, but the
healthy reaction then appears to be to also say, “I’ll find out – let me get
back to you on that.”
Clearly, the
first council in Acts 15 was all about doctrine as well. Later, Paul exhorts
the brethren to guard the doctrine and not accept anyone who preaches contrary
to the doctrine they have received (Rom 16:17) etc. Discussing doctrine and, by
that token, criticizing those who we determined are preaching false doctrine,
is a Christian discipline Earl has not included in his treatise. This type of
discussion triggered the Reformation and is needed today as much as it was
then. 1.John 3:24 makes ‘believing in Jesus’ a criterion by which we can gauge
whether we are saved – an emphasis on right doctrine juxtaposed to the other
criterion, which is ‘loving the brethren’.[5]
A deviation into soteriology would be out of place here, but a legitimate
question seems to be whether if we neglect doctrine in our preaching, might our
followers no longer ‘know’ Jesus (or believe in a Jesus that is unlike the One
in the Bible) and be in danger of either not being saved or losing their
salvation?[6]
Earl is
concerned about offending postmoderns through the use of Christian vocabulary,
such as ‘sinners’, ‘pagans’, or ‘seekers’.[7]
He points to the fact that Christians often try to avoid certain words when
speaking to the ‘sought’ but these may later find out that internally, they
were being referred to by such terms before they joined the club. Earl wishes
to almost eliminate the borderline between those who are Christians and those
who are not by seeing them as ‘common friends of the Seeker’ (p.69). This,
however, clashes with Paul’s view, who repeatedly calls the unconverted ‘enemies
of God’ (Rom 5:10; Col 1:21) and does not seem to have a problem with the fact
that once converted, they read one of his letters branding them as such. Surely
it can be wise, as Earl suggests, to avoid such terminology in some situations
but on the other hand, calling people friends of God who are still His enemies
flies in the face of inspired writ. Actually, it would be counterproductive to
call the ‘sought’ friends of God if they will find later, reading the Bible,
that this idea was erroneous and, maybe, hypocritical on behalf of the
Christians – exactly the opposite of what Earl is trying to achieve.
It is at this
point that the reader must realize that Earl not only tries to learn from
postmoderns, and figure out how to communicate the Gospel to them, but has in
the course of this exercise become thoroughly postmodern in his own thinking. It
confirms his earlier premise, i.e. that his point of view really only is a view
from a point (p.xvii), and never absolute or true. He discards doctrinal
preaching and substitutes simple concepts that can be understood by the
‘sought’ (p.69). Rather than following the biblical command to teach, train,
and ‘make disciples’ (Mt 28), he denies that this is the Christians’ role and
wants to limit them to a ‘subservient role’ (p.72), reduced to ‘preparing the
way’ (p.83) and leaving the remainder up to Christ Himself (despite the clear
mandate charging us with this task). Did
not John the Baptist prepare the way for Someone who has now come and gave us
the task to make disciples in His
name? It seems that Earl, setting up the strawman of the prideful radio
preacher who thinks the world needs him
(rather than Jesus), is reducing all
ambassadors of Christ to a ‘humble’ waving the sought along towards Christ.
Yet, Jesus clearly was in a position of power when He gave the Sermon on the
Mount; Peter taught with authority on the Day of Pentecost, and Stephen
testified before the High Priest, ready to pay with his life for the claim that
“He knew” (because Jesus had revealed Himself to Stephen) and ‘They were wrong”
(because they did not believe) (p.83). Is all this now of no value because of
postmodernism?
He also rejects
the idea that we can know the ‘big story’ (or metanarrative), which the Bible
surely affirms we can. Roger Scruton puts it this way: “The postmodern world is
the world that follows the death of the 'last man'—the last human being who has
attempted to better himself, and to strive towards the inequality which is the
mark of the truly human.”[8]
Yet, rather than trying to convert the postmodern to a biblical (presumably,
neither modern or postmodern) way of thinking, Earl adopts the emergent view
that truth is negotiable. Averse to the ‘power’ position in which the teacher
finds himself towards those who are instructed, instead of empowering the ones
he teaches to remain critical towards his thoughts (the Bereans in Acts 17), his
solution is to disable the teacher who must now admit he knows nothing for sure
and is on a common quest with those he witnesses to or teaches, learning from
them as much as they learn from him.[9]
He comes to this conclusion despite the fact that even in this postmodern
world, institutions of learning still work very well with the system where one
expert standing up front gives of his time and knowledge to instruct those who
must still learn what he has already learned.
Chapter 7: This chapter starts with a brilliant
statement: “The crisis of our time is that at least eight out of ten churches
have not yet decided whether they
intend to compete for the minds and hearts of human beings” (a quote from G.
Hunter). Earl provides some great analysis on the lack of good benchmarking indicators
for the success of a local church. The traditional indicators are attendance
and tithing, which he rightly rejects as useful to assess the health of a community.
But how do we measure the spiritual transformation of our members? How do we
know we are, corporately and individually, conformed to His image (p.94)?
Earl proposes
his ‘compound-measurement model’ to obtain a better pulse of our missional
effectiveness. It is a scorecard that does not generally allow answering the
questions with numerical values. But it does ask some of the right questions,
such as how often members were in touch with the ‘sought’ last month, how many
members were converted into this church as opposed to how many transferred from
other churches, or whether we are training people locally to take on leadership
roles in the church.
This approach
looks promising, making this chapter one of the better ones. Earl’s questions
are challenging, although I would maybe like to add some goals as well: what do
we want to reach in our church? Can we define some benchmarks?
