An Evangelical Manifesto: My Thoughts

You can read my initial synopsis and comments to the Evangelical Manifesto here.

I’ve been holding off on writing my thoughts for a few days because in these situations I tend to be reactionary and say things that I later have to retract because I spoke ignorantly or I missed somethings because I was so emotional. This time I tried something different, I waited, read what others had to say and now am throwing my opinions into the mix.

Because of the way my mind works, I function well with lists. I’ve decided to organize my thoughts on the Evangelical Manifesto using a list for my ease, as well as yours.

My Thoughts

1. The Evangelical Manifesto is an excellent start towards taking the wheel of a car that has been careening out of control for far too long. Without an authorized ’spokesman’, the most volatile speakers have unofficially become the voice of evangelicalism to the American public. This Manifesto helps to limit the stereotyping and characterization which evangelicals unjustly face. My concern is that this Manifesto, while clearly identifying the beliefs of evangelicals to the public, doesn’t address whether or not the reputation evangelicals have is rightly deserved. Nor does the statement seek to correct glaring theological issues within the movement. For those who do not know what I’m talking about I suggest you watch Jesus Camp or catch up on John Haggee. The statement is an excellent start, but hopefully not the end.

2. The Evangelical Manifesto is distinctly Anti-Catholic. The anti-Catholicism contained within the Manifesto, while not direct, is very visible throughout the document.

“Yet we hold to Evangelical beliefs that are distinct from the other traditions in important ways — distinctions that we affirm because we see them as biblical truths that were recovered by the Protestant Reformation, sustained in many subsequent movements of revival and renewal, and vital for a sure and saving knowledge of God — in short, beliefs that are true to the Good News of Jesus.” (pgs 4- 5)

“…we believe that the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life ―from above.” (5-6)

This statement says that Evangelicals hold to the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness, implying that this view is a pre-requisite for being ‘Evangelical’. The document then discusses matters of authority:

“we believe that Jesus’ own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God’s inspired Word, make the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice.” (pg 6)

“Jesus Christ and his written word, the Holy Scriptures, are our supreme authority; and whole-hearted devotion, trust, and obedience are our proper response.” (pg7)

This, indirectly, is a rejection of Catholicism’s doctrine of Papal Infallability.

The Manifesto continues:

“In sum, to be Evangelical is earlier and more enduring than to be Protestant. Seeking to be Evangelical was the heart of the Protestant Reformation, and what gives the Reformation its Christian validity for us is its recovery of biblical truth. In some countries Evangelical is still synonymous with Protestant. Yet it is clear that the term Evangelical, and the desire to be biblical, both predate and outlast the Protestant project in its historical form, for the word protest has increasingly lost its original positive meaning of ―witnessing on behalf of (pro-testantes), and the term Protestant is more and more limited to a historical period. Other labels come and go, but the Evangelical principle that seeks to be faithful to the Good News of Jesus and to the Scriptures will always endure.” (pg 10- 11)

Evangelicalism is supposedly rooted in pre-Reformation faith, but refuses to identify its roots as being in the Catholic Church. There are other instances anti-catholicism in this document, but I feel I have suitably shown and direct attempt to distance ‘Evangelical’ from ‘Catholic’. The distancing is so much so that dedicated Catholics, despite a reliance upon the death of Christ for standing before God, a total reliance upon the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, and a genuine desire to see the Gospel spread throughout the world, cannot be considered part of the ‘Evangelical’ movement. The Manifesto also claims to want separation from Protestantism as well, but instead strikes me as Protestantism 2.0.

3. This statement establishes Evangelicalism as the New Reformation. Through its appeals to finding its foundation in the origins of the Church and its discovery/ adherence to Biblical Truth that transcends denominational and political boundaries the Manifesto presents a view of Evangelicalism as the new, diversely unified, protestantism. Basically Evangelicalism is the new denomination that doesn’t want to be called a denomination because it prides itself on its decentralization.

4. Very positively, the Evangelical Manifesto acknowledges previous hypocrisy without allowing that to be a characterizing aspect of the movement.

5. Being an Evangelical means holding a view of Christianity being separate from culture and the grid through which culture should be interpreted. This point may seem obscure to some, but the Manifesto clearly states a single correct interaction between faith and culture. Specifically, the Manifesto addresses ‘Christ Above Culture’ as the only adequate interaction method.

