I’m getting a bit excited and a lot nervous (in a good way). It seems that all things are go for the new ministry project I am instigating. I am amazed to have a rector and a bishop who are not only supportive of this new venture, but who are willing to put money and time behind it. Some of this stuff has been whirling around in my brain for many years, and to think that some of it may be coming to fruition is a bit unbelievable. I don’t know what to do with it all. The fact that time and money from outside myself is going to be invested in this makes me nervous – as in, what if it doesn’t work?
Other aspects, if it works as I envision it might, could be a real way of working to renewed life and ministry within parishes that at present are caught up in various states that simply are not conducive to ministry among a different cadre (or group, as in generation or reflecting the changes within the demographics of a neighborhood) of people.
Category Archives: post-modern
The next generation of Catholic leaders
Commentary on young, Roman Catholic priests by John L Allen Jr. over at the National Catholic Reporter – “The next generation of Catholic leaders.” He says the empirical data shows that younger priests are more “conservative,” but not quite in the way that older folks like to define that term. I absolutely agree with him. I wonder, too, if his observations ring true for young, Episcopal priests? My impression is that the observation can cross the dividing lines, but that could just be me selectively listening or reading those I agree with. Yet, I will say from my own research that for young Christians in general, particularly among the Mainline, they are reclaiming the Tradition, which means to some that they are “conservative.”
He writes:
“This new generation seems ideally positioned to address the lamentable tendency in American Catholic life to drive a wedge between the church’s pro-life message and its peace-and-justice commitments. More generally, they can help us find the sane middle between two extremes: What George Weigel correctly calls “Catholicism lite,” meaning a form of the faith sold out to secularism; and what I’ve termed “Taliban Catholicism,” meaning an angry expression of Catholicism that knows only how to excoriate and condemn. Both are real dangers, and the next generation seems well-equipped to steer a middle course, embracing a robust sense of Catholic identity without carrying a chip on their shoulder.
“That’s assuming, however, that the best and brightest of today’s young Catholics aren’t prematurely sucked into the older generation’s debates — either by liberals who fear and resent them, or by conservatives eager to enroll them as foot soldiers in their private crusades.” [Emphasis mine]
This is the problem in the Episcopal Church, I do believe. The liberals do fear and resent the younger folks because the demographic does not agree with the liberals’ ideas of what the Church should be all about or how it should look. I’m sure they will try to co-op the cohort, as will the conservatives who see the new generation’s preference for Tradition as a validation of their cause, and it is not.
The younger generations are their own group, and they will remake this Church (or what’s left of it after the partisan war between the conservatives and liberals leave it in ruins).
Consumption Robots
We are, we have become, consumption robots, consumer automatons.
Within a free-enterprise system, it is the business of companies and corporations and industry to build demand for their products or services. Without demand for and the consumption of their goods and/or services, there is no reason for their existence. They will not exist. This is simple economics. For those who are persuasive enough to convince you that you need “x,” and that their version of “x” is better then that other company’s version of “x,” they will prosper economically. There is a difference, however, between persuasion and manipulation.
What has happened over the last few decades is that the extent of social manipulation by “Madison Ave.” – the advertising agents of their client companies – has become so pervasive and the public’s willingness to be manipulated so complete that we have become nothing much more than consumption tools, robots, automatons.
This was brought home to me in a fundamental way right after the 9/11 attacks. Our President was very fiery in his speech about retaliation and defeating the enemies of America. Yet, the solution he boldly declared to the average American citizen was that we should go shopping. Go buy more stuff… go collect more goods… go make your “mountain-o-things” even bigger (as Tracey Chapman sang about). Now, I know that what he was suggesting was that we continue on with our daily lives so to not “give the victory to the enemy.” See, you didn’t destroy our resolve… you didn’t succeed in demoralizing us… etc. Well, is that all that we are? Is the demonstration of our national resolve, our virtue, our reason for being all about buying things?
We are attached on our own soil. A war on terrorism has been declared. We invaded countries. What are Americans supposed to do? Go shopping. Brilliant and creative solution! What sacrifice we have to endure? None – that is supposedly to prove to the enemy how great we are. All the while, the very force that made American great and that has inspired freedom seeking people for generations has demoted to irrelevance – materialism and consumerism is now what American stands for. The American birthright has been sold for a bowl of pottage.
Another problem is that when there is nothing more in the national imagination beyond the next thrill or titillation, what is left but a constant seeking to fill the void with stuff and a willingness to believe whoever promises to deliver? When the Baby-Boomer generation of the 1960’s-kind thought that it was a good thing to throw off the “oppression” of the past, of the wisdom and insight of generations past, in order to make a brave new world that was supposed to usher in the Age of Aquarius, what can we expect but a descending into manipulation and triteness?
