Toward a Theology of Marriage - Part II

What does God think about marriage?

I know right off the bat that this is a charged statement. Folks use the God card to support their ideas of marriage and invalidate the ideas that other folks have. Usually they do this by using a selective reading of scripture to support what they consider to be normative realities, omit the stuff that doesn't fit so well and say this is what God thinks. I'm going to try not doing that. I don't find it helpful.

The reality is that scripture approaches marriage in a number of different ways. So when some religious groups claim scriptural support for polygamy, they are right. But that doesn't mean polygamy is an acceptable norm in a particular social context. And it definitely does not support any form of polygamy that is abusive or oppressive. It just does not preclude it as a biblically identified construction of a family. I think that the scriptures, more often than not, are identifying culturally normative notions of family and offering deeper wisdom than what is an acceptable form of family and what is not. (For instance, I don't believe that any biblical text came out of a context that could imagine a same-sex family - which is why same-sex families are never mentioned in scripture. This neither endorses or dismisses such notions of family, we need to look for deeper criteria by which to evaluate possible configurations of family within particular cultural contexts.)

So if form isn't the main point, then what is?

I think a better case can be made for the biblical presentation of what a Godly relationship should be like. Through such an argument we can begin to assess notions of family (monogamous mixed-gender, monogamous same-gender, polygamous matriarchal/patriarchal/communal, etc.). That is we can develop criteria by which we can ask of a family unit - does this unit, within this cultural context, exhibit these values? By this we can get close to what we might say that God thinks about marriage, and separate that from what we think should be the normative form(s) of family in our culture.

So I've shifted from defining marriage to understanding relationship, in particular what we might say is God's view on relationships. I want to make a disclaimer that will help here. We can't really say definitively what God's view is, what we can do is interpret the texts and experiences of communities who have passed on revelation to us. This comes through scripture, tradition and experience. And it is always a mediated transmission meaning that the ones who had the revelation translated it to the transmission form and then we interpret the transmission we receive. This does not mean there is no correspondence between revelation and interpretation - but it does mean we need to approach it with critical rigor. We see but through a glass dimly, but at the same time God has not left God's self without a witness. We have to trust that the Spirit is faithful to lead us in our pursuit of truth - and guard against the surety that short circuits the role of the Spirit in this process. Some think this takes away our confidence, I think this opens up a need for trust in God - faith if you will. It also humbles us as we go forward.

So what does scripture say about relationships?

We'll go here next.

Toward a Theology of Marriage - Part I

I have been thinking a lot about marriage lately. As many of you know celebrating marriage ceremonies is seen as a privilege of religious communities, but I'm concerned with the disconnect between marriage and religious practice. I want to spend a few posts exploring this topic.

First we need to understand the term marriage. You won't hear me talking in terms of traditional definitions - because those tend to beg the question: traditional to what? Plus there is a movement that is really about excluding homosexuals from marriage that claim the term traditional but really mean what has come to be the normative experience in North American society (although I think those notions are internally challenged in ways these groups do not care to admit and they often ignore the emerging normative experiences of marriage). Actually I am more interested in a functional definition and from that seeing what, if anything, a religion like Christianity can bring to marriage.

We could start with the assumption that marriage is the foundation of the family unit. Let's leave aside that society has often given up on this as a reality. But if we think about family units they consist of people bonding together to form a corporate whole that is more than the individuals on their own. This includes some sort of commitment as well as expectations. This would seem to jive with the civil notions of marriage. These notions are codified by the state in order to allow for legal ramifications if the marriage contract is violated or dissolved. I happen to thing this is good, even though it can be expressed poorly in society.

Where the notion of a contract is helpful is when such a bonding (marriage) leads to internal growth (offspring, adoption, integration). It ensures, civilly, that the least capable of fending for themselves are protected in the event of such a contract breaking down. I like that safety feature because I love my kids and would want them to be protected no matter what. Also as a pastor I've seen how adults, in the midst of marital breakdown, can behave like real jerks - it is painful all around. So that is something that is important to me. But this civil union is more about how we navigate society and not necessarily a religious reality.