“All too often we have tried to be relevant, but instead of creating ―new wineskins for the new wine, we have succumbed to the passing fashions of the moment and made noisy attacks on yesterday’s errors, such as modernism, while capitulating tamely to today’s, such as postmodernism.

We call humbly but clearly for a restoration of the Evangelical reforming principle, and therefore for deep reformation and renewal in all our Christian ways of life and thought. We urge our fellow-Evangelicals to go beyond lip-service to Jesus and the Bible and restore these authorities to their supreme place in our thought and practice.”

“…We call our communities to a discerning critique of the world and of our generation, so that we resist not only their obviously alien power but the subtle and seductive shaping of the more brilliant insights and techniques of modernity, remembering always that we are ―against the world, for the world.”(pg 13)

I find this disturbing because any tradition that refuses to acknowledge the impact culture has on faith (in this case by assuming plain Biblical Interpretation can be used to distinguish truth without bias) sets itself up to promote cultural distinctives (recently, such as Gender Roles in America) as religious dogmas.

6. The Evangelical Manifesto is seeking to purchase back the soul it sold to the Republican Party.

“Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality.” (pg15)

7. I am very encouraged by the Manifesto’s description of evangelicalism’s interaction with politics in American Society.

“Let it be known unequivocally that we are committed to religious liberty for people of all faiths, including the right to convert to or from the Christian faith. We are firmly opposed to the imposition of theocracy on our pluralistic society. We are also concerned about the illiberalism of politically correct attacks on evangelism. We have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose on anyone beliefs and behavior that we have not persuaded them to adopt freely, and that we do no not demonstrate in our own lives, above all by love.” (pg 16)\

8. Evangelicals are identified by what they believe alone. (HT: Mike Rucker)

“Evangelicalism must be defined theologically and not politically; confessionally and not culturally.” (pg 8)

This stands in opposition to Jesus assertions that Christians are defined and identified by their deeds (ie. feeding the poor, visiting the imprisoned, etc.) as well as their belief. I found this statement very surprising given the input on the Manifesto by Dallas Willard. His book, the Divine Conspiracy, redefined how I understood the Gospel.

Final Thoughts

Overall, I’m left with a feeling of both hope and discouragement by this redefinition of what Evangelicalism, what it stands for, and where it is headed in the future. I find myself hopeful that Evangelicalism is being proactive about its role in American society as well as attempting to establish a consensus of belief amongst its constituents. It seems a bit contradictory for the movement to pride itself on its diversity and decentralization while at the same time attempting to create unity and centralization with this document. While I do not agree with the entirety of the documents comments, I am very excited to see that Evangelical leaders are establishing a public rule of faith.

I find myeslf discouraged for 2 reasons.

1) This document establishes a new foundation for Evangelicalism without addressing the issues of how it became both a danger and joke within American society. Consistent statements about ‘right beliefs’ do not address the homophobic nature of the movement, the attribution of natural disasters to God’s wrath, the mistaking of traditional American values for God’s expectations upon our culture.

2) I can no longer consider myself an evangelical, even one of the liberal variety. Although I am happy to see the movement draw clear lines of definition, I unfortunately find myself in opposition to many of the lines it has drawn as well as its encouragement towards a single anti-denomination. Irregardless though, I find myself very anxious to see the influence this has on Christianity in America and the future forms of Evangelicalism.

Earl

I apologize to those of you who read my blog for the theological ramblings, today I’m taking a detour into another realm of nerdity: VS. System.

Vs. System is a Trading Card game which works off a mechanic similar to Magic the Gathering, but instead of piloting random mythical creatures you pilot legendary superheros. Currently, there are 2 Vs. system card sets released per year and approximately 6 weeks before release ’sneak previews’ pop up throughout the internet. Today is one such day…

I only wish I had the money to buy a case of this set when it releases in June.

Earl

Today, in Washington, DC, an Evangelical manifesto was released by some of the leaders in ‘Evangelical Christianity’. This quote is taken directly off of their website:

An Evangelical Manifesto is an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for. It has been drafted and published by a representative group of Evangelical leaders who do not claim to speak for all Evangelicals, but who invite all other Evangelicals to stand with them and help clarify what Evangelical means in light of “confusions within and the consternation without” the movement. As the Manifesto states, the signers are not out to attack or exclude anyone, but to rally and to call for reform.