In Chapter 8, I am learning that Earl is
an innovator, whereas I am a preservationist. At first, this conflict between
innovators and preservationist is presented as an ideological issue but then
Earl seems to switch it back to a clash between the young and old, moderns and
post-moderns (p.100). Be that as it may, his presentation of the issues is
rather pointed:
Preservationists
want to stay doctrinally orthodox and are afraid that “the risk of diluting the
gospel can spark a defensive attitude when change looms, even if the issues
involved are rather minor” or who dread certain innovations because they
“threaten the denomination’s identity by watering down its distinctives.” Asserting
that doctrinal orthodoxy is impossible to achieve or even define on many issues
(using the example of Arminians and Calvinists who cannot even agree on grace
and salvation), he reveals that issues such as worship style, church structure,
wardrobe, bathroom paint colours, etc., are ‘soft truths’ or ‘issues beyond
doctrine’ (p.102). Yet, as he says preservationists would point out, “worshipping
to a hip-hop beat is changing the message because the experience itself says,
‘Christians cannot be like this’”
(the world). And here I must agree with the preservationists. Indeed, with an
indiscriminate accommodation of culture, the method will impact the message – and is then no longer doctrine-neutral
(p.104). These issues, however, are complex and not the subject of either his
book or this review. Presumably, the main difference between innovators and
preservationists is where they draw the line between the soft and the hard
truths worth fighting over. I would actually submit that it is an open question
whether it is really possible to separate the ‘gospel’ from one’s ‘perspective’
(p.102) since the perspective should be intricately linked to, and defined by, the Gospel. If we accept
that both soft and hard truths are truths, we should discuss both categories in
order to achieve the highest possible degree of orthodoxy on both levels. A
Christian community that is right on the ‘hard truths’ but wrong on most ‘soft
truths’ must be severely handicapped in its effectiveness in reaching and
training the sought.
For the
innovator, Earl explains that the question of orthodoxy is not as important as
the question whether he is ‘effective in culture’ (p.103). What follows is a
misapplication of Paul’s statement that he became ‘all things to all men’
(1.Cor 9:22): for innovators, this means ‘experimenting with methods’, such as giving
worship service styles doctrine-neutral status in order to express the gospel
in culture-current forms. This, however, is not what Paul meant to imply. His
idea was one of limitation, not one of license: the context shows that he would
refrain from certain liberties for
cultural or conscience reasons, such as keeping the law to win the Jews (1.Cor
9:20) and refrain from certain activities to accommodate the weak (v. 22, cf.
8:13).[10]
Indeed, the expression Paul used cannot be applied to questions that are not
questions of faith, i.e. which the Bible actually speaks to,[11]
which in turn makes in inapplicable to worship styles and other preferences the
Bible does not expressly address. The same Paul limited the above quote by also
saying, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful.” Ultimately,
Earl also points to the danger created by the innovators’ approach (p.104), which
is that the core of the faith is culturally adapted until it becomes indistinguishable
in content from the surrounding context (the world).
Paul also was
an innovator, since he removed the need for circumcision for non-Jews coming to
the faith, writes Earl. That Paul could equally be seen as a preservationist,
given he warns about preaching a different Gospel - a passage Earl also quotes
in this context – is not considered. Also, Peter is categorized as a
preservationist even though it was him who introduced Romans to the faith at
the beginning (admittedly, only after some strong coaxing by the Holy Spirit).
It seems, then, that there is some way the two can be combined, which sometimes
may have the sparks flying, as exemplified in the strong argument between Paul
and Peter in Antioch. This type of argument appears to be anathema to Earl,
since he only speaks about ‘fratricidal conflicts’ between the two sides in
this chapter. Yet, rather than engaging in meaningful discussion (which at
times includes strong confrontation), it seems AoG pastors prefer reporting
those they disagree with to the chief administrator. This is a clear sign of
their lack of character, as Roy Clouser says about mankind more generally:
“intolerance and unwillingness to communicate with those who disagree are the
fruits of the sing that infects human nature.”[12]
Earl, however,
not so much laments this lack of communication between leaders in his
denomination than he tries to remove any basis for those who want to
legitimately preserve orthodoxy. Giving some outrageous examples, such as
conflicts over whether coffee should be offered after church or not, he again
comes down on the position that nothing doctrinal can be ‘petrified’ (p.105)
and that it is not possible “to read the Bible ‘correctly’ and using a
commonsense form of interpretation … to come to the same conclusion.” This is pluralism,
which denies the existence of absolute truth – or that we can ever know such
truth (which comes down to the same).
Earl takes the
example of the Early Church conflict over which (if any) of the Jewish heritage
needed to be taken as ‘hard truth’. He believes that these issues were decided
based on cultural context with a decision “befitting the issues of the day.” As
tempting as it is to take this example as guidance for decisions around hard
and soft truth today, there is the fact that the canon of the Scriptures was
not complete when this council took place. In the meantime, the apostles’
decision on this matter has become part of the inspired Scriptures mandatory
for Christians. We are no longer in that place today. Also, it seems rather
obvious that the apostles reached consensus based on a common understanding of
what the Scriptures and Jesus teachings meant (their understanding of absolute
truth). This is exactly the example we would do well following today! This was
not a decision based on current cultural circumstances but it still has
validity. As such, the apostles found hard, doctrinal truth on these issues,
rather than ‘soft truth’, if such a thing exists. If Earl was right, passages
such as ‘you shall know the truth’ or ‘being perfectly joined together … by the
same judgment’, or even ‘they searched the Scriptures to see whether these
things were so’ would have no meaning. Earl’s perspective also appears to be in
conflict with Peter who wrote that prophecy is “not a matter of private
interpretation” (2.Pet 1:20), which means there is objective meaning. If it is
possible to twist the Scriptures (2.Pet 3:16) then by implication there must be
a way to rightly divide the truth (2.Tim 2:15).
The second
part of the chapter is based on Earl’s church classification into traditional,
contemporary/modern, and experimental. The traditional church – which, by the
way, very much looks like a very badly run business - is actually defined as a
cult (the leader holds the position of a prophet – p.106) and on the other
hand, the concept of one leader (as opposed to a Presbyterian approach) is
never questioned for any of the three types. The contemporary church is very
well managed but rebels against the previous generation, and is deeply
pragmatic. Inspired by culture, the experimental church[13]
is led by young adults and, through its quest for authenticity, exploration,
and close meshing with culture, risks being absorbed by the latter, ultimately
becoming irrelevant. Whereas the traditional church is too exclusive and the
contemporary church too controlling (p.112), the experimental church is
described as way too flippant and casual. As these church types are described,
nobody in his right mind would want to belong to either of them.