So what about religion? Is marriage just some leftover sacrament that is no longer necessary? Here is where we need a theology of marriage. We need to know what God thinks (as best we can know the mind of God) of marriage. We need to know where God is made present in marriage and where God can be edged out of the picture. I'll turn to this next.

But first - do you think marriage is fundamentally a contract? if not why? Also do you think that marriage is the fundamental building block of the family?

I Am 5 - Very Unsatisfied with the Service

Ok, time to rant. Nowadays it seems that every service or purchase (over say $20!) comes with a phone call. "Hello Mr. Emmen-yule. Can you answer a few short questions about your satisfaction with..." OK. so at first this seemed cute. A few companies seeming to care enough to check up on you, make sure you were treated right. But slowly these calls have taken over as the primary source of telephone spam. I've had enough.

Here is the deal, if I don't like the service, I'll simply not be back. Yeah. I don't lodge complaints (very often, you really have to screw me over) it is not my nature. So really this kind of survey is about the only feedback you will get unless you suddenly realize I've stopped paying for your services. I freely admit that this seems like the only way to get feedback from folks like me - the worst customers. However, the constant surveys, to me, is just as bad as some idiot salesperson treating me like crap.

It is mostly the predictable nature of these calls that annoys me. It is most impersonal. "Can you rate your experience on a scale of one to five, five being very satisfied and ..." AAARRRRRGGGGHHHH! Come on. You want me to quantify my satisfaction? I might respond better to a friendly, "are you happy with our service?", that opened up a conversation if I was not. At least then I could say "yup" and hang up instead of wasting my time trying to quantify my level of satisfaction with something I probably wasn't paying that kind of attention to. Life people, I have one.

So, I am 5 - very unsatisfied with this stupid phone call. You interrupted my day for this? Come on. I want to retort, "how would you like it if I called you up in the middle of your stupid phone calls and asked how you were satisfied with your last cold call, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being very unsatisfied and 5 being very satisfied?" But I actually have a better plan.

I'm opting out. No more. I am saying no.

I cant help wondering if this is just a make-work project? If it really is a way of curing bad customer service then the cure is worse than the cause. I don't doubt that some companies use this data to evaluate their service representatives. But when, and this has happened several times now, the service representative asks you to rate then all 1's or 5's (whatever is better) on the impending survey then they are defeating the purpose of the survey. I'm not a jerk, I won't rate them poorly because they asked. But I'm just going to opt out altogether.

End of rant.

Please rate your satisfaction with this blog post in the comments below.

The Rise of the Disciplinary Society 1-2

With many, many apologies for the long delay.

The way that Taylor reads history is really interesting to me. Section 1 of this chapter begins to describe the displacements Taylor wants to track and then by Section 2 he has dove right in. This looking at how ideas become distinct and eventually part ways is a Hegelian tactic that is part of other works that I've read from Taylor. I'm sure Kenny will comment on this, he is the resident historian, but I want to shift our attention to something I really enjoyed in this reading - attitudes.

The attitudes that Taylor flags have far reaching influence. In fact we feel them still today. These attitudes are directed towards the poor, society and nature. They allow us to view these things in particular ways. In fact what he shows is that there is a marked difference in the way 15th century folk viewed the poor, for instance, and folks in the 16th century would see them. These attitudes evolve, but in a way that builds in a specific direction.

In the evolution of the attitude towards nature we see the breakdown of the Thomistic medieval synthesis. How we go from an idea of nature intrinsically connected with our ideas of the divine to a basically notion of utility. We end up with a nature that we can exploit because it has lost its divine significance. But it is more than this, it is that nature becomes something we must assert control over. Nature becomes the enemy (p.101). I think that attitude is what makes it hard to animate sufficient ecological response (I don't find stewardship compelling or sufficient). But it also identifies a root of our love of consumerism. What is life about? It isn't about a quest for the holy grail, the plumbing of divine mystery - but it is now about control, management and the mitigation of fear.

