The Future, Mestizaje, and Battlestar Galactica

This post concerns the final text we are engaging in our class, Virgilio Elizondo’s The Future is Mestizo: Life Where Cultures Meet. Elizondo highlights two particular terms vital to his thesis:

• “Mestizo“: any person of mixed blood; a person of combined Indian and European ancestry.

• “Mestizaje“: “the process through which two totally different peoples mix biologically and culturally so that a new people begins to emerge, e.g., Europeans and Asians gave birth to Euroasians; Iberians and Indians gave birth to the Mexican and Latin American people” (17).
  

As I was reading the text and learning Elizondo’s story, I couldn’t help but be reminded of a recent fictional story that addresses some similar themes.

Are You Kidding Me? #1

I actually thought this was some sort of April Fools joke, but then I remembered we’re in May, and it’s actually for real (and for sale on Amazon!). I’ll list a few quotes, but it’s hard to stomach:

THE ONE BIBLE THAT SHOWS HOW ‘A LIGHT FROM ABOVE’ SHAPED OUR NATION.

(and it’s in all CAPS, so this statement must be true…)

Never has a version of the Bible targeted the spiritual needs of those who love our country more than The American Patriot’s Bible.

(I thought that was Hannity’s job?)

This extremely unique Bible shows how the history of the United States connects the people and events of the Bible to our lives in a modern world.

(the thing about American history is that it’s so darn easy to revision!)

The story of the United States is wonderfully woven into the teachings of the Bible…

(syncretism, anyone?)

And it all would not be complete without…

… a beautiful full-color family record section, memorable images from our nation’s history and hundreds of enlightening articles …

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad and, well, idolatrous. Thomas Nelson…Are you kidding me? Greg Boyd addresses it here. And I’ll end this post with his words, “I encourage you to read the Bible — but not this one!”

Torture and the Church

Scot McKnight began a conversation on “Evangelicals and Torture” over at Jesus Creed. I like his response (in the comments):

“Torture is always wrong because it violates the sanctity of human integrity and conscience. It is unjustifiable, and Jesus calls his followers to go the extra mile and to give a cup of cold water in order to induce grace and love and reconciliation and peace. The intent of torture is never reconciliation but extraction of that which a human under normal conditions would never say. It breeds violence.”

This conversation was a response to results from a survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, which found that folks who attend church most often also tend to justify the use of torture (“more than six in 10″ white, evangelical Protestants). And in my sarcastic moments I would guess that at least five of those six probably watch 24 regularly

I disagree with torture (in any circumstance) for the reasons McKnight states above. It is un-Jesus-like. But also because it makes it really hard to tell our Story (as followers of Jesus) when it seems a good portion of the American church wants to justify this kind of practice toward those labeled “enemies”. On a side note, when we label someone “enemy” does that do something to our soul?

For the “six in ten” from the survey, I honestly ask, “How does one square that position with the teachings of Jesus?” When we consider the teaching of scripture, does justification of actions like torture put us closer to God’s Kingdom or Rome’s empire? And if you are a 24 fan, I would also encourage you to try BSG sometime–you’ll get all the action, plus a thought-provoking storyline that actually shows the consequences of the myth of redemptive violence.

Spiritual Vision for the Suburbs

The latest text for our class is The Suburban Christian: Finding Spiritual Vitality in the Land of Plenty, by Albert Y. Hsu. I was somewhat familiar with the author, having read some articles in Christianity Today and entries in his blog. I had a particular interest in this book due to having lived in various suburban communities (in greater Philadelphia) and also serving as a pastor in this context. While there have been tremendous amounts of ministry resources aimed at suburban churches (thanks to evangelical publishing houses, megachurches, or a combination of both), I haven’t found many which discuss the unique culture, challenges, advantages and disadvantages of suburban ministry.

Gospel, Hip-Hop, and Coded Language

The text we are currently engaging in our class is The Hip-Hop Church: Connecting with the Movement Shaping Our Culture, by Efrem Smith and Phil Jackson. The authors provide an interesting and helpful history of hip-hop, its connections to urban postmodern experience, as well as insights from their experiences in urban ministry contexts (Minneapolis and Chicago). Both authors are pastors who are working at incarnating the good news within hip-hop culture.

Shane Hipps interview

Electronic Culture and a Theology of Community

In The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture: How Media Shapes Faith, the Gospel, and Church, Shane Hipps provides prophetic wisdom for how we interact with forms of media in the electronic age. Hipps’ message is particularly timely for those of us participating in suburban congregations where there is a tendency for pastors and church members to feel that we must use these tools to be “relevant”.