WEBSITE
AnEvangelicalManifesto.com

DOWNLOADS

Read a Summary of the Manifesto
Read the Whole Manifesto

Closing Thoughts
I am going to decline on commenting on the movement for now. I’m anxious to see the Christian Community’s response to this as a whole. I would love to hear your thoughts though.

Earl

While reading a survey of Historical Theology today I stumbled across the writings of St. Ignatius (ca. 35- 110) that seemed very pertinent to my recent postings on Autonomous Churches. While I do not think that Ignatius’ writings directly contradict the idea of an Autonomous Congregation it definitely restricts the freedom Christians are given in regards to submission to authority.

…See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out [through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop… (Letter to the Smyrnæans ch.8)

If the connection in the mind of St. Ignatius between obedience to God and obedience to the Clergy wasn’t clear enough, in Chapter 9 St. Ignatius equates the role of a Bishop in the Church to the role and authority of a King over secular society.  Ignatius even equates the laity’s operation in opposition to the clergy to be treason towards the Church.  The chapter is then closed by giving an order for the heirarchical structure of the Church.

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil…

And [the Scripture saith], “My son, honor thou God and the king.” And say I, Honor thou God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God—of God, inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest. After Him, we must also honor the king. For there is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist. Nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop, who ministers as a priest to God for the salvation of the whole world. Nor, again, is there any one among rulers to be compared with the king, who secures peace and good order to those over whom he rules. He who honors the bishop shall be honored by God, even as he that dishonors him shall be punished by God. For if he that rises up against kings is justly held worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he dissolves public order, of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus both destroying the [Church’s] unity, and throwing its order into confusion? For the priesthood is the very highest point of all good things among men, against which whosoever is mad enough to strive, dishonors not man, but God, and Christ Jesus, the First-born, and the only High Priest, by nature, of the Father. Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father. (Letter to the Smyrnæans ch. 9)

The mind of Ignatius seems very clear. Submission to God means submission to Ecclesiastical authority just as one would submit to a King or other ruler/ authority. There still remains 3 unanswered questions:

1) Since Ignatius was the Bishop over Antioch but spoke authoritatively over multiple cities, how far does the Bishops’ authority extend?

2) Does Ignatius’ teaching hold authority for our Churches today?

3) Does this provide a basis for concern about Apostolic Succession?

Earl

Those of you who know me know my affinity for comic books. Starting tomorrow, this summer will be the best summer to date for a comic nerd like myself. The movie I’m most excited to see is The Incredible Hulk staring Edward Norton. This movie has been done and done, but never successfully. Norton brings so much ability to this movie it is hard to believe that it could fail. I’ll let you watch the preview and decide for yourself.

Michael Barber has an excellent commentary on what significance there is behind the Pope’s recent visit to America. I found this blog very helpful and insightful as a Protestant who is largely ignorant of Catholic history and tradition. Barber succinctly describes the growing hostility in Europe compared to the warm reception given by America as well as raising questions about what this may mean for the Catholic Church in the future. And this is only the first of 3 posts! If you have an interest in Global Affairs and Christianity I highly suggest reading Barber’s observations.

You can read his post here.

Earl

Why?
After having spent almost 10 years participating in the American movement called conservative evangelicalism I have witnessed many well-intentioned people bring much disgrace to the name of Jesus. These disgraces have come through harmful theology, oppressive practices, conservative cultural beliefs being presented as the mind of God and a general undermining of any authority that disagrees with whatever ‘moving of the Spirit’ popped up this week.

Some of My Problems with Autonomous Churches
An autonomous church can best be defined as a local congregation that ’stands alone’. This is commonly found in Baptist, Pentecostal, and Non-denominational churches. These Churches govern themselves and the Pastors, Elders or Deacons have complete authority and are answerable to their congregation for their decisions.

These are some of the problems I see:

1) Teaching that a church can stand alone, disconnected from the church down the street, is the first step to creating a theology of ‘individual Christianity’- the concept that a person can live a life that pleases God separated from Christian community.

2) Autonomy of local churches separates leadership from viable accountability. How many televangelists answer to leadership committees? How many ‘house churches’ give an account for what they believe and teach? How do we protect the Christian name from disgrace when anyone has the ability to speak for all of us?

