In my continued graduate work, my current course instructor posed the question, “Would it be theologically accurate to say that a church that is not on mission is not really a church but something else? Perhaps, a social club? What are the implications of an ecclesiology like this?
I read an article in the New York Times about the popularity of tweets (Twitter posts/updates for those non-users) from Christians who post inspiring or supposedly meaningful phrases in 160 characters or less. The article, entitled “Twitter Dynamos, Offering Word of God’s Love” appeared in the @nytimes June 2, 2012 print copy and online in their technology section.
The tweets that have gained popularity are those that are uplifting or inspiring. Often, popular religious Twitter users, who gain massive amounts of “followers,” quote lines from the Bible that resonate with Christians or really any human who is seeking some type of fulfillment or encouragement. The idea of Twitter and personal fulfillment is quite interesting. What is it that people find rewarding from feel-good and cliche phrases that are often more empty than fulfilling?
Don’t get me wrong. There are short proverbial phrases that are valuable and various social media outlets can be good tools for communicating and networking. I use Twitter and other social media outlets to ask questions, pose thoughts, or connect (as shallow as it may be) with other thinkers and writers around the earth. Twitter is my primary source for links to news, video, information about publications, book releases, direct trade coffee, and European footballers’ contracts, strategies, and statistics. My concern is that the modern, popular expression and understanding of Christianity becomes cheapened to quotable one-liners that promote the acceptance of a therapeutic form of religion that does not represent the person of Jesus.
One other danger rests in the act of reading about Christianity and social justice initiatives and a consequent feeling like we’re somehow involved in the goodness of the world. How might we use social media outlets as a means of connectivity and resourcing while not compromising the call to be followers of Jesus, representing compassion and enacting theology? Is it possible to responsibly engage in Christian formation via Twitter? How might we most effectively shape our culture in a world of instantaneous, mass, online-social communication?
Every human thinks a different thought when he or she hears the word, “theology.” Some may consider theology to be an archaic series of thoughts and words that describe God. Others immediately default toward thinking of their religious context and experience. Many desire to engage in a “theological” conversation to help them think differently about God. Typically, theology involves a lot of words and ideas that construct a quasi-foreign language. Those who observe confusing and generally dull, uninteresting, and monotonous, theological discourse find themselves unengaged, confused, and needing to confront arrogant claims on authority. The vocational assignment of the missional leader is to deconstruct distorted understandings of theology and initiate an active, embodied theology.
Any of those who might be bored with required religion classes at liberal arts universities would be refreshed by the liveliness of theology when it is understood within its original context and applied within our current cultural reality. Modernism has crafted the definition of “logos” into “word,” “description,” or “study of.” It is very mechanical and symptomatic of our post-enlightenment era. Contrastingly, for the Hebrews, the word “logos” was understood with greater depth than our modern interpretation. “Logos” was equated with the “expression of the wisdom of God.” Johanian literature’s language about the person of Jesus as “logos,” reveals that God’s expression of wisdom is self-disclosed through the incarnation. Theology is something that is something that is alive and active in our world as demonstrated through the life of Jesus.
Though some may think that theology is “not for them,” all Christians must seek to understand their place and responsibility for enacting theology. Every person possesses the theological sources of formative life experiences and tradition that are informed by human reason. For Christians, Scripture also serves as a resource for developing one’s perspective. Throughout much of modernity, the use and primacy of Scripture formed an appeal toward rational and quantifiable structures. Author Philip Clayton points out the shift within post-modernity stating, “Christians are not particularly interested in exact lists of doctrines. They do not think that there is a universal right answer for how Christians should act in all cultural situations and at all times. They do go back again and again to the life and teachings of Jesus, since these continue to be the model for Christian practice and belief.” It may be a daunting task to transpose Jesus’ life to our postmodern context but such a task remains accessible and manageable for those who have not been formally trained at universities and seminaries on complex “theology.”
The theological change that is upon us is one that is hopeful. It may be met with resistance but requires an embrace of moving forward with innovation and creativity. As a young and motivated leader in the church, I have had moments of feeling stifled and discouraged from exploring new ways of enacting theology and being the church. In the midst of the obstacles I have faced, it has been a tempting option to “give up on the church.” Sometimes it doesn’t feel worth the fight when hoping to move away from stagnant and failing structures that no longer impact our culture. I have sought to run away from the pews and the buildings that continue to contain and restrain the church from being a missional community. My struggle is not only continuing to progressively move in a different direction but also moving in a capacity that invites and leads the church into participation without leaving people behind.
I don’t want to get caught in the trap of continuing to be overly concerned with the church and finding myself and others living stagnantly without actually enacting theology. Just as the battles between the conservative evangelical and liberal camps need to cease, so does the tension between progressive postmodern followers of Jesus and old-fashioned, modern Christians. I may possess a certain level of idealism but recognize the importance of ecumenism and unification when hoping to enact the kingdom of God. A reinvented church with a redefined mission would provide a story that mimics the resurrected Christ. As Clayton describes, “We have to learn to tell our story as individuals and as communities, together with Jesus’ stories.” In order to tell Jesus’ stories we must look through the same lens mentioned previously – a framework that moves beyond spoken words to an enacted theology.