First, the
question one must ask is, is this the right classification? Earl mentions
several other authors (p.114) who have classified churches in similar ways
(three categories). Of course, there is the classification into ‘biblical’ and
‘unbiblical’ – but also of course, any church would claim to be biblical in
their own understanding, and who are you to tell them otherwise?! Yet, if Earl
is right and these three categories are based on how churches draw on the
perspectives of society around them (p.105), rather than trying to use the
Scriptures to define themselves, they may be unbiblical altogether – (and
again) of course, only if one believes the Scriptures have something to say
about how we should interact with the world culturally.
Another classification
that may overlook the ‘experimental’ category classifies churches as
‘pragmatic’ (one of Earl’s qualities for his ‘modern’ category) or
‘authoritarian fundamental’. Pragmatic leaders are open to trying new things
(i.e. maybe this lumps the ‘modern’ and ‘postmodern’ categories together into
one). But is pragmatism (or fundamentalism as defined by Earl) biblical?
Jonathan Leeman blogs, “In the area of Christian ministry, unlike
authoritarianism, pragmatism does not assume there is a ‘right way’ to get
things done but that God has left these things to us. So it sheepishly
concludes, ‘My way is as good as any, I suppose.’ But this, ironically, is not
totally unrelated to the authoritarian’s ‘My way or the highway!’ Both can
overlook ‘God’s way’ (…) when it comes to Christian ministry, the chief error
of both pragmatism and authoritarianism is their reliance upon natural methods
to accomplish supernatural ends.”[14]
R.C: Sproul
defines pragmatism as follows:
“Pragmatism eschews any hope of
discovering ultimate truth. It is skeptical with respect to objective
principles of righteousness and defines truth as that which works. In this philosophy, the end always justifies the
means.”[15]
The latter
Machiavellian concept is, as the avid high school student knows, a key
principle of communism – but is in no way compatible with the Bible. With this
mindset, ‘as long as souls are saved’ (by whatever definition – usually
determined as the number of ‘decisions’ made), we can do whatever we like to
spread the Gospel, and the success supposedly justifies the means, and all to
God’s glory. Sproul’s remedy, of course, is substituting principle for pragmatism. His warning about this issue sounds
rather grave:
“A person who is a Christian is called
of God to live by biblical principles. The principles that the Bible reveals to
guide our steps are the necessary elements for authentic righteousness. Take
away principle, and righteousness is slain in the streets. We need an awakening
in the culture and in the church to principle — to working according to truth
and to living according to biblical revelation. Without principle, the church
as well as the culture will decay, and the church will become a mere echo of
the unprincipled pragmatism of secularism.”
This, at the
least, would put the ‘modern’ church category firmly into the unbiblical camp
of churches. Actually, as another reviewer of Earl’s book observed, the emergent
church “is critical of the pragmatic approaches of the Seeker Sensitive
movement, or of the Church-growth movement before that, but fails to recognize
that it is simply the latest version of the pragmatic Church.”[16]
That, then, makes the distinction between modern and experimental/emergent
churches almost meaningless.
The question
is how useful the separation into Earl’s three categories really is, since
there necessarily is a continuum: “’Modernity’ always includes the ‘premodern’,
and postmodernity cannot escape either of these.”[17]
Let’s also understand that modernism is a child of the Enlightenment, and
firmly believes in humanism, i.e. the possibilities of human ingenuity to
improve life and overcome poverty and disease (maybe even death) through
technology. This, in turn, is not a mindset compatible with the Christian
worldview. It negates the hegemony of God over our fates and instead of asking
for divine guidance, seeks its fulfillment in this world. Postmodernism, then,
only recognizes (as Christianity always knew) that man by himself is unable to
solve this world’s problems. The problem is that the solutions proposed to this
dilemma are not the same … and that sociology already says that postmodernism
is falling out of use. “To be postmodern, we need to embrace modernity in all
its difference, diversity, and ambivalence. To be post, we first of all need to
be modern.”[18]
Which, of course, sheds doubt on the entire approach of Earl’s book:
acknowledging that there is a strong dichotomy in our society between
postmodern thought and modern processes and structures (if we go to the doctor,
we prove we believe in the concepts of modernism, as we do if we engage in
scientific research or most other professional activity) at least removes its
hegemony over lives, even if we tend to think that some facets of it may
remain, such as the doubt that mankind can redeem itself through progress. As the
table below shows, postmodernism and the biblical worldview are contrary to
each other. As such, we cannot as Christians adopt elements of postmodernity
into our ministries.
Biblical
|
Post-modern
|
Common
outlook, agreement
|
Individualistic
|
Absolute
|
Relative
|
Ability to
know the truth, exclusivity
|
Pluralism of
opinions
|
Revelation,
reason
|
Opinion
|
Teaching,
preaching
|
Conversation
|
Preservation
|
Expansion
|
Truth
|
Point of
view
|
Unity
|
Diversity
|
Acceptance
based on shared beliefs
|
Acceptance
despite contrary beliefs
|
God’s
(His-)story
|
No
metanarrative exists
|
Principle
|
Pragmatism,
experiment
|
“Faith seeking
understanding” (Anselm’s motto) requires a different approach to scholarship
than both the ‘modern’ deconstructionist method of enquiry (doubt) and the
postmodern deconstructionist method of enquiry (the playful production of
alternative interpretations). This may mean not the use of dogmatic lenses
for reading Biblical texts but a Scriptural deconstruction of our world: a
painting like Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’ (a picture of a crucifix floating in
Serrano’s own urine) does not tell us anything about Jesus but tells us everything
about the world that the Christ of Scripture confronts. Similarly, deconstructionist
authors tell us very little about Jesus, but they show us the world that the
Christ of Scripture confronts in our day.[19]
Earl’s
approach appears to invert the biblical approach: rather than making disciples
who adopt a biblical way of thinking, he wants to shift the church towards postmodernism
so a new generation can accept the faith more easily. The cost is that we
reduce the Gospel to a few fundamentals (likely the small letter gospel as he
writes it in his book), leaving the remainder up to personal opinion without
significance. Instead of creating communities with one mind, we are now aiming
at creating social groups with common affinities and key values that respect
diversity of thought and pluralism of truth with a small t (since Truth is reduced
to few key concepts, such as that God exists, Jesus is our Saviour, and the
Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity). Within the Church, we are told to accept
each other without referring to the hope that “if on some point you think
differently, that too God will make clear to you” (Phl 3:15). There is no aim
to ever agree on the things that divide us; dialogue is dangerous since it can
create division and the complete unity Jesus spoke about in John 17:23 simply
means ‘blending our differences’ (p.115). Outside the Church, rather than
having found truth, we are all on a common quest with the unsaved to find
truth, but can never claim to have found it.