This is similar to the attitude towards society, or civility as Taylor puts it. Taylor insightfully identifies this need to combat nature with civility as the root of the pervasive notion that social transformation is only truly accomplished through religious conversion, and that true religious conversion effects social change. I have a particular frustration with this attitude. While I value religious conversion (I am an evangelical after all) I don't see that it is sufficient or even the tool for social transformation. The reason is that evangelicals are good at compelling religious conversion and yet are often deeply complicit in systemic injustice. There are lots of reasons for this, but I think that attitude, that is the expectations that are attributed towards religious civility, is at the root.

Looking forward to your thoughts!

Thesis Proposal In The Bag!

After some back and forth with the committee and my director, my proposal was accepted! I will present on April 9th, 9AM. The presentation is more of a formality, there is no evaluation but more of a chance for the whole faculty (profs and PhD students) to comment on my work. I'm looking forward to this. But overall what I'm feeling is relief.

I actually had the results last Friday. But it has taken me this long just to recover. And I still have a long list of neglected tasks. This is the Lenten season after all. I will resume my participation in A Secular Age reading/blogging, expect something Thursday. Also I've got to start planning out two papers for May and two seminars for the Vineyard National Gathering in July (even though at this point it is not in the budget - I'm trusting God to provide a way if we are supposed to be there). And various Freedom tasks to do with kinships, mentoring and our book club.

On top of that I'm about ready to make some paper mache terrain for the custom scenario I will run at CanGames in May. I'm making two sets of interlocking valley walls (4 pieces in total) to block off a gauntlet path the players will have to run. I've got enough sketched out to run trials so the terrain is the next piece. I bought some rock casts too, which when painted will look really great. I'll post pictures when it is all together. I also have to do some work on both of the D&D campaigns I'm running. One group is almost at the end of my material and I have one more major quest for them before the final battle. Once that is over I'm going to suggest moving to version 4.0 and starting again 300 years in the future with all new quests and adventures. My current 4.0 game is just starting the 5th level of a dungeon crawl, so I need to start work on the 6th level (already have it mapped). But 4E goes together so much easier than any other version I've worked with.

That's enough to keep me busy for a while.

More About the Way I Work

I sent a full thesis proposal to my director today. Late, but maybe we can squeak it in. Basically it will depend on how much my committee wants to adjust it. Due to a number of personal reasons I ended up trying to do way too much work in way too little time. I'm not usually that bad. If I remember right my Master's thesis was a day early! I do tend to work well under pressure too, but some projects are way to big to do in a short amount of time. And even now thinking about my proposal I can identify at least three places that could use a couple hours more work.

Time to take a bit of a look at what I can improve on for the next project.

First, I have a bad habit of jumping the gun. I will be doing research and then feel like it has all fallen into place - so I start writing and realize it just isn't cooked enough. At this point I'm committed to writing, I've read about half the material and so I'm toggling back and forth between research and writing and my writing shows that it isn't my main focus.

Second, I am not the best at planning out paragraphs. If you remember my previous post on writing like Jazz, I am getting better at that. But my stream of consciousness does tend to leap across ideas quickly. But the best way to fix that problem is to carefully plan out my paragraphs. I am good at mapping out the material and organizing it at a high level, but planning a paragraph is not a skill I've ever developed.

Third, I am not guarding my academic work time well enough. Being a husband, father, and pastor can be very demanding at times. This one is harder for me to tackle.

Solutions

I'm open to other suggestions but I think I know the way forward on a lot of these issues.

First, I need to plan my research process better. I need to map out the material I am going to be responsible for with each chapter. Completely read that material before I start writing. Jot down ideas in a separate note book. I think it will also help to have set deliverables all through the project. This will help me track my progress and keep on task. Thesis writing is lonely work.