The Great Emergence and Authority

Over the past ten years I’ve been able to read a number of books and articles related to the subject of the “emerging” church. In engaging this material I have found a number of people to be helpful in some specific areas pertaining to emerging models of church:

• communication styles/preaching: Doug Pagitt, Stuart Murray Williams
• evangelism and the gospel: Dan Kimball, Scot McKnight (also The Origins Project)
• missional thinking: Dave Dunbar, Lesslie Newbigin, Allelon

These thinkers and the resources they provide for the church are very helpful (and often very specific). But sometimes viewing our situation through a wide-angle lens helps to make sense of where we are. As such, what has really captured my interest are resources that take a big-picture look at where we are at and where we are heading in the upheaval of the Post-modern/Christian/Christendom era. The first book that really did this for me was Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy. McLaren helped readers to take a broader look at orthodox faith and practice and to better appreciate the various traditions within the Christian faith.

I found Phyllis Tickle’s The Great Emergence: How Christianity is Changing and Why, to be another of these big-picture resources.

Post-Christendom and Evangelism

Stuart Murray explains that once Christendom became the primary reality for not just the church but for society as a whole, its ideology brought forth evolving views of scripture, mission, and church. Once it achieved power and a place of prominence, it became rather oppressive, and its effects could be felt in a number of areas:

• the use of oaths
• views on war (“just war”, “holy war”, “crusade”)
• view of the Bible (Old Testament as the interpretive lens; marginalizing the New Testament and especially Jesus)
• the church as an organization (how it was set up; how it functioned)
• worship
• preaching
• church discipline

This oppressive nature and how it affected the church in these various areas point to Christendom’s desire for control. Conformity was prized. In order to make the “system” work, what was valued

was neither belief nor behaviour…but belonging. What mattered was whether they threatened the Christendom system. Christendom could not tolerate dissent, whether expressed by unauthorised preaching, separate religious communities or criticism of the system (112)

In other words, “Don’t mess with our order.” Which sounds an awful lot like how the Roman Empire operated. It’s easy to come down pretty hard on the church for their choices, and we still must in a variety of areas. But what would our response have been, going from intense persecution to finally having a place? How difficult is it to avoid the seduction of power and the desire for order? We addressed this issue in some of our class conversation this past Monday, and it’s worth thinking about. I’ve observed churches today grow and gain a good deal of influence in their community, yet still struggle with dissenting ideas which challenged their established “order”. Whatever “system” we become enamored of, there’s probably always a risk of losing sight of the big picture.

There was one other area that was affected once Christendom became established, and that concerned evangelism. A Pre-Christendom faith, pursuing the commission of Matthew 28 and taking the good news to the far reaches of an empire, had been co-opted by an entity which re-visioned the mission. If you now control society, and you believe society is “Christian”-that everyone is born into it, then you probably don’t have a need for evangelism anymore. Especially not when you instead resorted to coercion.

Evangelism was once considered “a winsome invitation to a deviant and dangerous way of living and into a puzzling and yet strangely attractive community (129).” But Christendom ideology changed all that. Mysteriously inviting adjectives like winsome, deviant, dangerous, puzzling, strange, and attractive, are hardly words that could describe what replaced it. Those kind of words were meant to draw one into a Story; an invitation to become part of something bigger than oneself. But that wasn’t the Story that Christendom was subscribing to, so the evangelical impulse was lost.

Evangelism would eventually make a return and be valued again (Great Awakenings, revivals and evangelistic meetings, evangelism training). The church at different times has discerned ways to share the good news within its culture (unfortunately in the 20th century it became much to individual-focused). But I’d like to make a connection here with how Mennonites have particularly engaged the subject.

In the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encylopedia Online article titled “Evangelism“, Myron Augsburger wrote:

With an emphasis on discipleship of Christ, an understanding that ethics is related to Christ in the same way that salvation is related to Christ, Mennonites see evangelism in a wholistic manner. This is to say, evangelism is anything or everything that makes faith in Christ possible for the person. Deed is important as well as word; both the act of love and the work of love are reconciling.

In our first class, the comment was made that Mennonites have traditionally been good at theopraxy, but not as strong on evangelism. I believe the gist of the argument is that people could observe Mennonite practice and in so doing observe a lived-out gospel. This idea goes to the heart of our view of discipleship. Think of the idea attributed to St. Francis: “Preach at all times…if necessary use words”. Now I believe-as many others do-that these elements are tied together and that it’s a disservice to compartmentalize them. It’s clear that there existed among Mennonites a lifestyle that displayed attributes of the gospel. But because of a lack of verbal explanation or cultural engagement we were thought of by some (from the outside) as more of a fringe sect, fairly or unfairly.

The reason I bring this issue up is that I’m wondering what shape evangelism will take in Post-Christendom? Evangelism was lost for a time during the rise of Christendom, and it seems to be a little misdirected in our present time due to the powerful influence of individualism. Recently I was asked by a member of my congregation for direction in how to “witness” to others in our community. We discussed some of the familiar methods (tracts, personal evangelism training, etc), but I tend to question those methods and their ability to be effective in our culture. So this is an ongoing conversation for us right now.

