Archive for the ‘postmodern’ Category

I have read a number of articles about using a reader in order to keep up with blog content when wanting to read numerous blogs. Tyler Braun wrote about using Google Reader. I think if I were to use a reader it would be one from Google since they, in conjunction with Apple, do in fact run the universe (by which I mean, if Google and Apple didn’t exist there would be a cosmic implosion causing all things to move to a higher state of order which is simply unacceptable and perfectly acceptable in the postmodern era).^ I have elected, however, to avoid using a reader. Part of the blogging and blog reading experience extends well beyond the content hammered out on a keyboard. A reader delivers the content of individual posts but does not capture the fullness of a blog. Many bloggers spend hours designing layouts, color schemes, and headers (or is that just me) in order to 1) provide the reader with a pleasant and artistically engaged online experience; and 2) offer content and links that enhance the message of the written material. Unless Google’s Reader has a content feature that I have yet to explore I would suggest that one simply use the bookmarking and RSS features found in internet browsers in order to directly visit the sites about which you care. Appreciate the art. Appreciate the feel. Don’t just read it. Experience it.

^ For those needing explanation due to the sarcastic language concerning existentialism, postmodernism, and theology(ism), I may write another post with a more modernly-toned explanation.

The Silent Historical Framework of the Emerging Church

Recovery of Genuine Wesleyan Theology in Postmodern Context

Travis Keller

02.29.08

A Condensed Book Review from a Wesleyan Theological Perspective on

“Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures”

by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K Bolger

“Common needs often create strange alliances.” Eddie Gibbs and Ryan Bolger begin the preface of their book entitled “Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures” by addressing their seemingly implausible ability to write a book together. Strange alliances, indeed. Many hear the words “Christian community” and “postmodern cultures” used in conjunction with each other and immediately assume that the two are being juxtaposed one against the other. The same may be true for the terms “Wesleyan theology” and “emerging church.” While the connection between the two may never be verbally stated, Wesleyan theology may very well be the silent historical framework of the emerging church.

It is noted in the book that the process of dismantling the modern (referring to a historical era and philosophy) practices of Christianity “is a fragile movement that can be marginalized by denominational leaders and killed with criticism by theological power brokers.” Churches that are “emerging” in their practice are faced with great degrees of resistance. To associate with any certain theological tradition would be suicidal to a hopeful movement. The labeling system within the Emerging Church has caused immense confusion so a further label would arouse criticism growing from its current level of existence into a destructive force from both opponents to the noted tradition and adherents to that tradition. Opponents would continue to oppose that which they already oppose and adherents would defend their tradition in an attempt to preserve it from a supposed threat and distortion. The reality of the shift in church practice, however, is ultimately going to reflect certain roots in the history of the church. The ideas for ecclesiological method offered by Emerging Churches closely align with the thought of John Wesley.

The emerging church is difficult to define. Moderns may desire a clear, definitive statement but as noted by Doug Pagitt, the church is “not necessarily the center of God’s intentions. God is working in the world and the church has the option to join God or not.” By avoiding a precise definition of emerging churches, Gibbs, Bolger, and company allow the church to function as a moving organism whose missional direction is dependent on its own choice. What may be criticized then as a low view of the church is actually the highest view imaginable. The church is dependent on grace when it chooses to follow its own way rather than the way of Jesus. Wesley, an advocate of the free will of humanity trusts in means of grace gifted by God when the church moves in a manner that reveals the imperfect people that it is.

Wesley contends that the church is not to be separatist or divisive. The emerging church is distinctively Wesleyan then in that it does not merely get caught up in argument or exchanging critique with its opponents but rather focuses on the person of Jesus and the love for others that he offers. Gibbs and Bolger note three core church practices from which other practices are created. They are “(1) identifying with the life of Jesus, (2) transforming secular space, and (3) living as community.”

