pagan or post-christian?
I came across this reading C.S.Lewis today. I have long felt that “Sunday School Christianity” is a menace to the Gospel and so I am inclined to wholeheartedly agree…
“When grave persons express their fear that England is relapsing into Paganism, I am tempted to reply, ‘Would that she were.’ For I do not think it at all likely that we shall ever see Parliament opened by the slaughtering of a garlanded white bull in the House of Lords or Cabinet Ministers leaving sandwiches in Hyde Park as an offering for the Dryads. If such a state of affairs came about, then the Christian apologist would have something to work on. For a Pagan, as history shows, is a man eminently convertible to Christianity. He is, essentially, the pre-Christian, or sub-Christian, religious man. The post Christian man of our own day differs from his as much as a divorcee differs from a virgin. The Christian and the Pagan have much more in common with one another than either has with the writers of the New Statesman; and those writers would of course agree with me.” - C.S.Lewis, ‘Is Theism Important? A Reply‘, Socratic Digest (1952)
It does raise one of the key issues that we all grapple with on this site. How can we do mission in a post-Christian context? Perhaps our hope lies paradoxically in the rise of the genuinely pagan worldview. At least it can be seen then how we are genuinely different from paganism. I know many of the commenters on this site (Matt Stone in particular) deal with this all the time in leading mission to the many New Religious Movements (the so-called New Agers) I would be really interested in your take on this matter.
Comments
62 Responses to “pagan or post-christian?”
Leave a Reply
lan… For me the only way that ministry and mission can take place in our post-Christian world is as we do the works of Jesus, in the humility of Jesus…
We talk too much and listen too little and do too little. It alsways seems that we must have an opinion regarding the cultural issue “du jour”, that we must share that opinion (loudly from pulpits and Christian radio talk-shows…echoed in the day to day conversations that we have with others) and that anyone who doesn’t agree with our perspective is, well frankly, either naive or part of some grand left wing conspiracy.
In order to minister in this post -Christian world… we need to shut our “pie-holes”… show some humility and teachability, ourselves. We need to listen to those around us (even when we do not agree), love them and live-out that love in real ways.
We are not going to be able to debate people into the Kingdom… we will love them into the Kingdom. When they see Jesus,in us, we will not need to try to win them over to “our side”… they will run past us… to him. “Let your light so shine before others that they will see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.”
wow that’s deep - I’ll have to think on this more.
i wonder how much Gandhi was influenced by the actions of Jesus when he said the now famous quote about (paraphrasing) “if you want society to change, BE the change.”
i wonder if we boiled it all down to the espresso of the matter, if we “are” mission, we don’t have to worry so much about how we must “do” mission. if mission equals being Christlike, learning from and being like Him and thus manifesting the increasingly polished forms of God’s character qualities in the jewel box of His image in us, then there is something within that shines forth in the midst of a pagan place, and draws people in. it’s not the stereotypical christian persona, and the pagan/new age backdrop of this locale gives a great opportunity to embody a Christlike personhood.
that is both my theory and praxis. i know i don’t get out much these days where i’m at, due to various circumstances. but i still do find that reality occurring on occasion, when people ask about what it is that makes me different …
I agree with you Mark, good deeds are so important. I think that as society becomes more and more detached from its bilical past “do unto others…” will be a complete novelty.
Now, though, as I look around I see some church groups doing some good things (salvos, anglicans, catholics et. al.) but I also see a whole bunch of non-christians doing some really good things. Your quote from Matthew 5:16
is totally true, in a more selfish society (even in the one we live in).
In the pagan world good deeds were unknown (especially to those who persecuted you), but we live in an age (for now) where many do good deeds, christians or not, and persecution is virtually unknown (in the west). Thus, I put it to everyone here that we need to take advantage of this time not just by doing good deeds; but, more importantly, preaching the Law of God to bring about the knowledge of sin (Romans 7:7
).
We can’t allow ourselves to forget what the Word says in Romans 8:14-15
“How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, ‘How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!’”
We need to speak it out. Not forgetting our good deeds, but using the freedom we currently enjoy to engage as many people as we can verbally.
It is funny, C.S. Lewis wrote that 55 years ago… when we see that time as vastly more ‘christian’ than now. However, I don’t believe we are fully Pagan, I think we are in a period of decreasing (but none the less prevalent) spiritual apathy.
I spend time helping out at an addiction centre each week. Although it is a “christian” centre, run largely by christians, Jesus is not mentioned in any of the sessions. I have perceived that their is an overt hostility to “religion” that boils over into many sessions.
One of the most important steps for people coming out of addiction is to embrace spirituality, something they voice an initial struggle with because of their hostility to religion. Many people have closed the door to religion, either through personal bad experience or perception of it.
So here’s what I think. People are no so much post-christian, more post-religious. I talk up spirituality which is contrasted with religion. Spirituality is personally experienced, and shared communally with the group. Religion is understood as external dictation, imposition and control, which is not personally experienced. I think saying sorry for the religiousization of christian spirituality is an important step in the missional relationship building.
All in all, 80% of the clients at this centre get free of their addiction. On route they have become spiritual. Initially their spiritual base (higher power) may have been nature, the group or something else. A very high proportion of the clients go on to discover Jesus, as their spirituality matures. They even join our institutional church!
If society is indeed post religious, we need to be clear that our mission is for christian spirituality, and we need perceivably different ways of being church for people to distinguish between christian religion and christian spirituality.
Hi Alan
Re “leading mission to the many New Religious Movements (the so-called New Agers) I would be really interested in your take on this matter”
Better than my take is what can be gleaned from Phil Wyman’s blog Squarenomore. An evengelical Pastor (Pentecostal background) who has a relational ministry with Neo-Pagans. The postings for April 4, (Beyond the Pall), April 21 (Interview with John Smulo), April 23 (letter from a witch’s Friend), the undated “A Question following …” and April 25 (Beyond the Pall Part II) all are topical to your request.
http://squarenomore.blogspot.com/
Jim
I’m not certain this is relevant, but I have a gut sense that it is… The developmental view of faith first decribed by James Fowler, the moral view described by Kohlberg, and later the simplified movement and used by Scott Peck demonstrates that a lapse into paganism can sometimes represent spiritual growth, particularly where faith development has been very individualistic with a black and white worldview. In other words, in those early stages faith is not really “owned” because it hasn’t been reflected on and tested. When that opportunity comes and the world suddenly becomes complex, there is often an abandonment of the earlier structures that now seem so restrictive. This actually becomes an opportunity for real faith and personal commitment, along with the ability to embrace paradox and ambiguity. I always marvel that the sister I am closest to in my family is the pagan one, while the Christian ones and I have never connected as deeply..
very good points len, I agree with you (I think - - lol - I’m not sure who those people are but just speaking from a more non academic standpoint)
I have to agree with Mark. Doing the works of Jesus, and even the greater works that Jesus said we’d do. There has to be a supernatural element to our mission, or else we appear to be just another group doing “good deeds” as Isaac pointed out. (I also appreciated Jon’s contribution about repenting for the religionization of Christianity). When we obey Jesus’ command in Matthew 10:8
and everyday Christians (not big name, big ministry Christians) start seeing deaf ears open, and blind eyes see, and casts thrown off of unbelievers - all of the sudden, these post-Christians are very keen on God. This is beginning to happen (finally) in the West, it’s been going on for quite some time in the 2/3rds world. Without the supernatural, we offer very little. A pittance in comparison to the fullness of what the blood of the cross has actually purchased.
I meant to say “not JUST big name, big ministry Christians”. The miracles God does through what I view as old wineskin are just as valid. God heals because He loves, not to validate the minister/missionary or their forms/structures.
Oohh Len, that’s really insightful stuff. I am going to chew all day on that. Never connected it to the ’stages’ but it really makes sense.
Great job, Len…for Peck, getting through the Skeptic Stage was the only way to get to the Mystic Stage…which, for him, was the true starting place!
I think there is a real hurdle here, in that how Christians understand the word ‘Pagan’ is frequently only remotely connected to how self-identified Pagans understand the word ‘Pagan’. This is partly what Lewis was alluding to and, when you consider that his fellow Inkling Charles Williams had Golden Dawn connections, he was probably in a better position to know about the Pagan mysteries than most Christian writers of his ilk.