3) Autonomy of local churches teaches that history and tradition has nothing to offer. A simple study of Church history as early as Augustine or Jerome will display that they belonged to a ‘Catholic’ Church. A ’stand alone’ church unintentionally communicates that our alignment to what the Church has always believed is unnecessary.

4) Autonomous local churches lead to ‘house churches’. In my experience, most ‘house churches’ are scorned Sunday School teachers leading people from local congregations to propagate ‘what the Spirit told them’. A Pastor or Elder denying leadership undermines their own leadership as well. It is not hard to see how a congregation things that what God told them need not align with what God told their leadership.

Rather than make a totally exhaustive listing in this post I will let you interact with my assessment. My next posting on this topic will be what I’m going to do about the problems I see.

Earl

I know many of you who frequent my blog have a background in dead languages, so I figured there couldn’t be a better audience to pose this question to.

I’m finishing my second semester of Biblical Greek and I am entering into a historical studies program in the fall, which won’t leave too much time for continuing my Greek education. I’m shopping for a Greek/ English Interlinear to replace my current Bible with. My hope is that by constantly exposing myself to the language I will be able to maintain my ability to read, translate and understand Greek. My problem is that it is hard to find an Interlinear suited for students with my linguistic ability.

William Mounce has produced an excellent Interlinear through Zondervan, which was just released. You can check it out here. Unfortunately though, it has 10x the information I want and therefore the text is very cumbersome and difficult to casually read. This interlinear is excellent for anyone hoping to work with the New Testament in its original language without dedicating themselves to years of classes- it’s just not what I’M looking for.

My friend, Calvin, has suggested Marshall’s Interlinear. This Interlinear has the NIV and NASB translations with just the Greek and a very wooden translation in the middle column. Right now, that’s my best option- but before I dump another $40- $50 dollars on a book I’d like to hear what others use and get any suggestions/ advice.

Thanks!

Earl

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I just got home from watching ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’ the new documentertainment constructed in a manner made popular by Michael Moore and capitalized upon by numerous advocates of the cultural left in recent years.  The movie seeks to ‘expose’ the bias in modern science against the concept of ‘Intelligent Design’.  While the movie successfully accomplishes not only this, but also films Richard Dawkins making a case for Intelligent Design- but unfortunately the movie fails to offer anything of substance to the conversation.

Aside from the 20 minutes spent in a concentration camp making the correlation between Darwinism and the Holocaust, the movie successfully presents that many scientists hold to the theory that the origin of life was designed by a higher being.  But, unless I’m in a minority of American society, the movie offered nothing new to the conversation.  Instead the movie attempts to ‘fight fire with fire’, making grand accusations and engaging in a slander campaign against the current bias withing science.

The highlight of the movie for me was the interviews with Alister McGrath and his calls for genuine dialogue, which while given prominent position are far outweighed by the propagandist visuals of concentration camps and the deconstruction of the Berlin Wall in the name of ‘freedom’.

Discussion of freedom was used to encapsulate the movie.  The movie opened and closed with Ben Stein declaring to a room of college students that our freedoms are being taken away by people unwilling to allow honest dialogue and discussion.  As I said earlier, the movie succeeds in showing that there are certain questions deemed illegitimate and showing the bias against religion in modern science BUT the movie fails to make an adequate case why I should care.

After watching this movie I only have 2 questions:

1.  Why shouldn’t secular science be biased against religion?

Religion has done just as much harm as good throughout the History of the world.  If scientists read the narrative accounts of scripture as exact history, as so many conservatives propose, Judaism is responsible for divinely ordained genocide, oppression, infanticide, and the displacement of ancient near easter peoples.  Religion in the hands of ignorant, fideists scares me, a God-fearing man who dedicated 4 years of study to the texts of the Bible- why wouldn’t it scare our post-Christian society more so?

2.  How does inspiring the ignorant, superstitious, religious folk against modern science do anything but further polarize each side and make genuine dialogue more unattainable?

All this movie seems to do is bring an issue to the forefront of the general public and encourage the psudo-intellectuals to pick a side and fight for its defense.  The general public has no say, nor should they, in this issue so why bother stirring public opinion?  If this movie succeeds in changing the climate in academia I fear it will herald more bad than good for our academic institutions.  A scientist being changed by public bias seems just as dangerous, if not more so, as a scientist being limited by their biases and presuppositions.

In closing, as with the movies The God Who Wasn’t There and Jesus Camp I suggest Christians who want to better understand how we are viewed by the world around us should see this movie.  Just don’t expect it to change your world.