Granted, we’re
all human and unity is often hard to achieve. But isn’t it more loving to try
and convince those who want to argue over ‘social drinking, music style, or
meat offered to idols’ (p.117) that there is a more scriptural way to deal with
these issues than to simply forbid such criticism in the name of harmony? And
isn’t it justified to quarrel over the horrendous doctrinal errors of the
Catholic Church (p.116) without denigrating those who are captives of this
system? As much as Earl wants the Early Church to have found agreement on
circumcision by these means, they actually did so by interpreting Scripture
rightly, with the Spirit’s help – as even Earl himself quotes: “The words of
the prophets are in agreement with this” (p.118). On the other hand, his advice
to ‘accept the difference and focus on the positive’ (p.121) seems somewhat
naïve in light of history and the Scriptures.
Chapter 9: Here, Earl want us to learn to ‘think
theologically in ways that enable us to listen to God’. Rather than accepting
the text as a given, we need to be more process-oriented and reflecting on
God’s word, discerning His voice. We need to find a balance between ‘irrelevant
theorists and mindless practitioners’, the latter adapting the text to their
itching ears as they please. Rather than pragmatically implementing our ideas,
we need to take a step back and gauge the extent of God’s involvement with our
church. Theology must be subservient to missions (p.132).
Earl wants the
church to cooperate with the mission of God: missions are central and the
audience resembles a moving target (apparently in contrast to Jesus in John 17
where He prays we would attract the sought by glorifying Him through our
behaviour). Rather than pursue Christian activities without taking a pause to
think, we need to make sure we move on towards a greater personal relationship
with Christ. Yet, Earl does not provide a means to measure whether we do.
Neither does he address issues like spiritual gifts or how to identify
ministries (callings), which would seem important in how to listen to God’s
mind.
Again, Earl
takes instances from Acts, which are now part of the canon, as examples how
preaching should respond to questions from the outside. Theological reflection
is defined as “responding theologically to life and ministry because God is
active in both.” This process consists of four steps, i.e. we experiment
(attempted cooperation with God), then evaluate and reflect (how did it feel,
what went wrong?), then go back to God’s word, and then adapt our strategy to
better cooperate with what God is doing. Yet, when Earl explains the role of
Scripture in this circle (p.134), the first fact is that it only comes in
third, rather than first (before we
experiment). So God’s already revealed mind is only used to correct after the
fact. Also, he never questions whether the original approach was actually in
God’s will: whether the ‘postmodern event’ (his example) was even scripturally
sanctioned may remain obscured since we only use “passages that bear
importantly on the event” but then go on to look more for our own prejudices,
attitudes, and false assumptions, falling back onto a more pragmatic approach
than seeking biblical guidance. The obvious danger is that we may look for
passages that confirm our existing views, rather than submitting to scriptural
principles that may rule out our experimental approach.
In Chapter 10, Earl explains how to make
room for God to act at the group level. For example, services may become
missional – yet not in the sense that Paul mentioned it (through prophetic
gifts in action, as in 1.Cor 14) but through people engaging with other people
(though it is not sure how this would occur during a service). He then
introduces the normative (anything not forbidden in Scripture is allowed) and
regulatory (only what is mentioned in Scripture is allowed) principles, albeit
without naming them. His view is the truth lies somewhere in the middle, since
the only two other options would be powerless planning or planless power
(p.143). Given there are successful and failing ministries on both sides of
this discussion, Earl concludes there are no formulas – a judgment that is a
clear example of his own pragmatism. The real question would be who is scripturally
more orthodox, and then what other elements are at play. That the unchurched
would find such discussions irrelevant (p.144) should be obvious: they are not
concerned about the things of God! Indeed, they are looking for larger
questions. Yet, we should pursue the one without neglecting the other.
Moving on from
such internal discussions, Earl says the role of the church is to create a
space where God can call the sought. This space has three dimensions: venue,
heart, and Spirit. Heart means a missional outlook, embracing culture, a burden
for the lost, and buying an SUV to fit in with the Joneses (p.148). Our
relationships with the sought should not be neutral but leave people off better
than we found them. Venue is all about where we meet the sought – at church, on
the Internet, at the café – developing relationships with them. Finally, Spirit
means that well-thought out liturgy is not enough to attract the sought: we
need spiritual power in our churches. Yet, Earl does not mention this might
materialize in supernatural gifts. It is also not a charismatic individual or
some spiritual ‘background radiation’ we create in worship services; the Spirit
cannot be controlled or used at will. Rather, we need to thirst for the Spirit
so God can fill us individually, which in turn implies we must live out the
spiritual disciplines Earl is writing about. Dependence on God is magnetic to
the Spirit’s power (p.154).
Earl quotes
Sarah Hinlicky of First Things as a
witness that cutting-edge worship services don’t work with post-Christian
millennials (p.151). Yet, Sarah’s proposed solution is simply to be honest – to
tell the Christian story as it is: not as an ideal solve-it-all but as an
honest (authentic?) account that includes the failures and shortcomings of being
a Christian this side of Eden, but also including the cross.[20]
So she laments less the absence of the Spirit than that of an authenticity which
is honest towards oneself and others, more than trying to fit in with the
latest postmodern fads. Also, the missional space Earl is creating is missing a
fourth dimension: doctrine! Without some training in theology and apologetics,
we will be less effective in our missional lives. Paul actually had to wait for
years before God would make good on His promise to use him as a missionary to
the gentiles. Such training is necessary and crucial to expand missional space.
Chapter 11 talks about surrendering our personal
preferences in order to relate to others (mainly, the younger generation). Here
comes an example of Earl describing utterly unchristian behaviour in a church
(young folks not talking to him and his wife for two years – p.158) but instead
of saying what it is, Earl squarely puts the blame on himself and his failure
to connect to the next generation. The young and inexperienced need no training
but the elders need to adapt and learn to relate to the younger on their terms.