Second, when I get to the writing stage I need to go back to the writing technique I used in consulting. Start with a high level outline of the chapter/paper. Write one sentence for each level as to what I will cover in that section. Next outline each section, one point per paragraph. Then write one sentence that is the one idea that paragraph will communicate. Then stick to the outline! This technique is helpful. Whenever you can't write one sentence then you have too many ideas in that section/paragraph. It seems quite AR, but I know from when I took the time to do it that it does work well.

Third, I think I need to establish working hours. If I get funding, I definitely need to rent a studio at the library. Other than that I'm not sure what to do. It is too easy for other things to take precedence over the reading and writing that I need to do. I just need to be on guard better.

BTW I now have a second academic paper accepted - this time for the AAR regionals! May is going to be a crazy busy month.

USA Go Home!

Did that get your attention? This really pisses me off. I get that the US is a paranoid nation, and that their politics thrives on this Straussian fear factor. But as a Canadian I want no part of it. Consistently the US embassies around the world are the most fortified. But this is Canada people. What are they afraid of? I'm not about to waste my maple syrup lobbing it at your windows. Heck if we so much as glanced the wrong way at your ugly building you can bet we'd profusely apologize - we are Canadians. I digress. I get that in the post-9/11 fear exploitation you decided to enlarge your boundaries. (Would it have hurt to have asked?) But now you not only expect to keep the lanes you have appropriated - you want us to pick up the lions share of the tab to make it look a bit less shitty? Come on. If you don't feel safe here then build something somewhere we don't have to look at it, build huge prison walls with guards for all I care. Uh but do it with your own money. Seriously. If that doesn't suit you - go home. It is not like you are very far away anyway.

Lot Up In The Air

This has been a brutal start of the month. First I feel like apologizing, I am the hold up on the A Secular Age reading group. I just have too many things on the go. We also had a relationship go south on us, which has been hard on the whole family. I am happy this hasn't happened very often for us, but when it does it hurts. I think we are starting to get settled again. But I'm also missing deadlines, which is not like me. I was supposed to have my thesis proposal in to my director on Monday. I pushed it to Tuesday and handed something in Friday. My director has also been sick this past week. It is not the end of the world if I have to defer to September, but it is frustrating. A big part of the frustration is that I did not guard my time properly. The thesis proposal is a huge piece of work. One of the areas that I was hoping to critique is evangelical social engagement proposals - but the more I research the more really good ones I find. Where the deficit is is amongst the popular writings and that is much harder to get at and justify writing a thesis on. Hence, it is way more work than if my initial critique held up across the board. And to compound this frustration, I am delighted to find that evangelicals do some fine theology, but having studied in a Catholic institution for so long I am just now discovering it. I have been ordering books like crazy, reading and realizing the richness I've been missing. Now I have to sort out a whole theological culture and my assumptions about that culture. What this means is I will have my head down for a while yet.

Some good news. I am presenting two focused interaction groups at the Vineyard National Gathering this summer - one the fire Ladd lit for Wimber and the other on Post-modern Hermeneutics. I'm also presenting at Congress 2010 (Montreal) for CETA (Canadian Evangelical Theological Association) on evangelicals, language and consensus. And I'm running a custom gauntlet style scenario at CanGames this year - going to start working on the terrain soon.

What is a Pastor?

I'm wondering here. I think that some people think a pastor is someone you can walk all over and will just take it with a smile. The reason I think this is that when folks do that to me long enough I bite back - and when I do I feel like a complete failure. I know that this is really my issue, but I'm wondering if there isn't a better theory of pastor that might encourage me. Help me frame my responses better. Really I should learn to stand up earlier when folks are abusive towards me. Shoulda coulda woulda - yeah.

Looking forward to what you have to share.

When is it Helpful?

I'm watching a few blogs report the sad news about Benny Hinn's immanent divorce. As you know I'm not a real fan of Hinn, I think he is quite heterodox actually. But what I'm wondering is when and how it is actually helpful to bring a critique on a Christian ministry? It is a serious question. I find that sometimes I want to jump right in when folks are slamming what I consider to be gross theological errors. But then another part of me wonders how helpful that is. I'm not afraid to give my opinion, but at the same time I need to be self-aware enough that I realize that I'm not always going to be right.