Earl

Part 1: What Does the Bible Say?
Part 2: Early Medieval Christianity

What did Crusade Era Evangelism look like?
When discussing the issue of the crusades it becomes easy to focus purely on the violent and imperialistic nature of the thought and deeds of the time, but to do so would fly in the face of what history teaches us. Based on my reading we can simplify the majority of evangelism methods during the Crusade Era (approx 1000CE- 1300CE) to:

1) Imperial, Territorial Conquest.
The ‘Good News’ carried was that the Christian God was bigger and stronger than the God of the Turks or whatever other force persecuted the Church of God. The ‘gospel’ was still understood that Christ died for the sins of man (The foundation of penal, substitutionary atonement was laid by Thomas Aquinas during this time period) but the Church understood its application through a violent, imperial paradigm. It was completely justifiable to assure one’s salvation through the oppression of another (provided they were ‘pagan’).

2) Social Justice
While by no means the norm, one cannot help but read the stories of the early crusades without stumbling across the ‘People’s Crusade’ where Crusaders tore through Jewish Ghettos indiscriminantly killing man, woman and child. While the accounts of the crusaders themself are the exact opposite of what one would consider ’social justice’, the fact that in these ghettos there were priests living amongst these Jews and those same priests were the ones who defended the Jews, to the best of their ability, against the onslaught of crusading violence. It strikes me as an unfair characterization to overlook the accounts of priests living amongst unbelieving Jews, and their defying the hoards for the sake of their unbelieving brethren. For some during this time period the Gospel was defined as a display of strength, for others the Gospel was defined by love.

Crusade as Sacrament?
Thomas F. Madden makes an interesting assertion in his book, ‘The New Concise History of the Crusades‘, saying

“It was long believed by modern historians that the crusades were manned by Europe’s castoffs: aristocratic second or third sons with no claim to their father’s lands or title, robber barons, highhwaymen, ne’er-do-wells, and greedy monks… the crusades were often described as Europe’s first colonial wars, a kind of proto-imperialism visited on the Muslim people.

…Approximately 150,000 people across Europe responded to Urban II’s summons by donning the cross of the pilgrim. The vast majority of these were poor, and many were women or elderly (or both). During the course of the First Crusade, approximately 40,000 men marched to the East, a small minority of that total were knights… a vast majority of these knightly crusaders were not spare sons but instead the lords of their estates.” (pgs 11- 12)

The question one must ask then, in light of Madden’s assertions, is the question of motive. What would cause the extremes of society to willfully answer the call to march into the heart of Muslim lands and face a notibly hostile people?

In his call for the First Crusade Pope Urban II is quoted as saying:

“All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins.” (source: here)

There are multiple accounts of Pope Urban II’s speech, but all agree on the offer for remission of sin if one took a weapon and pilgrimaged to the Holy Lands.

Closing Thoughts

While admittedly, there were pockets of love and social justice through the Church during this period, the majority however understood the appropriation of the ‘Gospel’ by different means. Christ’s offer for forgiveness was no longer available to all men, the ‘Gospel’ had become so ingrained in European culture that Christianity became a cultural fixture, no longer understood as a religion but as a social institution. Christainty wasn’t universal, it was European. Contemporary theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, spoke of forgiveness of sins but, practically, a sword was offered to unconverted peoples so one could assure their forgiveness. It by no means seems a stretch to present the Church’s ‘Gospel’ during this time period as ‘Jesus died for the penalty of Our (European) sins, and Our forgiveness is appropriated through personal sacrifice’.

I don’t think anyone will disagree that this understanding of the Gospel is a far cry from our understanding today.

Thoughts?

Earl

The title was a joke/ nod to Peter Enns, who’s book ‘Inspiration and Incarnation’ has forever changed my understanding of God and His love for mankind. It relates because Enns’ book provided an excellent way for me to aknowldege diverse literary genre’s and authorial intent while not compromising the inspiration of Scripture.

As many of you know, the inerrancy of Scripture is quite a hot topic as of late. I’ve summarized my views here, and I’ve been participating in quite an interesting conversation as of late at a random blog I’ve found. I’ve been conversing with folks more conservative than myself about the various aspects involved with proving that Scripture is ‘inerrant’. The conversation found in the comments might be worth your time if you’re interested.

you can find the post here:
City of God

Earl

Read Part 1: What does the Bible Say?