Transformed theology is a socially active response to the love of God observed in the person of Jesus. It is important to note that Jesus did not operate by himself. He called a community of people around him to work together for the salvation of the world. Missional leaders must take theology seriously and thereby extend an invitation to others to look beyond the shallow confines of religious discourse and construct an alternative reality that involves action. Theology that is otherwise a series of convoluted words and simplistic explanations is simply not theology.
The reality of God’s presence has taken on a whole new meaning.
I have recently been doing some reading by Michael Lodahl, Michael Brierly, and John Cobb on creation, God’s immanence, ecology, God’s need for humanity, and panentheism (not to be confused with pantheism). After writing a number of more academic pieces on these ideas it is difficult to fully process through my thoughts in a brief post. Nonetheless, I have been experiencing a renewal to take more seriously my position as a human on this earth with the responsibility of representing God and allowing God’s presence to be known. As a pastor, priest, and poet, all of which I aspire to be but typically fall short, it is a privilege to be a distributor of the sacraments. Sacraments, quite simply, may be defined as an outward sign of inward grace or any physical things “under,” “in,” or “through” which God comes. Might God come to make himself known through all things? ALL things? And if he does, as a giver and partaker of sacraments, shouldn’t I consider how I treat the created world?
When difficult things happen in life it seems quite normal for us to ask or lament, “Where is God?” Even when things are good, we wonder, “Hmmm… Where is God?”
If God is really everywhere, then where is he? Don’t we typically think that God is somewhere in the space that we call “air,” “space,” or “the heavens” that is infinitely over-and-above us? But what about the space that is infinitely near, local, proximal, breathable, and touchable?
Is it possible that God is present and comes to be known in and through all created things?
For some reason (likely the influence of the modern era appel to reason, enlightenment, and science), we like to separate things. We like categories, labels, systems, and the fences that keep us isolated from others and from ourselves. The dichotomization of our private and public worlds provides a sense of protection, privacy, and the perceived safety of unvulnerability.
“In flight from public controversy this person or that reaches the sanctuary of a private virtuousness. Such people neither steal, nor murder, nor commit adultery, but do good according to their abilities. But in voluntarily renouncing public life, these people know exactly how to observe the permitted boundaries that shield them from conflict. They must close their eyes and ears to the injustice around them. Only at the cost of self-deception can they keep their private blamelessness clean from the stains of responsible action in the world. In all that they do, what they fail to do will not let them rest. They will either be destroyed by this unrest, or they will become the most hypocritical of all Pharisees.” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Works, v.6
What does it look like to be Christian? We can’t be Christian in the confines of our that which we call private. What does it mean to be Christian in public? To engage conflict with peace? To take action in a broken world?
The western, modern church often seeks to assure that people “are going to go to heaven when they die.” I have often thought that line of thinking is somewhat selfish and incomplete when considering the vastness of God and his love. Do we really only exist for ourselves and an afterlife?
Michael Lodahl states that “clearly, a soteriology that becomes fixated only upon the human is insufficient and untrue to our identity as creatures existing inextricably within this vast, mysterious, and beautiful creation. Such anthropocentrism in Christian theology has tended to create brittle distinctions between us human beings and the complex network of creaturely existence in which we live, move, and have our being by God. It has thereby fostered an unhealthy and unbiblical alienation between human and world that undercuts respect and empathy for the resilient yet vulnerable fabric or our natural environment.”
What does it mean for us to move beyond ourselves? How do we appreciate our natural environment and seek to enact salvation and life in our current world – on this earth?
While sharing a meal with some friends in the Dining Commons of MVNU, the conversation centered around the type and quality of food that we put in our bodies. Someone was eating hummus, which led us to begin trying to list the Top 10 Most Trendy Foods. With the help of Nate Okuley, John Ballenger, Scott Lomasney, Ryan Schmitz, and Lyndsey Oldham, I landed with a list as follows:
1. Sushi. Suddenly, everyone likes raw fish wrapped in seaweed. For those that don’t really like sushi but still want to be trendy there is the standby California Roll.
2. Dunkin Donuts. This one is for the trendy people that don’t want to be trendy because Starbucks Coffee is too trendy for their need to be different and edgy. Starbucks is better. So is Cup O’ Joe. So is Nevin Street.
3. Guacamole. It’s very green and very tasty. I have yet to have this avacado concoction quite like that in Juarez, Mexico, handmade by Hermana Elodia, la pastora de La Iglesia Del Nazareno Juarez.
4. Yogurt. There used to be TCBY. Now there’s Yagööt.
5. Fish Tacos. Apparently it’s an acquired taste and/or is popular with the folks in the southern California area. I’ll take my taco with no fish unless I’m really trying to be trendy. I’ll eat my salmon grilled on a cedar plank with Ben Winkler.