In my experience most Christians use the word ‘Pagan’ in a highly euphemistic sense, such that they could be talking about any non-Christian path, up to and including atheism. On more than one occasion I have been on the receiving end of their shock to realize that when I say I’m a friend of Pagans, no, no, I mean it absolutely literally. Polytheists. Animists. In smart casual dress. The shock is compounded when I tell them that it’s the fastest growing religion in Australia and that the growth of Islam that they are so concerned about is paltry in comparison (Islam comes fourth in Australia in terms of growth and the JWs and Mormons at the receiving end of so much apologetic energy rank much, much further down the list – check the census data if you doubt me)
My only problem with Lewis’ comments is that many contemporary Pagans are post-Christian as well, often ex-Catholics and Charismatics. But he is right that the two should not be confused. It may help at this point to actually listen (how novel!) to how Pagans themselves differentiate themselves. Isaac Bonewits here helpfully differentiates between paleo-Paganism, meso-Paganism, neo-Paganism. This is just a simplistic introduction but it gives you an idea.
I am not as optimistic as Lewis but I do find that Pagans are far easier to talk to about spiritual issues than atheists provided you show them respect. But that’s a big proviso – it requires Christians to give up many of their pet urban legends and missionally paralyzing fears of demonic contagion.
Just a few comments in response to other comments here:
1 - It is just as problematic to view contemporary Paganism through the lens of biblical Paganism as it is to view contemporary Judaism through the lens of biblical Judaism.
2 – John Smulo, Phil Wyman and myself are part of a network of Christians trying to grapple with these issues. I moderate the forum. There are chronic funding problems (fortunately I am self-funded through a secular job but some are wife supported and receive zero income personally) and chronic indifference problems from the wider church (few offer prayer support for instance, some seem scared to). Sometimes church response goes beyond indifference. Phil was last year excommunicated from his denomination on the charge of being friends with Pagans, another person was recently stripped of his ministry position for linking his blog to us. An occasional gentle word of encouragement to guys like that goes a long, long way.
3 - I agree with the stages of growth comment of Len. I won’t go into the details here but my journey from nominal Catholism through the New Age into a more holistic approach to Christianity strongly mirrors the Fowler scheme. The only comment I would make is that very few make it back into committed Christianity as I did. The road is littered with spiritual casualties.
4 – Paganism should not be confused with New Age. Aside from the fact that virtually no one self-identifies with the New Age label any more, New Age was only ever a flag of convenience for Pagans, and not for all of them at that. Now they run a mile from the word. The spiritual supermarket we once knew as New Age has fractured into a multitude of strands / brands. It is better to now speak of the strands separately. The spiritualist / channeling strand represented by the TV show ‘Medium’ and the movie ‘What the Bleep’ is another one. Westernized pantheism represented by Westernized Buddhism and Yoga is another one. Again, we must be wary of projecting reified understandings onto others.
5 – It’s not enough to just be Jesus to them/us. It needs to be a contextual Jesus for the message to be received as intended. True, actions speak louder than words, but words are still necessary to clear communication and so therefore is language translation.
There is an art to eliciting the spiritual stories of others. The thing about the new spirituality is that it works at deconstructing the dichotomy between secularity and spirituality and so sometimes can appear secular to those used to strong dichotomies. Many Christians I know miss the tell tales signs, the subtle language, behavioural and symbolic cues that spiritual secularists telegraph to the like minded. Remember, occult can often mean hidden in plane sight.
PS. Here’s a tip for the missional Christology book Alan. I can’t empirically demonstrate it, but I think we need to shift from a decending Christological focus to an ascending Christological focus when discipling former Pagans.
There is a big difference between ancient Homeric paganism and ancient Platonic paganism. NeoPagans are not NeoPlatonists, they are more like Homeric poets, so our Christologies forged against the background of NeoPlatonism should not be assumed to be appropriate. This is why I sometimes rally against uncritical adoption of medieval mysticism by the neo-monastics of the emerging church. The sort of mysticism we need today needs to be distinctly more sensual, earthy and grounded to really communicate.
And an earthy Jesus is probably a more appropriate starting point for such earthy people. In ascending Christology, Jesus is apocalyptically recognized as Lord in the resurrection rather than the incarnation. The significance of his birth is only recognized retrospectively. The resurrection is the mystery they most need to come to an understanding and appreciation of.
Of course, I would say the opposite for UFO religionists but that just shows the limitations of any one-size-fits-all approach.
Another thing, I would suggest neo-celtic Christologies may well be apt amongst neo-celtic and druidic Pagans, but more pan-cultural Christologies are necessary for engaging with eclectic Pagans. You’ll see from my blog art and language which community I most identify with.
Never was one for “Pan” pipe music… continue to roll out neo-Celtic mysticism and it’s trappings Matt…
in auld Scots we might say…
Mey the best ye hae ivver seen be the warst ye’ll ivver see.
Mey the moose ne’er lea’ yer girnal wi the tear-drap in its ee.
Mey ye aye keep hail an hertie till ye’r auld eneuch tae dee.
Mey ye aye juist be sae happie as A wish ye aye tae be.
Or, since Morling is your haunt, as Mike Frost’s crew might chant… (pinched from a Scot’s prayer)
The sea is so wide and my boat is so small. Dear God be good to me…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Don’t get me wrong, Celtic Son, I DO see a place for the neo-Celtic Christianity. And I only invoke Homer as a metaphor in contrast to Plato; in illustrating the distinction between earthy and ascetic Paganism and potential Christian responses. I do not invoke Homeric myth in contrast to the Celtic myth, to advocate one culture over another. Feel free to pass Pan-pipes by. No, to follow this metaphor through, the Christian mysticism I see as most problematic in our context is that of the Desert Fathers more than the Celts, for the Desert Fathers were more ascetic and distaining of nature, even though I would not want to draw too strong a dichotomy between the two.
But if we could put that aside for a moment, the bigger point I am making here is that the need to be aware of the distinction between more ethno-centric brands of Paganism and more culturally-eclectic brands of Paganism, and more ethno-centric styles of Christian incarnation and more culturally-eclectic styles of Christian incarnation.
What I WOULD suggest is that your style of Christianity could be quite appropriate for your Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan or Drudic Pagan, provided that listening is involved. But I am not so confident you approach would be as culturally appropriate for your average Wiccan or Eclectic Pagan who worships Quan Yin as freely as Cerridwen. This suggests a diversity of Christian responses is required, and as such we need to become clearer on whom we have more natural affinities with. And that’s not to say I should avoid reconstructionists or you should avoid eclectics, it’s merely acknowledging that the cultural gap will be broader where we do so.
Man! Matt delivers!! Welcome to this conversation brother. Its great to have your experience and intellect on our side.
Great advice/guidance!
On the topic, I have long felt CS that missional church should look to contemporary new forms fo religion for inspiration and renewal rather than outworn Christendom symbols and ideas. Minus the Celts of course because they are truly a mine of missional wisdom and spirituality. But in interacting with the new religious movements we might well find new forms ourselves. They need some redeeming and hallowing. Hut hey, that’s what redemptiion is all about.
Alan,
As much as what you’ve just said grates on me, it isn’t a good reason to reject, “look[ing] to contemporary new forms [of] religion for inspiration and renewal…”
I have to ask, what biblical precedent do we have of looking to the pagan world to inspire new forms of christianity?
Thanks,
Isaac, the faith is always renewed in its missional engagement with surrounding culture. As the church advances onto new ground and engages new mission contexts, it has to always rediscover its message afresh. Our cause would be much better served by engaging new relgious movements (pagan as they indeed are) that simply propooing up the old redeemed paganism that was Christendom. If you doubt this think of christmas, easter bunnies, madonnas, artifacts, etc,.
But at heart I believe God is profoundly redemptive. He IS a Redeemer by nature. He takes things that have been broken and fixes them/restores them to their original intention. No culture, including its symbols, is evil in an of itself and therefore beyond redemption.
Compare Paul’s sermon on Mars hill (Acts 17
) to Paul’s sermon to the Jews in Antioch (Acts 13
) for one precedent where the gospel was communicated very differently… my understanding is that this discussion is about the face of Jesus we present within different religious subcultures… Matt is attempting to help us think like missiologists.