I'm wondering what your thoughts are? When it is helpful? What form is helpful? Is there a line we shouldn't cross? What do we do when we inadvertently or deliberately cross that line?

For the meanwhile my heart goes out to the folks who have put Benny up on a pedestal. I trust that you will meet God in your pain. I trust that God is working through this whole situation and will ultimately have the last word.

Bulwarks of Belief (B van den Berg; Repost)

By the fifteenth century, Europe had emerged from the Age of Calamity (as referenced by one of my history books), or an age of anxiety as described by Charles Taylor (p.88).

In this new era comes two major societal transformations: the Renaissance and the Reformation. On page 75, Taylor turns his attention to the impact of one particular Protestant theology, Calvanism. It emerges* during the Reformation as a continuation of St. Augustine's thoughts on God's sovereignty and our predestination, as furthered by John (Jean) Calvin.

* Could they be the Emergents of their day? But I digress ...


According to Taylor, the Reformation - and particularly Calvanism - is central to the "abolition of the cosmos" (that is, the loss of the enchanted world) and the "eventual creation of a humanist alternative to faith". The Calvanist approach to faith leaves little room for mystery. In an attempt to create a rigid system of theology (and by rigid, I mean the need to have everything figured out), there is a "lock on the mysteries" (p.78). Anyone with experience in Calvanism recognizes this trait; there is little room for mystery or wonder. Taylor states that this "offers a model for the later humanist hostility to mystery" (p78).

Taylor discusses three levels that are emphasized with the Calvanist Reform: 1) a disciplined personal life, 2) a well ordered society, and 3) a right inner attitude. The third level creates a cycle that oscillates between salvation and depravity. We are saved, but before we become too comfortable we are reminded that we are depraved, but before we become too distraught we are reminded that we are saved ... The second level results in attempts to engineer society through social reforms, and causes the pendulum to swing between spasms of Arminianism and Calvinism.

Finally, this age also sees the "succession of elites from popular culture" (p.87). The elites begin to view moments of anti-structure (that is, the times the populace lets off steam, such as Carnival) as simply depraved acts, whereas previously they would have actively participated; there had been little difference in the activities of elites (clergy, nobility) and the common folk. It is here that Taylor argues this is the forerunner of political correctness. There is also the establishment of a "less enchanted" version of the Catholic church by the elites.

And now, for my own observations:

Recognizing that Taylor doesn't normally opine, his use of phrases like "horrifying conclusions" (p.78) and "repelling people from the faith" (p.79) make it easy to infer his views on Calvanism. Without forgetting about the log in my own eye, the phrases could be applied to his own Catholic faith too. There have been many other so-called Christian institutions fraught with corruption, playgrounds for bloodshed, politics, and power (in the manner of repelling people from the faith). I agree with him more so on the Problem of Evil - which cannot be addressed by Calvanism - and the movement towards total disenchantment (abolition of mystery). Whereas one cannot base an entire system of theology on Romans 9, one cannot dismiss it either.

I am hesitant to accept that one specific Protestant theology can be given as large a responsibility for ushering in certain aspects of the modern secular age as Taylor initially suggests, but there are over 700 pages left and I hope to find more answers there.

I gave thought to our own elites in North Atlantic societies; whereas the sixteenth century saw a succession between elites and the common folk, our own society sees an entire class of elites created by popular culture. We create icons out of movie stars, athletes, musicians, and politicians (for example, the recent Obama Mania). We adore them, gossip about them, keep track of them, and then discard them when they no longer interest us (or fail us). This is almost akin to the anti-structure described by Taylor, such as fools made king for a day, or a child in Bishop's clothes. Is our society coming full circle on some of these things?

Finally, his quick statement about the birth of political correctness could have used more fleshing out (as in, some data or studies to support his argument). What can I say? zetetic skepsis ...

Please comment here.

So Sad...