6. Hummus. The word is transliterated (like the word “baptize” from the Greek “baptizo”) from Arabic. It’s really not fancy. Just smashed chickpeas with some pepper, oil, garlic, and/or salt.
7. Burritos. Even though Chipotle is starting to become or already is mainstream it still counts as trendy along with Noodles and Co.
8. Sweet Potatoes. Often found in a fry version complete with fresh-ground sea salt, this orange delicacy is prepared in many forms and has found itself overshadowing the Idaho original.
9. Hibiscus. Green tea and pomegranate tea (or pomegranate anything) have been around long enough. It’s time for them to move over for hibiscus.
10. Local, organic vegetables. Let’s be honest, anything organic could have made the list, right? Organic is taking over.
The local, organic, and fair trade consumption trends are proving that “trendy” is not always bad (take note Dunkin’ Donut coffee lovers). But when does “trendy” turn bad? Are there trends in Christianity that are counterproductive to the Kingdom of God? Could one unhealthy trend possibility be the “megachurch movement,” where congregants desire to attend the sexiest, stylish production that is primarily a place for personal consumption and conscience appeasement? What about the “house church” model? Is it just a trendy phenomena for those who despise the megachurch model and want their own homogenous self-owned gathering or is there worth and substance behind it? At what point are our practices of Christianity just cultural adaptations and pleas for some type of desired relevance? Do we do the trendy Christianity thing because its trendy or because it really represents the Kingdom of God?
The follow text is from a previous post entitled, “Dependence Day:”
I’ll be honest. I’m not a fan of Independence Day. I’m trying to sort through whether that opinion is fueled by the despicable taste in in my mouth when I see red, white, and blue waving as a symbol of national allegiance and empire worship or simply by my struggle to intellectually and philosophically value independence. Freedom is good and necessary but cannot exist through the supposed provision of an earthly empire. Freedom is in the person of Jesus Christ and is quite different from that with which it is quite often confused, “rights.”
My reading on July 3rd proved to be rather timely for the upcoming day celebrated by most citizens of the United States. From Free of Charge by Miroslav Volf:
“Here is roughly how sin works in relation to God the giver. All things are from God and through God, and yet we want to be independent of God, standing on our own two feet, claiming God’s gifts as our own achievement. The young Karl Marx, barely twenty-six years old, put this sentiment as boldly as possible. In a text that remained unpublished during his lifetime, ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts,’ he gave an expression to the heart of his rebellion against God:
‘A being only counts itself as independent when it stands on its own feet and it stands on its own feet as long as it owes its existence to itself. A man who lives by grace of another considers himself a dependent being. But I live completely by grace of another when I owe him not only the maintenance of my life but when he has also created my life, when he is the source of my life. And my life has necessarily such a ground outside itself if it is not my own creation.’
Marx held firmly to human independence. It almost seemed to him a value that lies at the bottom of all values. Because the reality of God as creator is incompatible with human independence, he denied the existence of God.
Most of us, especially the believers among us, won’t deny God’s existence in order to secure our independence. Instead, we think that we can have it both ways. We believe that we can stand on our own two feet, independent of God, and still affirm that God is the creator of everything. But that doesn’t make sense. We can be both dependent on God and free; dependence on God is the source of our being, and therefore, our freedom. But we can’t be created by God and independent; God sustains creatures in being and in freedom. When we assert our independence, when we ascribe to ourselves what comes from God, we wrong God – at least as much as I would wrong an author whose ideas I would peddle as my own. That’s our main sin against God the giver. If, like Raleigh Hays, we see ourselves as more or less honest, hardworking citizens, we may believe that we deserve what we have, and even a bit more because an evil world is cheating us of our proper reward. We might not feel particularly grateful for what we have because we think that, rather than receiving it, we earned it. And we want to dispose of our hard-earned goods the way we please; they become not so much gifts given to us to enjoy and pass on, but rather our exclusive possessions.
Assertion of independence, pride of achievement, sense of entitlement, and absolute right to dispose with our goods – these are the ways in which we live in contradiction to who we actually are in relation to God. And in these ways, we, decent citizens, live as inveterate sinners. To live in sync with who we truly are means to recognize that we are dependent on God for our very breath and are graced with many good things; it means to be grateful to the giver and attentive to the purpose for which the gifts are given.” //
// Miroslav Volf. Free of Charge: Giving and Forgiving in a Culture Stripped of Grace. pp. 35-6.
What does it mean to be Christian?
Does it mean that one confesses “sin?”
Does it mean that one acts like a good person and treats others with love?
Does it mean that a person resembles a cultural idea of what others think is Christian?
Is a Christian someone who is committed to serving in the church?
Is someone Christian if they are trying to be a follower of Jesus?
Does it mean that a person will have a hopeful afterlife?
Does it mean that one is reconciled to Yahweh through some exterior means?