If you’re not working within these subcultures, it probably just sounds like gobbly-gook… I’m guessing your mission field isn’t among people who’d identify themselves as pagan, Isaac.
Good points Janet…
Isaac… it’s also worth considering that with 20 centuries of Christianity under our belt we have a blind spot; we don’t consider that Christianity was birthed in the crucible of other religions - among the Samaritans and Jews - the Jews have continued on in their religious understanding. Jesus used their Scriptures, confronted their understanding of their Scriptures, challenged and even corrected the Scriptures. (I’m not suggesting that we have the right to recreate the Scriptures to suit our theology or experience, simply that Jesus used a form of religion contemporary to Him, to lay the groundwork for Christianity, so today What Would Jesus Do?)
As Alan pointed out, there is much in orthodox Christian practice handed down from our forefathers, that has been the adaptation, redemption and ultimately absorption of prior pagan festivals. Now what we see is our western contemporary “religion” of material consumerism adapting and absorbing them for the furthering of their religion - more money. So for them Easter is not about a cross, but about how much profit can be made from chocolate eggs; Christmas… well Santa’s gifts leave a Christchild crying in their wake! There is a need for missional Christians in the marketplace, working at strategic ways to subvert consumerist philosophy and restore the values of the Kingdom, but (apart from direct divine intervention which is always a possibility, and which God tends to reserve until He’s given people several chances to do what He says first!) they’ll only succeed at that by dealing with the culture.
I for one am glad that God has placed people like Matt Stone in the context he’s in… He seems to have a handle on a range of complexities within that culture. We are all created with a purpose and Matt might well be bored to tears, or horrified, or laughing his head off in mine - but I’m being shaped for the things God has destined me to do in response to His great love.
Matt and Alan… you are probably right that I have allowed my parochialism to over-emphasise the significance of “Celtic Christianity.” The reality is that I don’t refer to those forms and teachings nearly as much as I would have a couple of years ago. I’m increasingly aware that some of the presentation of the Celtic movement is revisionist, that historically it was not nearly as coherent and holistic as I would have liked it to be. There are strands of Celtic Christianity that descend into synchretism - with elements of Druidic mysticism and various earth religions adopted without any critical distance - so, as with all things, there is a need to chew it over and spit out the rubbish…
As far as the breadth of understanding required to embrace the cultural differences within the mystical/new forms of old religion/ “new age” (I recognise that “new age” is a lame term, just not sure how to frame the mind/body/spirit festival people as a group!) perhaps Matt can lend some guidance there. I do believe in reconstruction - it is a significant value to me, though interestingly I’ve been described by others as “eclectic”… Some of my more fundamentalist friends reckon I’m liberal and liberal friends reckon me fundamentalist etc… so, perhaps I’m just argumentative?
Within the history of Christendom there are small groups and pockets of God’s more intentionally missional people - a streak of Gold through the rock - some of the early Celtic Christians, the Moravians etc… The framework for Alan’s book - albeit in terms of polemic - is nonetheless the Christendom epoch and these days I see typical local churches (with their Christendom heritage) doing a range of things much more missionally… than in the past. I guess I’m saying that even the local church can be redeemed!
Beannachd Dia dhuit
A Celtic Son
You are right Janet, my mission field doesn’t include many self described ‘pagans’. It is mainly the university students in my course; Musos actually.
The gospel was certainly communicated differently in those settings, and I think we both know why. Paul started at creation for the Greeks - i.e. the beginning - so that the gospel could make sense. For the Jews, however, this was unneccessary - they breathed the Law - all that was neccessary was to say, “Jesus takes away your burden!! He has saved you from the weight of the Law.”
So, for the Greeks it was necessary to establish YHWH as creator God, so that his laws had impact so what Jesus did made sense. Not so for the Jews.
This is a great example of including more detail in your message so that it makes sense to the unregenerated mind, but not a good example of looking to Pagan culture for inspiration.
Moreover, “christmas, easter bunnies, madonnas, artifacts, etc,.” Aren’t great examples either. They are examples of the way Pagan rituals that have crept into christianity, not Christianity looking to pagan culture for inspiration (for a new ways of doing things and new ’symbols’).
Yes, we should adapt our message so that it makes sense. But our biblical example is an oral adaptation. Not of including symbols and practices.
Language is verbal symbolism Isaac. We assign meaning to sounds. Its all part of culture bro. If you are worried about the term ‘inspiration’ then substitute it with ‘cultural reference’ or something like that.
“I have to ask, what biblical precedent do we have of looking to the pagan world to inspire new forms of Christianity?”
I would suggest that entire “gentile” circumcision controversy that culminated in the Jerusalem council and that either explicitly or implicitly stands behind much of what is written about Paul in Acts, and by Paul elsewhere in the NT, provides an enormous biblical precedent for exploring what it means to be Christian in a pagan context. Acts 17
, seminal as it is, is just the tip of the iceberg.
And beyond the bible itself, there is the entire history of contextual evangelical missions to Asia and Africa.
And let us not forget how powerfully interaction with Platonic Paganism (there’s that Plato guy coming up again) shaped the theology of Augustine, arguably on of the most influential theologians in the history of Christianity.
Or have we forgotten?
The truth is I am not being particularly innovative in terms of methodology at all. There is little I am doing methodology-wise that I haven’t pinched from evangelical missionaries elsewhere. I am only unusual in terms of the context I am applying this methodology. It would hardly raise an eyebrow amongst missionaries working amongst non-Western animists and polytheists. In fact I consider those exploring the “messianic Muslim” model amongst Muslims to be far more radical than me. They are exploring a C5 approach whereas I am only going for a C4 approach.
(see http://www.xenos.org/ministries/crossroads/OnlineJournal/issue1/contextu.htm for more on C5)
Matt
I suggest Matt that your reference isn’t a good one, for the following reasons.
Firstly, the bible writers were inspired: Thus able to revise whatever they liked, quote the bible however they liked, all because they were under the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Today no-one can claim this is the case (at least not 100%).
Secondly, Circumcision is to the Jews what the Lord’s Supper is to believers: a sign of the covenant. When Jesus died and was resurrected the old covenant was done away with and the new was established forever. The apostles were simply recognising that fact in Acts 15
. What were they to keep from the Law? The admonition, “…to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood.”
Later, I believe, Paul rescinded at least the first in that list except where it may cause a brother to stumble.
Regardless, this isn’t looking to Pagans to teach us how to be Christians. (hyperbole)
Maybe the word ‘inspiration’ has led me down the garden path.
“Language is verbal symbolism, Isaac.”
I suppose it doesn’t help being a musician and not a philosophy major, but this is not solid reasoning. It simply doesn’t follow to imply that simply because Paul was adapting some of his verbal symbolism (by your definition) that it is therefore biblical to adapt all sorts of symbolism.
CS, “…Christianity was birthed in the crucible of other religions - among the Samaritans and Jews… Jesus used their Scriptures, confronted their understanding of their Scriptures, challenged and even corrected the Scriptures. (I’m not suggesting that we have the right to recreate the Scriptures to suit our theology or experience, simply that Jesus used a form of religion contemporary to Him, to lay the groundwork for Christianity, so today What Would Jesus Do?)”
I am really having trouble following this one, CS. And I don’t think it is because I’m a guitarist.
Celtic Son
1/ I never laugh at people with who are open to learning; my funny bone is attuned in an altogether more darker and pythonesque direction.
2/Don’t sweat trying to frame the Mind Body Spirit Festival crowd as a group. I don’t think its particularly helpful to do so any more. Little holds the festival crowd together apart from the economic opportunity. The serious guys are generally elsewhere and not working together like that. Linking western mystics, psychics and witches together is more and more like linking Jews, Christians and Muslims together - related yeah, but different, and generally not working together in any serious way.
You said: “I do believe in reconstruction - it is a significant value to me, though interestingly I’ve been described by others as “eclectic”… Some of my more fundamentalist friends reckon I’m liberal and liberal friends reckon me fundamentalist etc… so, perhaps I’m just argumentative?”
