Here are some of my initial, very quick and not fully developed responses to Spencer's piece and some questions my friend asked regarding its implications:
That was the sentence that I was just captured by as well. ("The integrity of the church as a countercultural movement with a message of 'empire subversion' will increasingly replace a message of cultural and political entitlement.") The grammar of imperial subversion, the rhetoric of kingdom of God is all over Scripture. (To proclaim that Jesus is "lord and Messiah/Christ" is to say firmly and boldly that Caesar is not.) This is a real problem for a church system that tries to cling to the imperial system. It has been since the Constantinian shift. This has been especially difficult in American society, when the attempt of "evangelical faith" to have a place at the table has been to align itself closely with a particular political ideology. (This is not a value statement or an attempt to say whether or not it chose the correct political side. To align and partner fully with either the right or the left, IMHO, is poor form.)
I think that the continuing marginalization of the church could be a wonderful impetus for it to regain its prophetic voice and, as the missional church folks like to say, "to cultivate what is necessary because we have left what was familiar for an uncertain and unknown future with God." Like the author here, I think that this is not a time about which to fret, clinging to that which needs to pass, but for hopeful reimagination of what God might be doing here. Everything that God's people need for God's future is among the people of God. We just have to be humble and daring enough to embrace it.
In an article/chapter I was reading yesterday, the author talked about moving from the American church culture of sham worship, worship based on a consumer mindset where God and the experience are manipulated to meet consumer demand (albeit Christian consumer demand!), to dangerous worship where we are forced to encounter God on God's terms to become formed and shaped to learn God's language and begin to think about the world according to the story of God (celebration) rather than God according to the story of the world (consumerist consumption). It was a powerful article that hits some of the challenges here.
I think that one of the questions that Jeff asked is very important: "What weakness do we face if we turn out to have a weak theology (knowledge of God) but a strong ecclesiology (knowledge of church)?" I think that a strong ecclesiology must be rooted in a strong and healthy theology. I think that has been one of the inherent weaknesses of the Churches of Christ. We have a decent ecclesiology (though far too individualistic, IMHO), but it is a house built on a weak foundation, a weak understanding of the Triune God. In light of this, many Churches of Christ, and those who have been shaped and formed on this anemic vision of God, have few resources with which to address the major things facing us in the midst of this shift. An important dialogue between orthodoxy (right thinking) and orthopraxis (right acting) must take place in our church communities, engaging our culture, our experience, and Scripture, in order for us to survive this.
Alright, I have much to do and need to get back to it, but am thankful for this quick, though wonderful little chance to think about this stuff with y'all. Sorry for my nonsensical ramblings above. Feel free to hit delete at this point, if you hadn't already long before making it here!
I followed this response up with this thought that came to me while driving to lunch....
I think that an important reason for the evangelical movement to start with theological reflection here is that far too often the evangelical movement has thought of itself as "god" (at least among the various Christian streams). Why is this theological reflection then important? Because the way you think about God matters in how you imagine yourself. If the evangelical movement continues to grope after power and lord it over others in the way that "the lords of the gentiles do", then they are working against the rich christian tradition of a crucified God/messiah. The question for the evangelical movement in America is whether or not they will willingly choose to walk the way of the cross, to choose the path of "foolishness", trusting that the God of resurrection will bring something beautiful and new out of it. Or will they choose to continue to exploit power according to the world's standards and fight for supremacy and primacy in the palace. So, theological reflection has the potential to guide the choices and decisions here, especially if a rich theology of God as Creator can help replace fear, which leads to groping for power, with hope and trust in the "God who raised Jesus from the dead."
There is a reason that Christianity has been at its best when its a religion of the marginalized and that its been at its worst when it is a tool of those with power.
Again, these are just initial reactions to the piece that are, admittedly, not well developed. What are your thoughts about Spencer's article as it relates to your experience of the church and society? What do you think about my initial reactions?
No comments:
Post a Comment