The message of Jesus was not a message about going to heaven. His was a message and demonstration of enacting the Kingdom of God on earth. To live in a manner that reflects the life of Jesus is to truly embrace what Wesley termed “entire sanctification.” The Church is the people who are called out and set apart to enact the Kingdom of God on earth. To do so requires a confrontation with the risk and cost of following Jesus and thereby necessitates a grace that precedes (preveniant) the Church, enabling it to embrace the fullness of the mission of God by entering into that which may be considered “secular” and living in a “sacred” manner. Such living entails relinquishing one’s “unlimited sovereignty over his or her individual person” in order to “create missional communities” that may only exist within the context of love. Wesley states, “By this let all men know whose disciples ye are, because you ‘love one another.’”

Gibbs and Bolger proceed with more practical examples of Emerging Churches that very distinctively reflect Wesleyan theology. Wesley continually references the need for the Church to care for the poor and marginalized. Contrary to the quite exclusive appearance of many church gatherings, Emerging Churches are to be accepting and inclusive. Not only does inclusivity include people from other traditions, cultures, and even faiths but it also extends to the poor who are otherwise considered strangers. Central to the gospel message is that those who “don’t have” are invited to share in the “having.” The stranger is to be invited into the community. He/She is to receive that which is given generously. Hospitality remains a key component of helping others to honestly accept themselves as true members of a community for a generous gift is much more useful, according to Wesley, when it is personally delivered. Giving accompanied by shared relationship is invaluable to the message of Jesus. It removes the thought of needing to receive in return.

Emerging Churches concludes with sections devoted to the concept of the body of Christ producing and creating. There is reference to the same passage in Ephesians that Wesley uses in his address “Of the Church.” In order for a community to function in full health each member must use his/her talents and giftings as he/she has been granted. “Full participation is an alternative to [modern] consumer church” which is founded ultimately on fulfilling a selfish desire. Emerging churches seem to pursue the concept of the priesthood of all believers where all members of the community are contributing. No one is being served any more than he/she is serving.

“Emerging churches are communities that follow Jesus into the kingdom and the far reaches of culture. [They] destroy the Christendom idea that church is a place, a meeting, or a time. Church is a way of life, a rhythm, a community, a movement. Emerging churches dismantle all ideas of church that interfere with the work of the kingdom.” With Gibbs’ and Bolger’s representation of Emerging Churches, Wesley cannot argue. The way of living taught by Wesley and the way of the Emerging Church is the way of Jesus.

Click the following title to read the article by Shane Claiborne, "Why I Got Arrested on Good Friday. "

When I hung out a little with and observed Shane this summer at the Envision Conference at Princeton I found out that he likes to have fun. I remember distinctly when all sorts of intellectual-ish and rather serious-personalitied ecclesial leaders were lounging around a campus green space eating lunch together. I was sitting with a graduate assistant from Yale listening to him share about his Iranian reconciliation ministry and process a session on religious pluralism with Samir Selmanovic . I looked over his shoulder and there stood Shane dancing around with bowling pins and juggling with a friend. It was beautiful! I envision him laughing all the way to the police station all-the-while remaining internally crushed and authentically in touch with the suffering of Jesus.

I have had my Twitter account for a while now. At first I hardly ever used it except with a few international friends or those who are "with it" enough in the states to "tweet." I am excited that more people are now tweeting. A little birdy (ok, that was too far; not funny) told me that Twitter is the new Facebook, a name which continues to bother me since the application is not a book at all. The funniest thing about Twitter is that I have "followers." Now I really have a messianic complex since I feel like a first century rabbi in Israel. I’m not sure if I want to call my followers my "Tweeps" or my "Tweeple." Both terms are tossed around the Twitterverse so as to signify that one is "with it" when it comes to using the "with it" online connectivity tool.

What does it mean to be "with it?"

If you would like to follow me [and thereby know where I am and what I'm doing at all times (yes, i know... captivating and irresistible)] then please click the link to the right (it’s the one that says "Twitter"). Come, follow me… and I will make you ____________________.

I’m taking out for lunch or dinner whoever fills in the blank with the most creative and funniest response. Click on the comments to add your… comment.