A word of clarification on my part. You are quite correct to note that reconstructionist approaches are themselves eclectic. It is the degree of eclecticism that causes me and many Pagans to differentiate between the two. Reconstructionists may borrow from multiple cultures, but it’s usually only to fill in the gaps that they find are left over after they’ve mined their primary culture of interest for all its worth. Capital “E” eclectics are far more indiscriminate, focussed on multiple cultures simultaneously. With myself, I am as interested in Japanese, Indian and Greek culture as much as I am in Celtic culture and find the culture gap is thinnest with Pagans of similar leanings. I borrow from Indian Christianity and Asian Christianity as freely as Celtic Christianity, and you’ll note I experiment with Japanese haiku poetry as frequently as Celtic prayers. There are pros and cons with both approaches. I am sure you figure out some of them for yourself if you think about it. I am not claiming superiority for either approach, just pointing out which would work better where.
In suggesting you, as a neo-Celtic, would experience a much thinner culture gap with neo-Celtic and Druidic Pagans than even myself, I direct your attention to the fact that while there were 23K Pagans in Australia in 2001 according to the census (compare to 17K Sikhs, 11K Bahai, 19K Bretheren), and that Druids are counted amongst them, I know of not a single person in Australia who is focussed on mission towards them. I don’t have stats on the precise numbers but I do have stats indicating its the group where males are most numerically dominant … have you ever considered neo-Celtic Aussies as a people group? HeHe
“You are right Janet, my mission field doesn’t include many self described ‘pagans’. It is mainly the university students in my course; Musos actually.”
In the 2001 Australian census, 20% of those identifying with Paganism had attended uni in comparison with 13% of the rest of the population. 74% of Pagans were under 40 in comparison with 45% of the rest of the population. Many of them are also musos from my experience. You sure there’s no Pagans amongst your students? They are not like Muslims wearing hijabs, you are unlikely to pick them out easily. Even where they advertise, its rarely as blunt as wearing a large pentegram or ‘magic happens’ bumber sticker, only the most naive and most provocative do that. And they are hardly going to offer the information readily to a Christian when Christians are their greatest persecutors. I am not sure if you are Australian or American Isaac but the profile of a Pagan as a young creative type is similar for both countries. They may not be your focus but it would be doubtful in the extreme that there are none in your uni if you are an Aussie. Note that occult means ‘knowledge of the hidden’ and its not called that for nothing. It may just be below your radar.
I guessing that Matt, like me, is impatiently waiting for the 2006 census stats to appear. 46 more days…
Yes, impatient indeed. And unfortunately some of the more detailed data I drew on above took about two years AFTER the census to come out. So even when the latest stuff comes out we’ll probably only get the broad brushstrokes picture. Even that should be interesting though. As problematic as the measurement methods are at times, it still provides a reality check of sorts. I’d be interested to know what others would hope to find from the data.
Isaac said: ‘Maybe the word ‘inspiration’ has led me down the garden path.’
I think it has possibly. I personally draw a fairly firm distinction between syncretism and contextualisation but your comments suggest to me that you could be conflating the two.
Let me suggest another way to look at this. The thrust of my approach is exploring ways to communicate the CHALLENGE of the gospel from WITHIN the culture, via culturally familiar forms of communication.
I am not advocating appeasement. I am still advocating cultural transformation and the personal challenge that involves. I just want the challenge for them to be in the right place, that is, in terms of the core of the message instead of difficulties with my communication style.
The crucial thing is here, 80% of communication is nonverbal with most people, and with a people as symbolically aware as this community the recognition of this is of absolute importance. My wife, who is more familiar with this stuff than most Christians, still cannot understand everything that transpires between me and Pagan friends when they are over for dinner, even though the conversation is in English. She still misses some of the veiled references, the symbolic associations, the different nuances in meaning due to worldview and value differences.
But the communication difficulties go the opposite way too, my Pagan friends and acquaintances are just as unlikely to understand a ‘conventional’ presentation of the gospel in the way intended by the speaker. A ‘conventional’ presentation may make the speaker feel good about himself, but should it if communication has not happened?
The critical question I have for you is, how culturally neutral are our conventional theologies and gospel presentations?
That’s a profound challenge Matt.
If I may divert momentarily from the main thrust of this… I’d like to pick up on Al’s comment:
‘ I have long felt that “Sunday School Christianity” is a menace to the Gospel ‘
I am actually wondering whether anyone out there is aware of research into “best practice” for fostering the spirituality and Christian faith development of children. I’ve been asked (to my surprise!) to consider applying for a children’s ministry position… so part of what my head is doing is saying… well… what do we know (credibly) about fostering faith in the young?
Digression I know… but all these wonderful minds out there!!!!
Just a comment on
“And let us not forget how powerfully interaction with Platonic Paganism (there’s that Plato guy coming up again) shaped the theology of Augustine, arguably on of the most influential theologians in the history of Christianity.”
I am not sure that was a good thing, maybe Plato and Aristote would have better been left ouside. I think Alan knows more on this, but I believe that they are some of the reason why we today have Christendom. But, that would rather be syncretism than contextualisation.
Something I’ve been thinking of lately: Why did God first choose an ethnic people (the hebrews)? Maybe for many reasons, but I am thinking maybe there is no thing as culturally neutral. God knew that and he used the jews to create a cultural framework for _us_ to understand life and theology.
Would be nice to have some educated minds (and not so educated) opinion on this.
(Finally holidays so now I have some time to read this blog
)
What alternative would you expect Espen?
Janet, that is a wonderful digression and not an entirely unrelated issue as it turns out.
Consider the challenges I must face with my own kids in terms of their spiritual education: their copy of the ‘Wizard of Oz’ was given to them by a real live witch! As I follow a relational model, our whole household comes into contact with followers of alternative religions. They are more exposed to pluralism at ages 2 and 4 than some ministers. How much does your typical Sunday school model prepare kids for that?
And as anyone else who chooses to bring non Christians deep into the life of their families will face the same challenges, and as our entire society is heading deeper and deeper into pluralism, I think there are some crucial issues here: the bubble your kids in Christian subculture approach is unlikely to prepare them to be missional teenagers or adults.
My own approach is to emphasize Christian storytelling, to follow the ancient injunctions and invite my kids into the sacred stories that define us as a people whenever I can and not rely on outsourcing that responsibility to others. I share how those stories relate to our own experience, how the story of Noah relates to the way we treat animals for instance. When they are old enough to understand Acts 17
I am sure that will be a crucial story I will be drawing on to explain our own situation. The crucial thing I have found is the importance of heroes. Who are our spiritual heroes? How can their lives and experiences shape ours? The amazing thing is I have found this approach has proved fruitful with Pagan adults too! I have gained new respect for the story of Noah. It’s not just fluffy feel-good stuff, not when you consider how it speaks back into the environmental crisis, the lives of people into natured-centered religions. My kids helped me realize that.
Matt,
Sounds like your house is very interesting and lively.
I appreciate the Christian kid bubble (I know a PK really well - and man has he been sheltered!) and it is wise to expose our children to opposing ideas so they wont be thrown off later on when they reach the ‘real world’.
I wonder, though, how this model correlates to 2 Cor. 6
? You know, the admonition to be separate, “What fellowship does darkness have with light? …” etc. I appreciate your desire to not have sheltered, and naive children but don’t we get kids to sort out the genuine article from the counterfeits by thoroughly acquainting them with the genuine?
I also have to question your use of scripture where you say, “I share how… he story of Noah relates to the way we treat animals for instance.”
With respect - the story of Noah has precious little to do with the treatment of animals. There is little mention of how they made it to the ship, how they survived on board, how they were taken care of generally - all omitted from the narrative. Omitted because the story is about sin, judgment and salvation (a shadow or type of Christ) why not teach your children this instead? Why not teach them what the author was trying to say rather than interpreting it how you wish?
“It’s not just fluffy feel-good stuff, not when you consider how it speaks back into the environmental crisis, the lives of people into natured-centered religions.”
dude, I get the feeling from your posts that you really have a tender heart and love people.
I’m not sure how anyone could think the story of Noah and the Ark are fluffy!! The WHOLE EARTH drowned. It was a cataclysmic destruction of all life.
It doesn’t speak back into the environmental crisis, either. The upheaval during the flood certainly had environmental impacts (a global ice-age for instance - take or leave my Young Earth interpretation here). However it was the Fall of Man that had the greatest environmental impact.
The earth was perfect, right? God’s sustaining power kept it from falling apart - as it now is. That’s the tragedy, right there (in environmental terms) - “the whole creation groans…” and waits for our Lord’s return. It’s falling apart guys!
okay, I’m done.