Failing to recognize that we live in an entirely ‘Greek’ society in Western
countries (one that has no biblical foundations), Earl then uses the example of
Paul’s trainee Timothy as a cross-cultural missionary who had to be circumcised
to reach the Jews. Whereas this was clearly a ‘cultural concession’ (p.161), it
was not an adoption of a non-Christian culture but the renouncing of a liberty
Timothy had so as to not offend the Jews when Paul and he would enter
synagogues to preach the gospel. He gave up a liberty, a right – is that similar
to a Christian today leaving a beloved ministry to someone else? Is it similar
to dressing down in order to relate to lesbians? But Earl may be right
intuitively: if I want to preach in the slums, maybe I should consider not
wearing suit and tie (unless my name is David Wilkerson).
Identifying the
giving up of preferences with sacrifice reflects the unsatisfactory approach
Earl takes towards differences: since we cannot resolve them by convincing each
other, we must necessarily suppress them. We sacrifice in order to fit in with
our denomination, or elder pastors. These problems among brethren have little
to do with missional living by not eating meat in a Buddhist country, however
(p.170). Doctrinal differences are unlikely reduced to cultural preferences –
often, they will be based on false doctrine, though! Earl insists there is no
proprietary (read: scriptural) definition of what the church should look like
(p.172). So the tension between generations is doomed to remain, and people
must endure ‘cultural hardship’.
Chapter 12 then shows the way as to how the older
generation can graciously retire. Again, the example of Paul and Timothy seems
out of place, given Timothy was a local leader, not an apostle – he did not
really get Paul’s baton as Elisha received Elija’s. Also, we don’t exactly read
of the generational differences in the Bible – rather, it seems Paul asked
others to follow his walk, which they did. Given we have a salary system for
pastors with tenure for life, it is utterly difficult to pass on any baton –
their livelihood is linked to it! Also, it is not clear why churches would want
to be led by children as suggested in an email quote (p.179).
The examples
of young folks in leading positions remain exceptions – and probably only confirm
that they have been faster to learn the ropes from their elders than many of
their peers. Yet, Earl writes that the next generation of leaders does not
define itself by congruence with their elders’ perspectives. Surely things will
change, but does he see no value in studying the wisdom of past generations? Is
this all invalidated and needs to be reinvented every thirty years? So why did
Billy Graham never get outmoded then – did he just figure out how to change
with the times? Surely, Timothy was led by the Spirit as Paul was – it’s not
about copying but about learning to be led by God. Still, Paul had the audacity
to teach the Corinthians to “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1.Cor
11:1). Did he then ‘conform’ Timothy (p.182) or not?
Summary and Critique
The good points: Earl touches the nerve on several
issues, and rightly exposes them as malpractice or faulty reasoning. That
‘seekers’ are really the ‘sought’ makes immediate sense in light of Scripture.
Also, he rightly points out that we wrongly tend to assume God has blessed
certain practices (weekly services, fast songs before slow songs, altar calls…)
simply because everyone else does it. Neither does it help to see “ministry as
instrumentality, the pastor as the CEO, and the Holy Spirit as a sort of power
cell.” The church truly needs to rethink a host of issues to shed off what is
not mandated nor beneficial to the body of Christ. Interesting to observe is
his experience that introducing house groups into his church instilled new life
into the congregation (pp.10,46) – although the connection to postmodernism was
lost on me (the question is why he initially thought this concept to be close
to heresy when the Book of Acts clearly lays out such a structure).
Enlightening also is his recognition that ‘a packed auditorium rocking with
young adults’ or ’extremes in spirituality’ (p.13) or bringing in a young adult
ministry (p.24) do not attract the unsaved. “Reducing the sought to their
geography, worldview, or musical preferences does not serve the mission” (p.38)
– probably this statement explains why youth ministry with rock music is not
working (trying to be relevant, they became irrelevant). Neither do Celtic
worship styles automatically attract post-moderns (p.133). Clearly, something
else is needed to be ‘missional’ in this age. He also sheds light on how we
could better evaluate our churches, replacing a look at numbers (attendance and
revenue) with some hard questions as to what the net effect of our communities
is, both internally and externally.
Postmodernism: The question how real or how ‘dangerous’
postmodernism really is for the church remains largely unsolved, as Earl also
points out in Chapter 3. There are competing theories on this topic, as mentioned
above. So postmodernism may not be the real enemy we need to fight. As Scot
McKnight writes, statistics show that "young adults have always been less
affiliated; when they get married and have children they return to their faith.
Part of the life cycle is reflected in this."[21][22]
Also, the phenomenon that one generation is unhappy with what their fathers or
grandfathers did is nothing new: “Gen-Xers felt it, as did Boomers before us.
And lest we forget: the U.S. was founded by disgruntled church folk!”[23]
True: who would want to undo the Reformation? I‘d suggest that the tendency to
reform or start something new in church history could be seen as something
positive overall. Sometimes we need to agree to disagree and start a new
denomination because our organization is beyond the ability to reform itself. Yet,
even trying to define the problem as a generational one is not without its
problems: in reality, we cannot define generations in terms of attitudes; all
need to be humble and listen to each other and various mindsets and worldviews
will be found among all age groups.[24]
Historically,
the malaise with ‘traditional’ churches, however, has been either over
doctrinal questions (such as infant baptism or whether spiritual gifts are
still in existence today) or over holiness or a more committed life (is that
authenticity? Maybe one form of it), as was the case with the Methodists. So my
only reservation here would be that we need to be sure about the reasons why we think we need ‘a new thing’. Just
trying out something new because what we are doing now is not working may not
be enough of a reason: sometimes, we need to get back to our roots, and maybe
something that worked in the past will also work today, even with postmodernism
in the mix. After all, there is nothing new under the sun!
After reading
the book, Earl’s real enemy does not seem postmodernism, but doctrine. Instead
of working things out, we need to tolerate what everyone wants to do and prefers.