Must our Gospel be preaching individual salvation through a personal savior?

During the early Medieval Church ‘preaching the Gospel’ meant:

1) Converting a group or area’s leader (tribal leader or kingdom leader).

2) Establishing Churches or Monestaries throughout the land.

Prosylization was looked upon more as a territorial conquest than seeking to preach the personal message of ‘believe in Jesus and go to heaven’ that is so prevalent today. There was a general assumption that if a leader could be converted then the society would follow. This understanding of conversion might be accustomed to the accounts in the book of Acts where a man would believe and he and his family would immediately become Christian. It seems likely to say that the majority of Christianity during this period believed that changing one’s allegiance to Christianity (via their leader) was sufficient to become part of the Kingdom of God.

One may easily argue that perhaps the church had been decieved by spiritual or cultural influences. I think I would also assert that the early Medieval church’s Gospel was far more cultural than Biblical, but one cannot argue that their Gospel was far different from the one in circulation today. As we go through this high-level overview of Christianity’s understanding of what ‘the Gospel’ was and how it was spread I would hope that you, the reader, would consider that perhaps we must redefine our ‘Gospel’ and how we spread it to better suit the world in which we live.

Earl

note: I used William Ragsdale Cannon’s ‘History of Christianity in the Middle Ages‘ and Isnard Wilhelm Fank’s ‘A Concise History of the Mediaeval Church‘ primary sources for this post.

you can read the opening post in this series here.

For those of you new to this conversation, ‘postmodernity’, as it relates to Christianity, can best be described as the deconstructionist movement questioning the unquestionable assertions from Christianity’s history (ie. Are Inerrancy, Orthodoxy, Metanarratives, Penal-Substitutionary Atonement, Anti-homosexuality and other such cultural/ religious assertions ‘true’). The question of ‘is this a legitimate movement?’ has long passed, what Christians must decide for themselves now is whether or not this deconstruction is freeing the Christianity by removing unnecessary ‘truths’ or chipping away at its foundation by tearing Christianity up by the roots.

This leads us to Stanley Hauerwas, from his book ‘A Better Hope: Resources for a Church Confronting Capitalism, Democracy, and Postmodernity‘:

“Post-modernism is the pessimism of an obsolescent class- the official intelligentsia- who’s fate is closely bound up with that of the declining nation-state” (quoting Nicholas Boyle in ‘A Better Hope’ pg 35).

“Postmodernism… seems to call into question the Enlightenment project, and surely that is a good thing. Yet I am not convinced that postmodernism, either as an intellectual position or as a cultural style is ‘post’ anything” (pg 37).

“Modernity, drawing on the metaphysics of a transcendent god, was the attempt to be historical without Christ. Postmodernity, facing the agony of living in history with no end, is the denial of history. In the wake of such a denial, the only remaining comfort is the shopping mall, which gives us the illusion of creating histories through choice, thus hiding from us the reality that none of us can avoid having our lives determined by money. Money, in modernity, is the institutionalization of univocity of being the Scotus thought necessary to ensure the unmediated knowledge of God” (pg 39).

I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not suggesting that postmodernism is nothing but smoke an mirrors. Rather, I believe that Fredrick Jameson rightly identified postmodernism with the cultural logic of advanced capitalism in which the production of culture has been integrated into commodeity production, theus creating the urgency of producing ever fresh waveds of novelty” (pg 40).

“It is hard to imagine an intellectual alternative better suited for the elites of a global capitalism than postmodernism. Capitalism is, after all, the ultimate form of deconstruction. How better to keep the laborer under that control of capital than through the scarcity produced through innovation? Capitalism, as David Harvey observes, is necessarily innovative, not because of the myth of the innovative entrepreneur but because of the coercive laws of competition and the conditions of class struggle endemic to capitalism. Off course the effects of such innovation are to make past investments of labor skills valueless…” (pg 40)

“The believe that ther is no single truth or world but only a multiplicity of mutually untranslatable perspectives, Boyle observes, is strangely analogous to the belief that the market is a boundless medium of perfect competition among an infinite numbber of ever-expanding commercial identities. It is no wonder that , confronted with such a system, intellectuals discard the idea of totality” (pg 41).