I welcome and appreciate comments that question the intent or perspective of my posts. One particular comment, which may seem adversarial but I would suggest is written for constructive or at least clarifying purposes (tone and intent are largely lost in the blogosphere), reads as follows:

"im a little confused on your opinion of journey. i have been there a few times but not much scripture was used so i haven’t been back. may come again sometime though.

speaking of scripture…. i appreciate your writing but would like to see more scripture references.

i’m also curious to why you chose the name “subversive reformation”. a lot of post-modern movements (like rob bell, donald miller, shane claiborne kind of thing) make me wonder if we are too cynical and proud of our big words and creative artwork that we miss the point: LOVE."

Please note that I am not degrading this comment but rather continuing with the invitation for discussion. There are many directions in which to go but I want to begin by addressing only one small element of the comment. I may return to the ideas of postmodernism, movements, naming, and cynicism but first want to conisder "scripture references."

We have been conditioned to expect Scripture to be used in a certain way. Don’t get me wrong, I highly value the recitation of Scripture during church gatherings. I sometimes need to go to a Catholic or Episcopal gathering just to hear the public reading of God’s written communication with humanity. It is good for the soul of my recovering popular-evangelical self.  However, to quote Scripture doesn’t mean that one has to "quote" (pun intended) Scripture. Modernism has conditioned us to want references, bullet points, quotations, citations, enumerations and many other "ations." Our western, post-enlightenment minds that place an overly-high value on reason and logical processing have difficulty recognizing that Scripture is interlaced within our stories.

Here, I will draw a parallel using a specific reference from Scripture . The book of Esther found in the Hebrew Scriptures (TNK ) never uses the actual word "God" in any of its forms (YHWH, Elohim, etc.) Esther is the only book of the Bible that does not use the word "God." Does that mean that God is not present throughout the story? Should the book of Esther not have been included in the Bible? Should it be discluded from that which is considered in the Judeo-Christian tradtion to be "holy writing" simply because the word "God" isn’t quoted? Equally, should any writing that does not "quote" scripture be tossed out as though it is irrelevant and removed from the narrative of God with his people?

Many MVNU students have been attending the Sunday morning gathering of Christians who call themselves "Journey Church." Here is the second (2nd) of six (6) reasons why MVN(azarene)U students have been so highly attracted to the non-Nazarene gathering place that is Journey.

From post #1 of 6…
[Since students have been successfully convinced that attending a Sunday morning gathering is either the fullness of or necessary for one’s life reflecting the way of Jesus, students wake up on Sunday mornings for…]

2. The 20 minute drive from MVNU in Mount Vernon, OH to Howard, OH.

Sound peculiar? Especially when the price for a barrel of oil causes gasoline prices to be turbulent and when the cost for higher education continues to climb (for both state and private universities) one might be inclined to think that college students would not be wanting to spend money on traveling to a worship service. Here are some possible explanations:

i. THE EXPERIENCE. On the surface it may be puzzling why MVNU students may travel 1-2 hours and pay $50 for to attend a concert when there are free concerts and other social/educational/formative activities offered on campus. But the travel and cost are not for the event itself but rather for the shared experience . [For a $5 concert (all money from admission and sales donated to a Brasilian orphanage) only 3 minutes from campus , please attend the Extended Melody Project Benefit Concert (details here )].

ii. CONNECTING. It may be comforting, therapeutic, and/or meaningful to connect with people that are external from one’s immediate community (that is, of course, assuming that when attending one is actually connecting with people external from his/her immdiate community). I would argue that this is a good reason in theory but is not actually practiced.

iii. GENERATIONAL VALUE. When one is normally surrounded by only those who are primarily 18-23 years old there may be some desire to actually see and interact with a baby, a kid, or an elderly person. Of course, some may specifically not attend a multi-generational gathering because they find the tradition of older humans to be antiquated and meaningless.

iv. CONSUMPTION. If one goes to a worship gathering that is 20 minutes away and rather disconnected from one’s proximal community then it is easy to simply show up and leave. It doesn’t require anything. It is possible to attend a service and appease one’s conscience by claiming that "I went to church" without any connection to an immediate community. Distance allows for "doing church just for the sake of doing church." One may show up to a service and consume certain elements of the service without any other commitment.

v. TASTE. The cost of time and travel is worth it due to…

TO BE CONTINUED.