Postmodernism in theology takes on two forms: “positively, enquiry from a
position of belief rather than doubt is now seen as inevitable if not even
encouraged. Negatively, a deconstructive postmodernity—in many ways a ‘MostModernity’—has
simply ratcheted up the level of doubt to higher levels of scepticism [sic!]
and turned from trusting methods of enquiry to playing with methods
of enquiry in order to arrive at alternative constructions of truth.”[25]
If anything, Earl is guilty of not making clear which side he is on, at least
leaving open the possibility it’s the wrong one.
Should we abandon any truth
claim and concentrate on an undefined ‘redemptive story’ only or (as I would
prefer) should we expose falsehood for what it is and cautiously adopt our own
points of view as Truth valid for all while remaining open to the possibility
that we may be proven wrong along the way? Failing to recognize that postmodern
ideas are contrary to biblical thinking is probably the main shortcoming of his
book.
Earl identifies the dangers of
accommodating, even embracing, the culture around us. He quotes the Christians
who approached him about their fear that this might ‘dilute the gospel and
erode our values’ (pp.6, 104). Yet, he never tells us how to ensure this danger
does not become a reality. I guess this should be the subject of a separate
book (and several have already been written) but without such assurance, Earl’s
advice remains somewhat unsubstantiated and in need of further clarification.
Several times
in the book, Earl only leaves us two options: adopt the postmodern culture or
die. For example, the only two possibilities he sees in his section on the
‘Crucified Culture’ are to fake that we are part of another culture (by wearing
cool hairdos or having tattoos) or otherwise, cultural relativism where my
culture is reduced to one way of being among many others. The latter is
doubtlessly true, but if “our real citizenship is in heaven” (p.6), would that
not have some bearing on our thinking, preferences, tastes, and culture here on
Earth? When Earl writes that our culture is “not revealed from heaven”, is he
missing the point that not all cultures are created equal? Certainly,
traditional Western culture has sprung from a Christian worldview whereas
contemporary culture is much more influenced by worldviews incompatible with
Christian values and convictions. If we admit that underlying worldviews impact
the cultures we are dealing with then the need for a much deeper analysis of
the issues than Earl can provide becomes evident.
Generational conflict: Earl laments that
“the social mix in which the Church operates bears less resemblance by the day
to the setting assumed in our training.” The question is, should we adapt to
this reality (as Earl suggests) or do we need to realize that our approach to
discipleship is somehow flawed? Likewise, if we hear our elders complain that
“if what you describe young adults is accurate, we’re concerned about whether
we can leave the church to these people!” (p.177), should we simply resign by
replying, “No one else is coming” (as Earl does) or do we need to realize that
the way we are training our pastors is woefully inadequate? Can we really sweep
these concerns away as if they were irrelevant, or do we risk being irrelevant ourselves
if we cannot groom a new generation that has the knowledge and courage to be
different from the culture around them – ‘strangers in a strange land’ (Ex 2:22)?
I can’t help
sensing there is some disequilibrium in how the generations are supposed to fit
in with each other, based on Earl’s suggestions: to exaggerate a little, old
folks must change and accept but the young can do what they want. Brett
McCracken, writing for his generation, holds, “I’m sorry Millennials, but I’m
going to have to throw us under the bus here: we do not have everything figured out. And if we expect older
generations and well-established institutions to morph to fit our every fickle
desire, we do so at our peril.”[26]
But ‘cool’ Christianity (which may be found among some pragmatic and
experimental churches) is not the answer. Instead of saying the old must listen
to the young, and calling the cries to ‘adapt or die’ pure hype, McCracken
recommends the young sit down with their elders to learn some of their wisdom,
rather than insisting on some sense of entitlement for their generation to
dominate the agenda. McCracken needs a church that doesn’t change to fit him and his
whims, but changes him to be the
Christ-like person he was created to be. In a related article, Rachel Held Evans
writes that millennials (supposedly the same who are also postmodern or
post-Christian in Earl’s book) want “to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it
comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed,
pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.”[27]
It’s about conservative churchianity in the U.S. identifying with one party,
being anti-gay and ignoring some of the top concerns of this generation. This
may be somewhat less the case in Canada but does not warrant less but rather,
more instruction on a variety of topics and how to think about them biblically.
What the Bible says: Earl’s biblical
understanding seems at times at odds with biblical teaching (he admits his
theological training is limited – p.125): he believes that Jesus was of the
world and to be missional, we need to have our feet in both camps, “not of the
world any more than He [Jesus] is of
the world” (p.7, italics added) - a quote he based on John 17:14, which clearly
says that neither Jesus nor we Christians are of the world! On the previous
page, he encourages us to ‘love culture’ when the Bible clearly teaches not to love the world but rather to love
the brethren and your fellow man. Then
he ignores the creation account and Noah’s flood by accepting the erroneous
view that a meteorite annihilated the dinosaurs (p.34). In Chapter 5, he
advocates that we see ourselves (together with the sought) as ‘common friends
of the Seeker’ even though the Bible clearly teaches that we were enemies of
God before we got saved (Rom 5:10).[28]
There is also
some concern about Earl’s idea that the church should identify with the mission
of Christ. Whereas this may simply be incorrect wording, it is important to
understand that the mission of Christ and the church’s mission are not the
same:[29]
Christ came to bring atonement and set the captives free but the church has a
fairly well defined mandate which can be found in John 17, focusing on reaching
the lost by glorifying God in their sanctified lives. In that sense, Earl is
certainly right in demanding the church bear fruit in terms of transformed
lives. The misunderstanding around Paul’s words ‘all things to all men’ was
already discussed in the section on Chapter 8 above. In the same chapter, Earl
misapplies the passage on Christ’s body in 1.Cor 12 to different ‘brands’ of
churches (p.118), whereas it is clearly meant as guidance for the members of a
local community who should learn to respect each other.
What are the alternatives?