Isaac,
I don’t think this is _the_ reason why God chose an ethnic people. In His plan everything is perfect and He probably has a billion reasons for what He does, so I don’t think there was any alternative.
But the difference after Jesus is that worship of God is no longer ethnically or geographically tied, Jesus told us to “make disciples of all nations”. Also, most if not all of the Bible is written in a jewish context. Maybe there is a reason for that.
This whole line of thinking is spinning me out, Espen.
It’s almost like you are saying that the Jews could exist separate from God. You ask why he chose an ethnic people, but isn’t it precisely God’s election that made them ethnic in the first place?
We can’t ask, “Why the Jews?” either. Since anyone (whether it was Abram or Jo Blog) would have ended up a “Jew” as this was God’s plan for man to relate to Him until Christ.
“Also, most if not all of the Bible is written in a jewish context. Maybe there is a reason for that.”
Again, it couldn’t have been any other way? “Salvation is of the Jews.” It couldn’t have come out of a Taoist background and still be what it is…
Isaac, could I put the kids and Noah issues on hold for a moment? I sorta raised that for Janet’s sake but can see its unnecessarily complicating matters between ourselves. You seem to have read a few things into what I have said, and for me this is a prefect illustration about what I said about miscommunication problems. If you look again you’ll see I never said my kids not thoroughly acquainted with ‘the genuine’ as you put it. The fact of the matter is they ARE in a regular church kids program and DO get regular exposure to regular church. Re-read what I said in light of that. If it’s any consolation I see the risk of misunderstanding as just as great from my end, I still don’t even know what context you operate out of.
So if we can temporarily put that on hold, I would like to re-emphasize that the thrust of my approach is “exploring ways to communicate the CHALLENGE of the gospel from WITHIN the culture,” and for us to progress I really need to know where you stand on that and on the cultural neutrality of conventional theology. Do you affirm the legitimacy of a “challenge from within” approach, even if you may have questions about the basic way I am applying it, or do you see that approach as fundamentally flawed to the core? Would you say that only a “challenge from without” can be a legitimate challenge? Everything else we might discuss hinges on that.
I understand that I may have been a little heavy handed with your post. I didn’t think that you haven’t instructed your children in the ways of God.
I guess to answer your question faithfully I would need to know what “challenge from within” looks like…
Challenge from within often takes the form of ‘redemptive analogy’. You will find some examples of redemptive analogies here:
http://ied.gospelcom.net/dayframeforlinks.php?id=http://guide.gospelcom.net/resources/redemptive.php&referer=/eternityintheirhearts.php&des=Using%20redemptive%20analogy
Man, Matt is a genius. I hope he gets a lot of hits on his own really great website because of this blog.
Thanks Matt… that makes a lot of sense to me.
I did have a bit of a google about the research into children’s spirituality after I posted my cry for help… for those interested in this there’s a link below… I’ll try to wade through some of the more interesting stuff.
I think there’s a building interest in this issue… we do know children are at the most receptive / developmentally sensitive life stage, despite the fact we have traditionally focused mission resources on adults or youth. I’m guessing too as more of the “emergent” crowd have children there’ll be growing interest in fostering the spirituality of children within the emerging church.
Anyway… here’s a resource link.
http://childspirituality.org/don/books.htm
I guess this challenge from within thing is very important when one is outside the culture one intends to introduce the Good News to. (As in your case with Pagans)
However, I find the fact that most people speak English and have a very similar (post-Christian I suppose) value set means that I can use a more propositional form of witnessing.
I’m unsure how that fits into your categories but I suspect it would be ‘challenge from without’ (since I use the Law of God to bring about a knowledge of sin).
Isaac
If I could address your last comment first: Using the Law of God to bring about knowledge of sin is only “challenge from without” in contexts where the Law is not known or respected as authoritative. In contexts where it is known and is respected as authoritative, it would actually be “challenge from within” believe it or not.
To use it amongst Jews and Mormons and backslidden Christians in the manner you describe is thoroughly in line with “challenge from within”, as it works with people where they are already at, challenging them within culturally familiar frameworks. On the contrary, in such contexts it would be “challenge from without” not to draw on scriptural authority! The crucial consideration here is culture gap – to what degree is the Law part of the culture?
It is important to recognize that the West is not culturally homogenous. The degree to which the Law is recognized as authoritative varies considerably between the American Midwest and global Sydney. It varies considerably again between global Sydney and France. And even within those three locales there are varying degrees of cultural diversity. It’s all about starting where people are at and knowing where you are at in respect to them.
Note also, this is not to say that I never get to discussing the Law or issues of biblical authority with eclectic Pagans and DIY spirituality types, it just means that for them it is Christianity 201 rather than Christianity 101.
Matt
Isaac,
I’d suggest that there is more than just a difference of perspective between your concepts and those of Matt Stone and others, more a difference of paradigm… If we were looking at a red white and blue flag and you wore glasses that exclude perception of the colour blue and I wore glasses that exclude the colour red, we’d be looking at the same thing and agreeing that there is white there, but be sincere in our differences on the presence of blue and/or red. To see the whole truth we need to remove the filtered lenses that we have acquired… which is much easier said than done.
One of the premises of “The forgotten ways” is that it speaks to the church in present cultural transition… between a prior culture and a culture that is in formation. Acknowledging that I have a viewpoint that is coloured, I see in your post a number of foundations based on one cultural basis, where Matt is wrestling with the culture in formation. The Christendom culture, as it has been perceived in recent history, through modernist lenses, is statistically in decline. We can view that a number of ways, some have claimed that a small remnant are remaining faithful to truth, while the majority move into apostasy; others like Alan are suggesting that the church has lost the potency of it’s authentic root, it’s forms have become co-dependent with culture and we need a return to root values.
In the main, followers of Jesus Christ are convinced that He is the truth, our differences are in the ways we approach the part that God has assigned to us, in connecting people with/in Christ. If we are agreed that Jesus is the truth and that the churchin the West is in decline, then Jesus is not the problem… it’s much more likely that our approach to the truth is; our understanding of the problem is instrumental in defining which direction we take to look for answers. In recent history, a post-renaissance admiration for education has informed our culture and is embraced in the western church… yet the Bible would suggest to me that God’s interest is in revelation impacting relationships, rather than simply in education. Our reverence for education has led the church to decide that, for educated people to make sense of the “good news,” we need to present people with the bad news first. We end up with a “gospel presentation” like the “four spiritual laws” or “the Roman road” - which God has undoubtedly used, but which are increasingly unhelpful and unpopular in a society that has more emphasis on emotion, creativity, freedom of expression. Are we tied to an expression of the message, that is no longer effective in actually communicating the message? The evangelical apologetic spoke to a particular period in history, which has now passed. To consider that we can keep doing the same thing, but expect the results to change is more than insanity… it has eternal consequence.
You noted that you seek to introduce “Good News” and that you “use the Law of God to bring about a knowledge of sin,” I’d ask in what way you consider that knowledge of sin is actually good news? In fact the knowledge of evil is the very factor that the Bile informs us precipitated the fallen human condition in the first place. What are the Biblical precedents for the presentation of the gospel with the bad news first? Does Jesus point out Zaccheus’ sin first… or does He just go to his place for dinner. In Acts 2
does Peter focus on people’s sin or on Jesus, and allow the revelation of “Good News” to do its work and cause response. Is his major point to Cornelius about his sinfulness? In Acts 13
, Acts 17
etc is Paul’s gospel preceded by a message of people’s sin or is his “gospel” focussed on the person of Jesus?
What Alan, Matt and others are seeking to do is not just a “compromise” to our culture, but to regain ground that the church lost in it’s relationship with the prior culture. The issue is not with the “church” per se but that in it’s Christendom mode the church is not in fact the church as the Bible intends. The challenge is to bring the focus back to the person of Jesus, not the state of humanity. I’d also suggest that your statement considering “most people speak English and have a very similar (post-Christian I suppose) value set,” is a much less accurate description of the culture today than it would have been a couple of generations back. Even a little scratching beneath the surface is likely to identify very real differences in values, which may tend to invalidate the conclusion that a single propositional approach is valid.