I keep leaning toward the idea of recovering a holistic Bible “Story” and finding ways to share it in a language that communicates with this time period we find ourselves in. This is one person’s take on communicating the good news. Scot McKnight’s Embracing Grace is a good correction, helping to recover the whole message of the good news. What might be some dynamics of Post-Christendom evangelism? What might Anabaptist have to contribute to this discussion?

Post-Christendom

The text we are currently working with in class is Stuart Murray’s Post-Christendom: Church and Mission in a Strange New World. I have been looking forward to this text and our conversation, as I am trying to discern how to approach and process the opportunities of a Post-Christendom reality with a local congregation to which it can be a confusing or unfamiliar term. It is an interesting topic to consider because local churches in my context (American, suburban) are noticing the changing realities of our society, but may not have the vocabulary to describe it or feel unequipped to engage it.

To begin I would like to highlight Murray’s “working definition” of Post-Christendom:

Post-Christendom is the culture that emerges as the Christian faith loses coherence within a society that has been definitively shaped by the Christian story and as the institutions that have been developed to express Christian convictions decline in influence (19).

This particular shift is another change that Christianity must deal with as it attempts to faithfully be the Body of Christ within its culture. The shift has already occurred in the United Kingdom but it is also reason for some of the uncertainties the American church is experiencing as well. It is not the first time Christianity has had to navigate a changing reality, and Murray’s discussion of the history of Christendom is helpful before reflecting on where we go in the future or even how we might operate in the present.

I found it interesting to reflect on what was over time an evolving relationship between the Roman Empire and Christianity. Christianity began as a movement at the margins, separated from the state and persecuted by the empire, yet still growing at a rapid rate (28). What was going on during the period that could be called Pre-Christendom? I believe it was more than just some sort of generic process of “sharing the gospel”. What could we learn from considering how those followers of Jesus engaged their surrounding culture? This relationship with the empire would eventually evolve and Christians would see their reality change as well as their method of cultural engagement. Murray writes, “Although persecution was a recent memory and still a threat, Christians were becoming respected members of society and their ideas were increasingly influential” (28). This sounds like a good development; gaining respect and influence could be considered within the bounds of the call from Jeremiah 29:7 to “seek the peace of the city.” They were gaining a place.

But by the time we reach the fourth century, church and empire are actually brought together with an ironic result. The merging of church and state led Rome to become “Christian” (a very debatable term) and Christianity to become rather “Roman”. One aspect of ancient Roman culture that I have always found fascinating is how religiously tolerant the empire seems to have been. Of course, being that Rome conquered and assimilated various cultures (Greeks, etc), polytheism was welcomed. But initially Christianity was violently rejected. It was an exception, not for spiritual reasons, but due to its political ramifications and the early Christians willingness to subvert the empire. I love the word Murray uses often to describe this kind of behavior: “deviant”. It seems that the real issue was not one’s particular religion, but whether that religion affected the status quo of the empire. They were concerned with keeping order within the empire, which meant holding on to power and influence. If you disrupted this order you paid dearly for it, at least when the empire was more powerful. In later centuries when their power and influence was declining sharply, another way to preserve the status quo was needed. And those deviants became interesting again. Murray writes:

as traditional multi-faceted paganism was losing its religious hold on the Empire, if not yet its cultural significance, many intellectuals welcomed Christianity’s ethical monotheism. Political leaders were keenly aware of the potential of religious ideas for shaping the Empire, undergirding its institutions and uniting its citizens, especially in the face of threats of disintegration. If the influence of paganism was waning, new religious options might be required (29).

How ironic is it that by the time of Constantine, with the empire struggling to remain intact, that the answer to the dissolution of the empire was Christianity?

Today the transition to Post-Christendom brings with it a changing reality of how western society is ordered or what it values. Some elements within the church are very fearful about this transition. Is the fear a result of our loss of control, because we have only been able to imagine a society ordered by Christianity? Was it ever really Christianity that ordered society anyway? Are the fearful afraid of losing Christianity or rather the civic religion we have become accustomed to (with blurred lines between church and state)?

One of my favorite aspects of Murray’s text are the great questions he asks as he describes the shift. After considering the context of the shift to Christendom, we are encouraged to ponder its consequences which affected the church’s identity, theology, worship, witness, mission, and discipleship. In my own conversations with others about post-modern ministry and the realities of Post-Christendom, we often get around to asking questions like, “Where do we go from here?” or “What will this look like practically?” When I ask these kinds of questions (particularly the second one) I wonder if it is because I still desire the control and order that just does not seem to exist any longer. There is a mysteriousness that comes with living in a cultural/spiritual shift. There is no manual for doing this and maybe that is a good thing. It will require the church to exercise its imagination and capacity for innovation, powered by the Spirit rather than a privileged place in society. I sense that Murray is leading us in this direction; not providing the answers, but rather helping us to develop a sort of intellectual “tool box” that might help us develop our spiritual imaginations.