1. Postmodernism
has been around for a while (apologist Ravi Zacharias traces it back as far as
to Adam and Eve’s deconstructionism in Genesis: “Has God said?”[30])
and will likely stay for a while, although it is unlikely that it will completely
take over the church or universities or society at large. Rather than adapting
the church or our missions strategy to postmodern thinking, our response needs
to be based on sound apologetics: we need a type of apologetics and missional
approach that confronts postmodern thinking head-on and exposes it for what it
is: incorrect and incompatible with saving faith.[31]
2. As
Michael Craven has it, “too many churches in
America are characterized more by a suburban social ethnicity built
around shared values and religious consumerism than any sense of kingdom
mission.”[32]
This means, it’s not failure to engage with postmodernism but failure to
interact with non-Christians (postmodern or not) socially that has led to the
Church’s inability to reach the Western world: church members live in cliques
with other Christians, shut off from the rest of society. This suggests we need
to encourage more of ‘invite your neighbour for supper’ and other such
activities, rather than change the way we ‘do church’. It also means engaging
in social causes or politics together with unbelievers, bringing in our
biblically motivated perspective and energy to make the world a better place.
3. As
to losing the young, some interesting insights are coming from those who gave
up Christianity. Phil, now an atheist, describes his former youth pastor Jim
this way: “He
didn't always have satisfying answers or answers at all, but he didn't run away
from the questions either. The way he taught the Bible made me feel
smart." During his junior year of high school, the church,
in an effort to attract more young people, wanted Jim to teach less and play
more. Difference of opinion over this new strategy led to Jim's dismissal. He
was replaced by Savannah, an attractive twenty-something who, according to
Phil, "didn't know a thing about the Bible." The church got what it
wanted: the youth group grew. But it lost Phil. When atheists who grew up in
church were asked what they found unconvincing about the Christian faith, they
spoke of evolution vs. creation, sexuality, the reliability of the biblical
text, Jesus as the only way, etc. Some had gone to church hoping to find
answers to these questions. One said, "I really can't consider a Christian
a good, moral person if he isn't trying to convert me" and then,
"Christianity is something that if you really
believed it, it would change your life and you would want to change [the lives]
of others. I haven't seen too much of that."[33]
This does not suggest that the next generation would be content to be on a
common quest with Christians for the right answers, or that we can simply
concentrate on the major issues and neglect the rest as minor - but that they
expect clear answers from those who claim to be Christians.
4. We
need to discuss worship styles more intelligently than just in terms of
contemporary and traditional. “From Cain and Abel to the Israelites at Sinai,
from the churches of Corinth and Ephesus to—ultimately—the heavenly church
gathered in unending praise, the Scripture commands "acceptable
worship" (Heb. 12:28). (…) the best way the church can minister to people
of this generation, or any generation—the way, in fact, that it can unite all
kinds of people—is to clearly explain its actions from the Word of God. (…)We
approach God only "with reverence and awe” (Heb. 12:28)”[34]
5. We
need a more intelligent approach to culture in general. Mbiti’s idea that “God
gave us the Gospel. Man gave us culture. When the Gospel and culture meet, and
if the Christian Faith is generated, then Christianity is the result”[35]
clearly neglects the role faith does (or should) have in defining culture. Realizing
culture is ultimately a product of worldviews, we cannot accommodate it
indiscriminately into either worship or evangelization: just as Jesus did not
approve of all elements of Jewish culture, so Christians need to discern which
elements of culture can be employed in missions,[36]
or God-honouring lifestyles. Indeed, millennials want to know how to engage the
culture around them biblically and are craving guidance and deeper teaching on
these issues.[37] The view
that also transpires from Earl’s book, i.e. that Christians are now
cross-cultural missionaries even in Western societies, appears to have a lot of
value. Appendix 1 illustrates some ideas around the significance of culture for
missions.
6. Young
adults need to be involved. But rather than giving them automatic leadership
roles, they may first need discipling. They need to learn wisdom that only
comes with age before they can lead. Surely, there are exceptions where young
people (like Timothy) can lead, but these are usually due to the fact that
these youngsters have already learned a lot from their elders, and function in
the context of an eldership that supports them constantly.
7. Also,
we need to seriously think about Paul referring to his preaching being ‘with
power’. Supernatural spiritual gifts as referred to in 1.Cor 12 are
conspicuously absent even from many Pentecostal churches. And we need to think
about how church should be organized and should function to create both
community inside the church and be authentic enough to also attract those who
are standing outside.
Appendix 1 – Culture
and Missions (Whiteman)
D.L. Whiteman
uses the following graph to illustrate his approach to cross-cultural missions:[38]
The idea is to
show that whenever we try to use 'Western' cultural forms in non-Western
countries but fail to assign the correct meaning to them, we may get converts
that are Western looking but internally are still pagan, i.e. they will follow
an outward religion but really still cling to their pagan beliefs. This, in
turn, means the mission has failed and the converts are not really converted.
Quote:
"However, an ethnocentric approach by a cross-cultural minister may
introduce Western Christian forms without adequately conveying the associated
Christian (biblical) meanings. In this scenario, an indigene is essentially
converted to a Western form of Christianity. Whiteman suggests that syncretism
may result through the ascription of local or indigenous meanings to Christian
or Western forms used in the church."
The idea would
be, then, to bring the convert to the right side of the graph, i.e. Christian
either within his own culture or within a Westernized culture, but the emphasis
should really be on the conversion process, rather than changing the culture.
The approach does, as it seems, assume that culture is really neutral, although
the text in the article suggests otherwise. What the author may mean is that
some cultural forms or elements that have religious meaning (i.e., are pagan)
should be renounced and not used by the church, even if they have a positive
Christian meaning in the West (the example of anointing with oil is provided in
the article). Based on the concept that elements of culture which are
compatible with the Christian worldview are really only 'borrowed' by society,
the view that culture is neutral is, of course, erroneous. Still, one could use
the graph if it is understood that the right half really represents Christian
culture only (i.e. the elements of Western and indigenous culture that are
compatible with the Christian worldview).
Now I believe
that ANY preaching is cross-cultural, not just when Westerners enter a foreign
country with a different culture. If we believe there is a 'Christian' culture
that is different from the (increasingly) non-Christian culture around us, even
within Western society, then this diagram would always apply (see below for a
modified version). For example, applying it to music, it would mean that if the
music we use in church has 'pagan' or other non-suitable associations then the
mission will fail since our worship fails to communicate biblical values.