This makes me want to weep. What leap of logic could support the idea that our interaction with God could possibly automated? Has God become that depersonalized? Is it possible to think that God responds to petitions that cost us nothing but a wee bit of money - oh wait, that's that the whole notion of charities is based on. Sorry, my bad. Carry on. I'll be the one weeping in the corner over here.

So Is This

Thanks Byron.

Well Worth Watching

Paper Proposals

I fired off two paper proposals this week. Well one just got back from my director and will be packaged up and emailed out in the next day or two. It is a bit of a challenge to choose something that will help with my dissertation work, but will also not be too much my dissertation. I think I have hit on it, hopefully one or both will get accepted.

The first is for the AAR Eastern Regionals, here in Ottawa! I'm proposing to write on the the Emerging church as an evangelical effort to return from a self-imposed cultural exile. Basically I'll be comparing Carl Henry's project in The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism with what is written about Emerging church forays into social justice.

The second is for CETA at Congress 2010 (Concordia, Mtl). And I want to look at the problem of imprecision in popular evangelical terminology. In this one I'll be taking a focused look at the term missional. I have written about that term here in the past, this will be a good opportunity to spend quality time with the Gospel and Our Culture Network folks (their books anyway). The title I have so far is: Is there a Missional Bridge to Evangelical Unity? I think it is catchy.

I figure I'll just try for two this year. I did two proposals last year and ended up with both being accepted. This was great, except both conferences are in the same month, the same month as the Vineyard pastoral retreat! It made for a busy month and this year Sharon is also writing an exam in that same month.

The Bulwarks of Belief (M Samson; Repost)

Picking up where Kenneth left off, chapter 1 on Charles Taylor's book "A Secular Age" continues in sections 5-6 to develop his thoughts on the shift in the "conditions of belief" which have taken place in pre-modern to modern societies using as marker dates the years 1500 to 2000.

After looking at disenchantment and the eclipse of anti-structure, Taylor examines the shift in time-consciousness between moderns and pre-moderns, and in particular the time placing of events which to pre-moderns could be and were placed in more than one kind of time. For moderns, at least Taylor cites Walter Benjamin in saying that time is "homogeneous, empty time." (pg. 54). Or in other words, our present outlook for the most part enshrines homogeneity, coupled with a view of indifference to content. For earlier pre-moderns, there were three "kinds" of time. The 'secular' or 'ordinary,' 'higher times,' which introduce the kairotic knots and 'warps' according to Taylor, and thirdly the idea of 'The Great Time.' The 'Great Time' is the time of creation, or the beginning, which is behind us, but also above us. The Middle Ages inherits two kinds of 'Higher Time' or 'Eternity,' one from Plato and the Greeks, that of objective time of process and movement, and that of St. Augustine who wrestles with 'time' in his 11th book of his Confessions. St. Augustine sees eternity as the gathering together of past into present to project a future. Unlike the pre-moderns, we moderns tend to live their lives and conceive of them entirely within the horizontal flow of 'secular time.' Now I must confess, I have never really thought about this. Franks Comment captures this beautifully for me. This is indeed a complex thread to trace out. These shifts are not easily explained, and I too am enjoying this monster book.

Bound up closely with the change in time-consciousness is another shift in the way we understand the universe in which we live. We have moved from the idea of a 'cosmos,' an ordered whole with meaning for humanity, to a universe having its own kind of order, that of exceptionless natural laws. This insight I found tantalizing indeed! I once held to the young earth creationist viewpoint. It is no secret either as Taylor points out that many of the battles between belief and unbelief of the modern era, have been fought over this issue of 'cosmos' vs 'universe.' and the challenge of 'universe' to Biblical religion. Creation vs Evolution is fast becoming or else already is a political hot potato in the USA. For me the irony of the Ussher chronology using modern calculation methods to entrench the Bible in the 'cosmos' was startling! I never heard it put that way before. I will be following Taylor closely here, and hope he develops this further.