Closing Thoughts

Summarizing Hauerwas’ view, Postmodernism is the cultural consequence of the thinking founded in the enlightenment and the societal structure created by capitalism.  I think Hauerwas’ assesment of Postmodernity is exceptional, and very correct in its assertions.  I think however I disagree with Hauerwas’ conclusion that Postmodernity belongs in a conversation outside the Church.

It appears that Hauerwas, if one were going to place him into one of Niebuhr’s cultural categories, he would fall under a ‘Christ and Culture in Paradox’ perspective.  From what I’ve read it appears that Hauerwas’ depiction of the Church and culture is the the former is responsible for being completely separate from and reforming of the latter.  Personally, I think separating Religion from culture creates and unnatural dichotomy- while religion is responsible for the reformation of culture it cannot help but also be a product of that same culture.

Questions

1) Do you think that Hauerwas’ depiction of Postmodernity as the product of Capitalism is correct?

2) Can a Christian contribute to the collapse of their societal structure and still honor God? (ie. can we, and should we, righteously be agents of social deconstructon)

Earl

Chapter 6: Sunday Morning Costumes

“So what’s the big deal about ‘dressing up’ for church?… First, it reflects the false division between the secular and the sacred…. Second, wearing attractive, flashy clothes on Sunday morning screams out an embarrassing message: that the church is the place where Christians hide their real selves and ‘dress them up’ to look nice and pretty.” (pg148- 149)

“A specially attired clergy is an affront to the spiritual principles that govern the house of God. It strikes at the heart of the church by separating God’s people into two classes: ‘professional’ and ‘nonprofessional.’ (pg154)

The chapter seems rather unnecessary and communicative of what the majority of Christians already know and live out. The only ones who still ‘dress up’ for Church are the folks that only come out for Christmas and Easter. I appreciate the authors’ hearts in their attempt to destroy any semblance of an elitist Christian community, but feel that elitism is created in much more subtle ways that attire now.

Earl

Evangelism is destroying the Church. Our constant focus on bringing those outside our communities inside, with little focus on genuinely making disciples has left our Churches a ‘mile wide, but merely an inch deep’ (to borrow an overused cliche). I think a redefinition of ‘evangelism’ is in order for the restoration of the fidelity of our Christian communities.

Our Churches, both Catholic and Protestant, are internally divided being far more concerned with condemning homosexuality or ending abortion than making genuine disciples of Christ.  And even when we ‘evangelize’ individuals, we teach them that all God requires of them is to feel sorry and ask God to press the ‘reset’ button.  The combination of an constantly tumultuously  Christianity and the ever increasing number of converts convinced by an oversimplified Gospel has left the contemporary Church without a voice in our American culture.  Some churches (read: Emerging Church) are seeking to rectify this problem but their answers thus far (start new ‘cohorts’) has largely just contributed to the problem (although I give them many kudos for at least trying).  In order to genuinely rectify this situation, our ‘Evangelism’ needs reconstruction.

Evangelism, in America, would better be defined as converting Christians to become disciples of Jesus before convincing those outside the Church to follow Him. This concept will come as quite disconcerting for many within our local communities, but provided the opportunity, a Biblical and historical case can be made in defense of this new definition.

What does the Bible say?

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” (Mathew 28.19-20)

If one truly wishes to be true to the Gospel’s account of the ‘Great Commission‘ then they must be concerned primarily with Making Disciples (there is no mention of conversions according to our contemporary definition) by baptizing and teaching them to obey the teachings of Jesus. I dare say that to rigidly interpret this commission as ‘go tell unconverted people they’re going to hell unless they pray to Jesus for forgiveness of their sins’ is a bit of a stretch from this Biblical text.

The Gospel of Mathew teaches

And [Jesus] said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly {poison,} it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (Mathew 16.15)

This passage actually would strongly suggest an outward focus on evangelism. This passage fails to conflict my thesis though. Our redefinition of evangelism should be viewed as a recalling of God’s people from exile, so that they may once again become a beacon to the world around them. At what point will our ranks become so spread and divisive that the building will collapse onto its ever-weakening foundation?

Also, if we are going to rigidly interpret the Mark passage as universally binding then we also must provide the necessary signs for each conversion. I’d like to see Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron offer those kind of statistics.

Next post I will begin to survey the definitions of ‘evangelism’ throught Church history and interact with contemporary thought on this issue. In the meantime, I would love to hear your thoughts on my proposition thus far.

Earl