I am…

POSTconservative.
POSTatheist.
POSTchristendom.
POSTmodern.
POSTcolonial.
POSTlapsarian.
POSTenlightenment.

And I follow Jesus.

The following is a thought I posted for my Premodern, Modern, and Postmodern Philosophy course:

Our current “normal sense of community” is actually quite individualistic. Much “dialogue” is actually “monologue” when one person conversing merely desires his/her opinion to be heard and acted upon rather than both parties seeking mutual understanding to consider the validity of multiple persons’ claims and thoughts within conversation. “Communitas” rests in thought that seeks to dissipate one’s individualism for the sake of genuine dialogue. In order to engange in the exchange of thought each one involved in the conversation must view himself/herself not as an individual with rights and truth claims but rather as a member of a group who contributes and receives simultaneously resulting in community.

To seek one’s own individual desires is contrary to the biblical concept of the Church. The self must be an element that is secondary to the well-being of the community. Seeking “communitas” is the process of enacting love for one’s neighbor. Acting and conversing for the good of the neighbor and consequently the good of the community is the demonstration given by Jesus through his incarnation. When “communitas” is in process then love is being made complete.

Due to the potentially argumentative nature of speech, the concept of dialogue in “communitas” must exceed verbal expression. The sharing of life and ideas in a loving manner is more appropriately handled experientially.

In order to create a “commons” in my current context of community I would experiment with social engagement. I would approach dialogue with contemporaries in a manner that incorporates mutual questioning and service. Questioning would involve ministry partners seeking dialogue beyond ourselves and asking questions to others to sincerely receive and consider their perspective. By doing so the concept of “us/them” transforms to an understanding of “us.” The hope would be that conversation would promote and initiate mutual service of giving to and receiving from each other. Experimentation with active service that seeks social justice creates a common missional perspective that is the very essence of the Church.

My friend Tim Barenscheer and I have been highly involved with each other’s development as we journey through our philosophical wonderings and thoughts on the Kingdom of God. It’s a beautiful thing having a contemporary and friend with whom honesty and vulnerability exist genuinely without pretense. I’ve been sharing my thoughts with Tim about my “Premodern, Modern, and Postmodern Philosophy” course including readings from Roxburgh’s The Sky is Falling: Leaders Lost in Transition, Dawkins’ The God Delusion, and James K.A. Smith’s Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church. Tim has been conversing with Caputo’s What Would Jesus Deconstruct?: The Good News of Postmodernism for the Church and has given me two of N.T. Wright’s volumes, Jesus and the Victory of God and The New Testament and the People of God, that I’ve been wanting and will work through this summer following my course. I gave Tim Miroslav Volf’s The End of Memory. Anyone desiring to have a greater understanding of Jesus, culture, and the Kingdom of God may want to check out any or all of the aforementioned texts.

I am currently working on my Master of Arts in Religion degree from Northwest Nazarene University. The actually title of the degree is M.A.R. in Missional Leadership. Another version of the M.A.R. that I considered was Spiritual Formation. I have been very pleased with this program so far. It is much more progressive than what I expected from another Nazarene University. I suppose it would have to be progressive since we are primarily dealing with issues of cultural context and a missional approach to the way of Jesus within the scope of postmodernity.
I am especially excited about my current assignment. There is the possibility that my writing will be published in a journal as a part of a project conducted by our professor. My paper is likely to be entitled, “The Silent Historical Framework of the Emergent Church: Recovery of Genuine Wesleyan Theology in Postmodern Context.” I will be reviewing Eddie Gibbs’ and Ryan Bolger’s book entitled “Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Community in Postmodern Cultures” in light of Wesleyan theology (which I have discovered is highly misunderstood by Wesleyan based churches and theologians).