Instead, it would communicate a warped picture of God, possibly leading to the
same consequences as the above example: people will not know the true God and
may then end up not being saved. In this modified diagram, we would try to get
the convert to be in the right bottom wedge of the diagram, i.e. within the
Christian faith AND Christian culture segment. Only shifting him to the
Christian faith half but leaving him in the 'surrounding culture' half would
mean we only did half the job. Whereas this may not mean the person is not
saved, there is a higher probability that he/she may move back to the
non-Christian faith area since he/she never adopted a Christian worldview and
culture. So the pathway shown here is actually less probable to occur - a
convert would less likely move from the bottom right segment to the left than
from the top right segment. As a starting point, he may already have fairly
Christian convictions but without the saving grace (bottom left) or he may be
completely non-Christian both in culture and convictions (top left).
[1] Interestingly, this suggests
a larger vision of missions than is sanctioned in the Scriptures, which limit
the church’s mandate to evangelization and discipling the converted (Mt 28:20; Jn
17). That, of course, does not preclude personal missional living inside
culture while realizing we are not of this world.
[3] Some who have left the
institutional church lament the lack of closeness to leaders, who often seem to
stand on a pedestal and have lost touch with those they minister to – this may
especially be the case with larger churches, but not only: http://branch.lifetreecafe.com/media/71198/index.html
[4] 5 Reasons Millennials Stay
Connected to Church. Barna Group, 2013
[5] See Barclay’s Commentary on
the NT, John 3:24a
[6] As someone said, “without theology evangelism becomes proselitism and faith becomes an
ideology.” Quoted in: SPELIOPOULOS, Elke: THE ROLE OF CULTURE IN GOSPEL COMMUNICATION. www.scribd.com/doc/84844510/The-Role-of-Culture-in-Gospel-Communication
(accessed Sep 7, 2013)
[7] Consequently, instead of the
Spirit convicting of sin (Jn 16:8) He now merely “invites the sought into a new
life in Christ.” A discussion how this relates to true conversions would be an
interesting aspect to explore further.
[8] Scruton, Roger: The
Aesthetics of Music. Oxford University Press (1999), p.505
[9] The latter should always be
an option, and will often take place whenever teaching is done interactively.
Early, however, is pushing the idea to an extreme that transcends the biblical
pattern.
[10] For a more detailed
discussion of this passage, see Makujina, John: Measuring the Music. Old Paths Publications, Willow Street, PA
(2002), p.21ff.
[11] Snoeberger, Mark: Weakness
or Wisdom? Fundamentalists and Romans 14:1-15:13. Detroit Baptist Seminary
Journal Vol. 12:2007
[12] Clouser, Roy: The Myth of
Religious Neutrality. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, Indiana
(1991): 288
[13] Earl is probably wrong in
calling Hudson Taylor as an early witness of this format, given he remained
doctrinally orthodox and counter-cultural against many aspects of Chinese culture,
despite his adopting their dress code.
[14] Leeman, Jonathan: The Twin
Temptations of Pragmatism and Authoritarianism. www.9marks.org/blog/twin-temptations-pragmatism-and-authoritarianism (accessed July 24, 2013)
[15] Sproul, R.C.: Principle vs.
Pragmatism. www.christianity.com/newsletters/features/principle-vs-pragmatism-11597752.html (accessed on July 24, 2013)
[17] Beilharz, Peter: Modern and
Postmodern, in: Hall, John R. et al (ed.): Handbook of Cultural Sociology.
Routledge (2010), p.175
[18] Ibid., p.179
[19] Grams, Rollin: Deconstructing Jesus: From Modernity to Postmodernity to Faith. April
2011 (p.10) - http://www.scribd.com/doc/52516023/The-Cooley-Center-Articles-Deconstructing-Jesus
[20] Hinlicky, Sarah: Talking to
Generation X. First Things, February
1999. www.firstthings.com/article/2008/12/002-talking-to-generation-x-30 (accessed July 31, 2013)
[21] Quoted in Rivadeneiura, Caryn et al.: The Myth of the Perfect Millennial Church. Christianity Today, August 8, 2013
[22] More recent research may have disproven this, at
least for Generation X: see Gay, David: Cohort, Spirituality,
and Religiosity - A Cross-sectional Comparison.Journal of Religion and Society,
Vol 15 (2013), p.12
[23] Ibid.
[24] www.crosswalk.com/blogs/daniel-darling/healing-generational-divides.html
(accessed on August 2, 2013)
[25] Grams, Rollin: Deconstructing Jesus (p.1)
[27] Held Evans, Rachel: Why millennials are leaving the church. CNN, July 27, 2013. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/27/why-millennials-are-leaving-the-church/ (accessed Aug 2, 2013)
[28] Even if he didn’t mean to say
what he wrote (his intention may simply be to admit that even as Christians we
don’t know everything about God), the question would remain how authentic or
attractive our faith is if we cannot lead a newcomer onto and along The Way
like the evangelist in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s
Process – a least if we’ve been a Christian for several years.
[29] See
http://religiousaffections.org/featured/two-messages-on-the-churchs-mission/
(audio)
[30] See Postmodernism – Is it a
new idea? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cZlZaAUIbCE (video)
[31] For an example of such an
attempt, see Can You Believe It’s True?
Christian Apologetics in a Modern & Postmodern Era, by John S.
Feinberg. Crossway (2013)
[32] Craven, Michael: Christians in America: Out of Touch
and Out of Reach. http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/michael-craven/christians-in-america-out-of-touch-and-out-of-reach.html (accessed Aug. 26, 2013)
[33] Taunton, Larry: Listening to
Young Atheists: Lessons for a Stronger Christianity. The Atlantic, June 6, 2013
[34] The Myth of the Perfect
Millennial Church. Christianity Today,
August 8, 2013
[35] John S. Mbiti, “Christianity
and African Culture,” Journal Of Theology For Southern Africa, no.
20(1977): 26-40. Quoted in: SPELIOPOULOS, Elke: THE ROLE OF CULTURE IN GOSPEL COMMUNICATION.
[36]
Ibid., p.15
[37] 5 Reasons Millennials Stay
Connected to Church. Barna Group, 2013
Comments
Post a Comment