When I began my journey in Christ, almost 18 years ago, I was a firm proponent of the “four spiritual laws” and the evangelical apologetic approach to “mission.” My personal experience is that it was programmatic and tended towards a notion of salvation by works. Although I had been told salvation was all of grace, I was also told that I needed to prove that by my works, so although I couldn’t earn salvation by works the underlying fear was that I could lose it if I didn’t have any works. When I discovered that “evangel” meant “good news” it began to concern me that what we were sharing was not - at least initially - good news, and that I struggled to find precedent for that approach in the New Testament. While I saw lots of people make “decisions” for Christ in that season of life, very few actually continued on with changed lives, minds or experiences.
What I have concluded is that the core issue centres around Jesus’ question “who do people say I am?” It wasn’t a question raised in the temple or synagogue, but in circumstances of close relationship with His mates. I aim to keep my life centred on Christ, model life in Christ (despite my own inadequacies) and bring conversations to the subject of the person of Christ, as and when I sense that the relationship I have built can support the truth and the time is right to go there…
In the past ten years my wife and I have personally seen at least fifteen people journey into relationship with Christ - including coming out of drug culture and sexual dysfuntion (six of them have lived with us for periods of time) - including three of my siblings and a cousin. All except one have continued to develop relationship and grow in Christ. There have been others who have made a commitment of sorts, but who have never moved forwards, so I continue to pray for them, but not include them in my reckoning of those who I have seen genuinely changed - though I don’t judge people as excluded… only God truly knows.
Within the mission environment we operate in church life, we have also had the opportunity in the last seven years to partner with around 40 people, from our local community who have come to faith in Christ for the first time, and are continuing on that journey. In the prior paradigm people have to qualify for membership, I’m not clear that there is Biblical support for that, so we encourage people to belong on the basis of involvement in service activities, prior to making any overt statement about belief. Many of the new believers have connected with the church through our involvement in activities in our broader community, and subsequently encounter Christ as a consequence of feeling like they have found a community where they have a sense of belonging… even before they believed.
Again I’m aware that I’m wearing my glasses… but they are different glasses from I was wearing a decade ago… I’ve needed to make change to see the Word of God at work in different ways as the world has changed. Is it time for a new prescription?
Slainte
A Celtic Son
(Matt Stone: a genius by Alan’s standards whose humour is “pythonesque?” Would have figured you for a Douglas Adams or Red Dwarf sense of humour?” Luvyerwurk!)
Celtic Son
I would soften this somewhat as personally I do not see the post-modernization and secularization of the West as homogenous phenomenon.
It is far more advanced in Australia than America, and far more advanced in global cities than in rural centers, and far more advanced amongst the rich than the poor, so I am not as critical of Christendom approaches lingering on in places where the process is less advanced. To be honest I doubt it will ever be as advanced in America, as Christianity is far more rooted in their culture to begin with and Christian dominance in America is set to be propped up by immigration from the south for some time to come. Very different dynamics to us! Nor do I see secularization as an irreversible process as I agree with Philip Jenkins that we are seeing a “Next Christendom” emerge in the global South. I do not feel a compelling impulse to re-educate South Americans and Amish and others where it still works for them. I don’t want to universalize our context either.
But that being said, I do “wrestle” with disturbing tendency of many within western evangelicalism to hold onto a revivalist paradigm when anything but is happening around them. Revival only works while the patient is still living. I am oft reminded of the scene from “Erik the Viking” where the island is sinking and the king keeps denying it right up until the point where he drowns.
My current interest in Pagans, and prior interest in the New Age Movement, is that they function somewhat as canaries down the coal mine of Western culture. They are the early adopters jumping into this post-modernity before everyone else. That means if you want to see what’s ahead, it can be helpful to watch that space. But I want to do more than see what’s ahead, I want to adapt ahead.
On the topic of sin, I do encourage post-moderns to consider the consequences of their actions, and to borrow a phrase from a Mormon (Stephen Covey), seeing you are responsible can free you to see you are response-able. But once again, the concept needs to be conveyed within language that makes sense for them. We need to recognize the balkanization of the English language through sub-cultural jargon and recognize that “sin” is Christian jargon for a concept that can be more meaningfully spoken of in many other ways to those outside the sub-culture.
There is not one iota of the gospel I would not teach – but neither is their one iota that does not need translation.
Matt
PS. Douglas Adams or Red Dwarf are in my repertoire, they are just not as foundational
PPS. I don’t consider myself a genius, just got this splinter in my mind.
CS and Matt. What can I say? Profound comments. Thanks for the amazing insights.
Such a large post, CS, would require an even longer response in an attempt to cover everything that
you’ve said.
Firstly I would like to praise God that there are 14 people no longer on the wide road to Hell, but on the path of glory. That’s really great and I am so pleased for you that your ministry has borne fruit.
I agree that we are wearing different glasses, informed by our cultural basis. Despite this, however, it is incumbent upon the believer to question one’s own foundation and test it against the “God-breathed” scriptures. This together with Godly counsel, and most importantly the Holy Spirit will “lead us into all truth” I pray.
You said, “One of the premises of “The forgotten ways” is that it speaks to the church in present cultural transition… [and] The Christendom culture, as it has been perceived in recent history… is statistically in decline.”
This very premise was precisely the focus of my very first post on TFW. I questioned the validity of that very claim. Is it really that the “Church has lost the potency of its authentic root…” and, thus, is in decline. Or, as I reasoned in the mentioned post, is it really more to do with two frightening statistics. Namely that (in Australia) only one out of three Christians attending university will hold on to their faith for the term of their schooling (and in the US; 90% of kids lose their faith upon reaching college) – thus parents are not adequately preparing their children.
The other statistic being, that only 2% of Christians ever witness/evangelise their friends, co-workers etc.
A charge, I believe, that wasn’t adequately answered.
You also said, “If we are agreed that Jesus is the truth and that the church in the West is in decline, then Jesus is not the problem… it’s much more likely that our approach to the truth is…”
This statement perfectly outlines the differences between us. However I think it can be solved without me talking about objective truth. I think there is a dangerous misconception in the church that many people will be saved. Sure, God is willing that none would perish but all would have eternal life; Scripture is clear that not all will believe. In fact Jesus said that the gate was narrow and few would find it. What you are proposing is another outworking of Arminianism – that it is up to people to choose God, where again the scripture is clear that God chooses the redeemed. Even the scripture you quoted in Acts it says, “… and all who were appointed for eternal life believed.” (Acts 13:48
)
That said, we now come to the charge that the bible gives us no precedent for giving sinners the “bad news” before the good. Now I won’t even contend that bad news is good news as you asked in your post, since the Good News is good news indeed.
Your example was, “Does Jesus point out Zaccheus’ sin first… or does He just go to his place for dinner?” This is s great example of something that may be a pitfall for Emerging types – looking at an example of what Jesus did and saying that that applies across the board without looking through scripture, in its totality.
Let’s remember who Jesus was sent to: the lost house of Israel. He was sent to those who already knew the full weight of the Law. Zacchaeus (NIV) was clearly repentant. He was willing to humble himself by climbing a tree so that he could see the Master. He was willing to give restitution in full to any he may have wronged. Still, he knew the Law.
Where the ‘Gentiles’ (most of everyone today) do not.
Let’s not forget the woman at the well, whom Jesus skilfully and gently reveals sinfulness to, by asking her to get her husband.
What I suspect has happened though is that we may be working with different definitions of “Good News”. You say that you stopped in your propositional approach because what you were saying didn’t sound like “good” news.
If I walk up to someone and say, “I have great news for you.” And they say, “Yeah, what is it?” “A man that you don’t know has just paid a three thousand dollar speeding fine on your behalf.” Most likely the other person would be slightly confused. He doesn’t HAVE a speeding fine that he’s aware of. I’ve just accused him of being a criminal when he doesn’t think he is, and he’d be justified by being a little angry with me.
But If I walk up to someone and say, “Yesterday, while driving your car, you drove at 80 km/h through a school zone. This wasn’t an ordinary school zone, however; it was a school for blind children and there were 10 clear warning signs approaching the school zone but you ignored them all. The limit was 30 km/h but you tore through at 80 km/h, what you did was very dangerous and against the law. The judge was about to put a warrant out for your immediate detention but someone you don’t even know came and paid the fine on your behalf. In fact he was the judge’s son. You are now free to go because of the selflessness of the kind Judge and his son.”