Lastly, Taylor looks at the issue of "Reform" and "reform." He spells out with refreshing candor for a Catholic the spiritual abuses that arise in the Middle Ages and how the stage gets set for the Reformation. Being a catholic myself, I appreciate his openness. He also seems to hint at how it may have been avoided. Latin Christendom in the late medieval period attempts to bridge the gap between the laity and the 'elites' if you will. Between those who are 'clergy' and or 'religious.' Interestingly Taylor sees this drive to reform and remake society as playing a key role in the undoing of the old enchanted cosmos idea, and further, the creation of a visible alternative in exclusive humanism, as he puts it. Again, I'm going to follow this closely.

Now, I don't really feel that I am in a position to be critical of Taylor at this point. This is the first work I have read from him, and I am in uncharted waters right now. I may need to supplement my reading of this book in order to get a better handle on him. I'm still taking it all in. This is far more complex than any of the 'subtraction stories' I have read quickly over the years. I wish I could say more at this point and make a better contribution, but this will have to do for now... still reading.....

To comment on this post go here.

Evangelicals Politically Engaged

It would be foolish to claim that evangelicals are not politically engaged in society. However, there are a number of drawbacks to the ways in which many evangelicals approach issues of social importance. Evangelicals tend towards a fairly pragmatic view of political engagement. This is because the primary concern is not the political engagement but rather the ability to witness. It is impressive how readily polarized evangelical groups can be when the issues are framed in terms of their witness and their perceived ability to witness.1 The classic example of this is the work of the Christian Right in the US. I find that Canadians tend to be less animated (more forgiving and flexible) in how they express their commitments, but these political commitments should not be underestimated (I believe that this is part of the reason the Conservatives have made it this far in our Country). This propensity for polarization reveals that what is lacking is an ability for individuals to sustain a reflection on political engagement. What suffers most is the very thing that is believed to be preserved - witness.

The witness of any religion is always tied to the ability of that religion to foster political engagement. The kind of political engagement that prophetically stands up in the face of injustice. While Christianity is not alone in its capacity to evoke the prophetic spirit, it is surely a rich part of Christianity's own formation. But what has been traded for the political prophetic voice is an apocalyptic and ecstatic spirit that deems overt political involvement as participation in a world which has no lasting hope. Pat Robertson's recent racist remarks about Haiti prove this point. What is unfortunate is that this is what passes as prophetic in much of evangelical culture. That is the prophetic is an ability for enforcing a deep apathy towards critical political issues. The church has become the state church preserving the state's status quo at all costs. What cost you might ask? The cost is the witness.

In Power Evangelism John Wimber claims that a faulty gospel message can at best create weak Christians. His claim comes in the midst of a discussion of the Kingdom message as the kerygma of Jesus' own gospel proclamation. I think he hits something important. The gospel that many North American evangelicals have bought into often has no reference to such political notions as the Kingdom of God. In fact Kingdom is only mentioned as an afterward as if saying the sinners prayer somehow transports one into the Kingdom. This could not be further from the message of Jesus. The Kingdom isn't something we can usher people into, a veritable holding place where we can plug up our eyes and ears and await the great yanking away. No. The Kingdom was central and its direction was always incarnational not escape. Sometimes I'm convinced that our gospel messages have more to do with our own personal comfort than with anything we read in the four gospels.

This weakness is already hurting evangelical witness. There is a growing awareness that the issues of our day demand a profound and prophetic response. And with none coming from our churches and ministries it should not surprise us that our numbers are dwindling. The plea of this argument is not to water down our gospel - I think we've done that enough. But to reflect on how our gospel actually might have the prophetic capacity to be, once again, a force for good in our world. This won't happen while we happily clap in our pews. It happens when we follow Jesus into the highways and byways and become like a certain famous Baptist who prepared the way for the Kingdom to come in the person of Jesus Christ.


1. By witness, I am referring to the active sharing of ones own faith in hopes of leading other individuals into a similar religious orientation.

Role Players Unite... and take over!