Doesn’t the latter make sense of the Good News more than the first? It even makes it sound like “good” news!
The first is fine for the Jew. He knows about the speeding ticket, he can feel the hot breath of the Law after him (if he’s honest). The gentile is totally oblivious and it is our job to convince them, by any means possible, that they are sinners worthy of God’s righteous judgment.
That’s all for now…
Isaac… I’m starting to doubt you’ve read The Forgotten Ways, and this blog was set up (in my understanding) to workshop the ideas in the book. Have you read it yet?
To me a key point of the thesis is that when the gospel culturally “incarnates” it is able to spread far more easily within that culture. So a cultural form of Christianity that is compatible with (say) Indian culture starts to spread like wildfire… it is actually able to grow exponentially, because there isn’t a long process of extracting someone from their culture and teaching them theology and discipleship through “Western” lenses. Wolfgang Simpson notes this is in fact happening in the centre of India in a vibrant “indigenised” house church movement… while Western style church hasn’t penetrated Indian culture much despite a couple of centuries of effort… with a couple of exceptions.
In summary… contextualisation allows the gospel to spread far more easily and effectively… and I cannot imagine anyone with a heart for evangelism would oppose this effort, provided it does not become out and out heretical!
Isaac, aren’t the two statistics you quote ample evidence that the “Church has lost the potency of its authentic root…”?
Children falling away in uni is a prime example of the pitfalls of bubble-style children’s ministry and youth ministry if you ask me. The kids are not adequately prepared to face the realities of plurality by the church; they are bubbled from society and even bubbled from other age demographics within the body of Christ. To my mind a more robust children and youth ministry should actually give “some” attention to skilling the parents, particularly those who have not been raised in Christian families. The cruel truth is that Christian kids are asked to abandon their youth ministry support networks and shift to young adults ministries at a very vunerable time in their faith journey. Is it not valid to question these “contemporary” models. Are they really so much more biblical that alternatives should not be explored? To my mind what we are seeing is the church (including the parents that make it up) failing in the basic skill of intergenerational discipleship. If that is not an example of losing potency I don’t know what else is.
As for Christians not witnessing to their co-workers, why do we always have to blame it on the laity? Could we entertain the possibility that it also evidences a lack of real leadership?
Matt,
I appreciate your insights, agree that our culture is in transition and there are a variety of transitional specimens, rather than a homogenous phenomenon. At one stage on this blog, Janet suggested that her church was a hybrid – I find that a useful concept, to help define a church that has a Sunday gathering, that is to some extent modelled on an attractional service, yet also has a variety of missional aspects that work together to create a broader definition of what the church is. The divergent roots of the culture in America, Australia and other nations does without doubt have impact on the present day and the consequence will be differing emphases.
PS “What you know you can’t explain, but you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there…”
Yes, well, I’m sticking pins into vodou dolls of Alan and Mike for popularizing that “attractional” label. Pastor asks, “What’s wrong with people finding church attractive?” Grrrr.
[Composes self]
Yes, well, I am not sure how much energy we should spend on ‘reforming’ services as such anyway. It just reinforces their perceived importance.
Yup, Matt…the problem is that people are supposed to find “church” attractive in the same way that Jesus was attractive…which wasn’t in any of the ways that the “religious institution” of his day thought was attractive
Oops…that holy rebel slipped out again…talking about radical, sacrificial love of God and neighbor and all that…
…the Patrix has us…
Matt said, “Isaac, aren’t the two statistics you quote ample evidence that the ‘Church has lost the potency of its authentic root…’?”
Yes. I suppose it is. It was a poor choice as a quote, this is what I meant to convey; Part of Alan’s premise was that culture can no longer engage with the church because the church is so far removed culturally and thus is impotent as a witness - thus, no people getting saved (and being saved).
You’re right Janet, I haven’t read the book. I attended a conference/seminar, I visited this site because of the invitation at that seminar. I am acquainted with the ideas well enough to ask questions and comment, I think.
I’ve never argued against contextualisation. It saddens me that Christianity has come to be viewed as a primarily western religion when its roots are firmly in the east. As good as being ‘culturally relevant’ is, it can NEVER contradict the scriptures; and when there is no biblical precedent for any practice, then we should tread carefully.
Matt said, “Children falling away in uni is a prime example of the pitfalls of bubble-style children’s ministry and youth ministry if you ask me.” I’m sure this is part of the problem but you can’t tell me that parents are adequately training their children in the knowledge of God (nor their children actually repenting and putting their trust in Jesus for themselves).
“As for Christians not witnessing to their co-workers, why do we always have to blame it on the laity? Could we entertain the possibility that it also evidences a lack of real leadership?”
Obviously this isn’t an either/or scenario but a both/and. Laity and Clergy alike have both missed the mark.
Can I encourage everyone here who would see themselves as missional (in the methodological sense, since we should all be missional theologically) to not make a dichotomy between missional and attractional - as though there were no other types. I think a third is little known but nonetheless important: let’s call it ‘congregational’ (where the service is aimed at believers and people come to church out of obedience after being saved).
Another thing that probably should be avoided is this: “The problem is that people are supposed to find ‘church’ attractive in the same way that Jesus was attractive…which wasn’t in any of the ways that the ‘religious institution’ of his day thought was attractive.”
What you are doing here Peggy (and patting yourself on the back for it, too) is equating the Pharisees with the greater portion of the church of Jesus Christ. The Pharisees were not saved. You can see what conclusion that would lead to.
Please don’t paint all Christians who meet in a hall on Sundays, have paid clergy to teach them and have a sound system so they all can hear as Christians of the Jewish Pharisee variety. Invariably there are legalistic ‘Christians’ (those who believe their works commend them to God) but for the most part a lot of us (yes, me too) are trying to live out our faith.
Isaac,
Oh, I happily admit “contemporary” churches are saving people, and where they are saving people I have no problem with that. As I’ve tried to articulate I do not see the post-modernization / post-christianization / secularization of Western society as a homogenous phenomenon. I believe there is a place for the “contemporary” approach, even now, and I may even differ with others here in terms with the strength at which I affirm that.
What I see as the problem though, is that 90% of the Australian church is focussed on 30% of the Australian population. The proportion of Australians that can reasonably be expected to identify with the “contemporary” approach to Christianity is small and dwindling, and though not as extreme in the US, it is happening there too. What I am arguing for is not a complete abandonment of the “contemporary” approach, but a reassessment of its supposedly universal applicability, and a shift to a more hetrogenous approach to witnessing to western culture. I believe it does have a place in the emerging culture, but that place requires critical reassessment.
I agree that scriptural authenticity takes precidence over cultural relevancy, which is why I speak of CHALLENGE within rather than just being within. I also agree that when there is no biblical precedent for any practice, then we should tread carefully which is why I speak of CRITICAL contextualization. No arguement from me at all there.
But this only re-emphasizes my point. If I saw “contemporary” churches treading carefully amongst the ignored 70%, exploring new ways to share Christ with them, I would celebrate, but that is precisely the problem, I don’t. I don’t see them treading carefully in these areas at all! All I ever see is one of two approaches, careless cultural imperialism or careless cultural retreat. Both of which I see as equally problematic as cultural syncretism. What I see as the problem is that “contemporary” churches tend to view cultural imperialism and cultural retreat as lesser evils than cultural syncretism. From what I read in the Bible, Paul is equally condemning of them all.
Now I agree that some Emergents have flerted with syncretism, and where they do I share your reservations, but i don’t see holding back or going in with jack boots as a holier option.
Now, on the parents issue, what I am saying is that I agree that parents are not adequately training their children to deal with pluralism, but I see a big reason behind this is that many of them have not been adequately trained themselves. Do we think this is programmed into their DNA? No, they need training. Especially where they are converts, Christians who had no Christian parents on which to role model themselves. Is it any wonder they struggle to prepare their kids for encountering pluralism when even many of their pastors have not come to grips with pluralism yet? I agree parents should accept personal responsibility to upskill themselves WHERE SUCH TEACHING IS AVAILABLE but I am against a “blame the victim” approach. Leaders need to take a lead in teaching parents to be teachers. Children’s ministries need to be more than just a glorified baby sitting exercise, they need to engage the parents of the children.