All I Need To Know About Life I learned From Dungeons and Dragons. An IgniteOKC Talk. from Chad Henderson on Vimeo.

The Bulwarks of Belief (K Sheppard; repost)

Charles Taylor's A Secular Age is a sustained criticism of negative secularization theories. As we saw in the introduction that Frank's post provided, Taylor is primarily concerned to narrate the transformation of the "conditions of belief" from premodern to modern societies. He does so in order to reveal how the background to lived experiences (and the aspiration to flourishing, fullness) proves crucial to understanding the shift from naive belief to an awareness of many belief options.

Chapter 1, "The Bulwarks of Belief", begins with differences between what Taylor calls an "enchanted" and "disenchanted" world, borrowing from Max Weber and Marcel Gauchet. But this shift is only one part of the story, which Taylor discusses under the headings "obstacle", "equilibrium" and "a common understanding done away with".

(I) The enchanted world is a world filled with what Taylor calls "porous" selves. A porous, premodern self places the locus of meaning and action in the world "outside" him or herself, "exogenously". The enchanted word was spiritual, where things themselves had meaning, where meaning could be extra-human and intra-cosmic. This contrasts with the modern, disenchanted world where meaning is fundamentally construed as "within" ("endogenously"), and specifically within the human mind. This buffered self sets up a series of boundaries not present in premodern selves: between agents and forces, mind and world, physical and moral. Where the natural world, the existence of society and the enchanted cosmos affirmed the existence of God, it was very hard to embrace unbelief. If someone denied God they did not thereby leave the "field of forces" that remained, many of which were malevolent, making unbelief difficult to entertain.

(II) Porous selves were thus vulnerable selves. They were also part of communities that felt themselves to be part of a spiritual and force-filled world. That is why, Taylor argues, there was such enormous pressure to conform, such intolerance for heretics, and so little unbelief.

(III) Porous selves were also part of a society that held two goals in tension: that of self-transcendence associated with the ideals of Christianity, and that of normal human flourishing. Taylor uses Turner's concept of play between structure and anti-structure, as embodied in medieval Carnival, for example, to demonstrate how this equilibrium was held in balance. It was both functional, in "letting off steam", and affirmational, in confirming the normal order of society.

Subtraction stories do not pay enough attention to these changing conditions of belief and are therefore unable to explain the transition from naive belief to an awareness of belief options. Taylor supplements this criticism with a narration of such changes, from the enchanted to the disenchanted world, from the porous to the buffered self, and from the world of play between structure and anti-structure to its restriction in contemporary life.

One may perhaps suggest a few avenues of criticism: first, on a methodological level, with Taylor's argument that the conditions of belief and background need to be front and centre in any account of secularization; second, even if one accepted Taylor's methodology, one might then criticize his use of existing scholarly material to posit the transitions he does. While it would be foolish to think consensus was ever likely to emerge on either point, evaluating Taylor's contribution must begin here.

Comment on this post here.

The Vineyard and Post-Christian Reality

Jason Coker has been posting some excellent articles on the Vineyard in the aftermath of Tony Jones' comments. His recent description of a missional think tank (which included David Ruis!) is very helpful. Two things that encouraged me were the fact that they were resisting trashing the attractional models and that they are also wrestling with how to incorporate whole families into some sort of post-Christiandom church life. I've struggled with this a lot in my own church planting/pastoring work. I have to agree that we are in for a hard road. And I see two reasons for this: 1) Churches are stubbornly hanging on to Christendom models. We shouldn't always have to arrive late to the party. And 2) the culture that rejects organized religion on religion's terms does not have clear models for developing an ecclesiology. The resistance that is part of the cultural makeup actually works against efforts to define what a post-Christiandom church might look like.

I think the question is: Is it worth it? And for that the only answer I can give is yes. The reason for that is because of what I've seen the encounter of God do in the lives of people. Heck, my own life is completely revolutionized because of the God who met me in my brokenness. For that reason alone it is worth the wrestling to build a church that can carry this message of hope to the world. Do you think it is worth it?