I can see you are making the effort to try and understand Isaac and care deeply about staying faithful to scripture. I appreciate that and do appreciate dialogue like this as they can help us to refine the pertinant issues. Could we take this as an exercise in mutual sharpening?
Well, Isaac, you missed the humor in my little comment to Matt…I’ll try to explain later. (Fortunately, I didn’t break my arm patting myself on the back, or typing would be terribly difficult!
)
I also attended a seminar where Alan taught many of the principles from his books. I gained great perspectives on, and confirmation of, what I had come to believe from my prior studies. But I would be a much poorer disciple today if I had not actually read his books. I even found that skimming the chapter titles and looking at the diagrams didn’t cut it in terms of understanding what he was really saying…after I finished reading.
“The Forgotten Ways” deserves to be read carefully, in order, processing all the graphics as presented. There is entirely too much critical material to be grasped and processed in proper order for anyone to be able to speak with confidence concerning what Alan is trying to say….and what we are trying to have conversations about here on this blog.
I must say that you do all of us, and yourself, a disservice by not being willing to “get on the same page” with us before engaging so forcefully–and with so little humor. We’re a cheery and cheeky lot, here! We know when to be very serious, but we like a good joke now and again!
Neither Alan nor anyone else here, is painting anybody or any group as any one thing across the board. He is putting the spotlight on patterns of unquestioned belief and behavior. The Holy Spirit can and does use anyone who is willing to obey to spread the Good News. We all rejoice in all forward progress toward salvation for anyone.
But please don’t give Alan (and those who are processing his thoughts here) a label in the same way that you are suggesting he is/we are placing labels.
Your “congregational” description, which has been my ministry experience of 30 years until just this past year, fits exactly the scenario of my little joke. Those who are saved and “come to church” out of obedience can easily fall into the equivalent of the Pharisees of Jesus’ days–without being legalistic or fundamentalist.
They are trying to live out their faith as best they can…but they sometimes have a pretty narrow idea of what that should be. And Jesus clearly didn’t fit the Pharisees’ idea…just as the very radical Jesus Alan describes in his books clearly doesn’t fit the ideas of many Christians in “congregational” churches today.
To speak from the perspective of the Chinese house church leaders, the church in much of the West must wake up to see that their fellowships are filled with many “believers” but cotain few “disciples.” Believers are like those plants in the parable of the seeds and the soil that sprang up quickly but either withered in the heat because of insufficient soil depth or were choked out by the weeds that grew up around them. Later on, Jesus would speak to these same kinds of folks as “goats” who thought they were “sheep.”
We’re all trying to authentically live out our faith, Isaac. And we who engage on this blog are grateful to Alan for pointing out some “forgotten ways” that have for too long resulted in planting in soil that has not been properly prepared or nurturing too many “goats” that we/they thought were sheep.
The life of the church is not only what takes place in a service on Sunday or Wednesday…it is meant to be the living Body of Christ at all times and in all places where members of his body live and work, where the saints do the work of ministry and are equipped for this work by those Christ has so gifted.
This just doesn’t fit the reality of many churches in the West…and we’re all desperately searching for ways to change that where we have some influence. We are trying to become part of a solution rather than continuing to be part of a problem. And we use this place to encourage each other.
At least, that’s what I’m trying to do….
Peggy, I should introduce you to the Discordians, esoteric types dedicated to deconstructing the “false dichotomy between humour and seriousness”. Tongue in cheek is essential for serious engagement.
I really do commend TFG to you Isaac… there’s a profound and elegant simplicity in the core ideas of Al’s thesis in my opinion… it’s the best book on mission I’ve ever read. I believe it’s a really good use of your time.
The problem with blogs is they lead one down a whole lot of different theological rabbit trails… interesting as this may be, I think it’s helpful to first engage with the core ideas of the book.
Blessings on you,
Discordians, eh Matt–love it!
Hullo-o-o…
I had hoped to return to some of the issues raised by Isaac on this thread. I did begin to work on a response last week, but when I re-read the first couple of paragraphs I’d written my comments had become patronising, so I deleted it! It really is a challenge to communicate from different paradigmatic approaches without the appearance - if not the root perception - that you have obtained superior knowledge… which puts me right in the Pharisees camp. I do think that is where many of the key leaders of “successful” attractional churches are in danger of ending up and of leading people into.
In shifting paradigms there is a need to leap “in faith,” before being completely aware of what you’re actually leaping into. My initiation as a follower of Christ involved a leap into the unknown… I had a sense, in the core of my being, that something intangible had changed in me and that making a commitment to follow Jesus Christ for the rest of my life was the right thing to do… but I had very little idea of what that actually meant. Similarly, I have had various “epiphanies” on my journey that have led to paradigm shifts in my perception of God, which have had a consequential impact on living out my faith…
I resonate with some of Isaac’s questions because I was initially taught that way of thinking. As I have journeyed in Christ I have come to some different conclusions from my teachers, and obviously I feel like I’ve moved from where my thinking was to a better place… which doesn’t mean that I’m right, simply that I now operate from a different point of view. It is difficult to highlight the difference clearly, since essentially we are looking AT the same core issues, but viewing FROM a different place.
There is a problem with a purely “attractional” model of church - it simply is NOT biblical! “Attractional” seeks to attract rather than to go… attractional seeks to attract rather than disciple - that doesn’t mean that attractional services cannot be part of the methodology of an authentic church… it can BUT the methodology of attraction to “a service,” works against some of the principles Jesus set up, so other aspects of church life need to be emphasised to restore balance.
Isaac, you noted; “Please don’t paint all Christians who meet in a hall on Sundays, have paid clergy to teach them and have a sound system so they all can hear as Christians of the Jewish Pharisee variety.” Where the Sunday gathering is one aspect of a rounded Christian life, rather than the whole, where Christians see it as one supporting element in their going in service to the community and also teaching one another, it can no doubt be part of authentic ecclesia. Where it is THE only elemental core of someone’s Christianity - which your statistics and others suggest it is… It is NOT ecclesia as the Bible intends it… This is what we are struggling with here - do we simply continue to present people with a model of “church” that is incomplete and inadequate, that in fact is idolatry? If we are not content to remain with that construct then what does a rebuilding of ecclesia look like…
I’m writing this on a break during my “other job,” which I do to enable our church to pay a youth worker part time - rather than just pay me alone. We started the church seven years ago and in that time I have always held down a second job - sometimes two other jobs. Tomorrow I’ll return to my primary task, preparing to lead a bunch of Christians who meet in a hall on Sunday, have paid me to teach them and have a sound system so they all can hear… BUT tonight I’ll have a bunch of blokes at my place half of them not Christians, watching a football game, eating pizza and drinking beer. On Thursday night my wife and I will have dinner with a couple - the woman is a Christian, the man is not… and they don’t have dinner with other Christians because he is sick of being treated like a second class person. Next Saturday forty of the people in our church will be involved packing “showbags” of information, for a local community day - we have been approached and asked to help by our local chamber of commerce. Next week I have a meeting with the principal of the school that we meet in, to discuss issues to do with how we can support the school in looking after the environment…
In my life I try to speak gospel values in language that my community understand… I could go on and on (and frequently do - read some of my other postings!) about the missional activities of the people of our church… When we gather on a Sunday we don’t gather out of any sense of duty, we gather to be reinvigorated in our release in Christ, to be the missional people of God that He created us to be… I have credibility in my community only so far as I practice what I preach - all of the preaching in the world does not ring true if your life speaks hypocrisy… so I do try to preach the gospel and sometimes use words. What is your background, what are you involved in that we can learn from? What are you doing that is Kingdom building, what is the fruit of what you are involved in? It is easy to be a critic, as the Pharisees discovered, much harder to live up to the measure by which you judge others…
Perhaps this post has now become as patronising as the effort I first deleted… but our faith MUST have consequence in our society, not just be a discussion item on a Christian blog… The forgotten ways that Alan has exposed us to, challenge us to live up to the definition of “ecclesia” as Jesus Christ intended… in the fabric of the community that He has placed us in…
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” (Theodore Roosevelt)
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Seems my last lengthy post may have hit the spam-catcher… is it possible to see if it can be redeemed Neal… though perhaps it is God’s way of intervening to keep me humble…
Selah!
A Celtic Son