In the past, there was a governor on corporations’ and Madison Ave.’s attempt to move from persuasion to manipulation. There was a culture understanding that there were things more important than the individual and the self. There was a common understanding that happiness and satisfaction of life and a sense of significance in one’s own life went beyond things. We did not so much define our lives, our selves, by what we had or what we accumulated. Money didn’t maketh the man. Yes, yes, there was the whole “Keep up with the Jones,” but again, that was Madison Ave.’s attempt to manipulate us to buy more things so that we “kept up with the Jones.” Yes, there are certainly examples of greedy people, and all that. Yet, there was still an understanding that when all was said and done, out happiness didn’t rest on a new toaster or dishwasher or car or video game or jet ski or snow board or house or shoes or or or.
One of the aspects that were thrown off our societal shoulders by this generational thinking was religion. Those who believed in such superstitions where just ignorant and willfully manipulated by unscrupulous priests or pastors bent on control and power. Religion was just another occupier and oppressive agent that only tried to steal from people their person-hood, their joy, their freedom, their creativity. The thing is, the generation that through off the oppressive and moralizing force of the Christian religion had already been formed in those religious principles that had developed and been passed down for a millennia and a half – the wisdom and experience of generations past. They still were imbued with a mitigating inner force, whether they recognized it or not.
What would be left for this generation to pass on to their children? It ended up being a chaotic amalgamation of trendy fads, because the wisdom of the past was not to be trusted – it was oppressive. With each passing generation (X, Y), there was less and less of the taint of Christian moral structures – you know, like love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself.
From the stand point of the movers and shakers, this has been a glorious triumph. After all, how can you sell the idea that everyone has to consume, consume, consume when there is a cultural mitigating force that says that happiness is not found in material things, that we should focus on the well-being of our neighbor before our own, that we should give to the poor, that we should live simply, that we should not allow yourself to be consumed by treasures on earth, etc., etc., etc. When the mitigating force has been ejected from the culture, what is left? When the mitigating force was advertised effectively to be an enemy, what is left? When the Church buys into that idea, what is left?
The culture progressed to became in these days Post-Christian, and over the past four decades the Church responded by simple aping the zeitgeist of the culture, after all the leaders of the Church become those who were out to gloriously remake all of society in their bold, new image. It didn’t work. Aquarius did not come. The Church has became irrelevant and bankrupt (exceptions do certainly exist!) in its attempt to offer any positive alternative to a culture becoming more banal and self-centered. The Church as been duped by that which filled the void as the Church gave up its birthright. It is a nice circular phenomenon.
So, where are we now? People are certainly not happy. People have become profoundly insecure because there is the possibility that someone might take away all of our things, and by now our whole self-definition is based on material things. We don’t sacrifice for freedom any more, we demand more things. We now torture with the best of them. And the Church is irrelevant, no one listens, because we have become just like everyone else. The funny thing is, the later part of Generation X and a good part of Generation Y are coming to realize the fallacy in the Baby-Boomer endeavor.
I believe in the free-enterprise system, but there must be a governor because the hearts of men are exceedingly wicked, and selfish, and greedy, left unchecked. But, persuasion is not the same as manipulation. We have let ourselves be deceived by the Mad Men. They are very good at what they do! We are now, as Americans, worth not much more than being the world’s consumers. How sad.
Thomas Jefferson said that democracy was not possible without religion. We all know that he had great problems with religion and Christianity, but he recognized that there must be a mitigating force within the framework of democracy, and I say free-enterprise too, that calls to one to whom we are ultimately accountable – and that one is outside ourselves or our group or our nation. We don’t like to hear that, because we have bought the idea that we are an island unto ourselves. “I” am the final arbiter of all that I am and do and think and feel. As a seminarian a year behind me said, “I don’t believe in the resurrection, but I’m okay with that.” How lonely. How sad.
I hear too many people who work with people saying something is up… something is coming because something isn’t right… we feel it in our bones but don’t know how to describe it yet… don’t know how to put our finger on it just yet. A society can maintain this kind of existence for only so long. Can we not learn from history? Oh, I forgot, the past is oppressive. We are destined, then, to repeat it. We are coming to the breaking point.
Authority and “networked” societies (including the Church society)
There is (or perhaps by this time was) a very interesting discussion on the changing aspect of authority as we move from a hierarchical construct to a networked construct of social relating.
Read it here.
I wonder, though, not with the fact that we are transitioning into a “networked” society, particularly among the younger folk, but whether the interpretation of what that means is significantly different between those who observe the phenomena (particularly Baby-Boomers, but also older GenX’ers) and those who are living it.
One commenter stated:
“I think that fitting into the equation today is credibility. For younger people, and, really, most of the western world, if one has no credibility, one has no authority. That goes for the church, too.” (James)
Most of Anglicanism takes upon itself the Catholic understanding of the office and ministry of bishop, but unlike other jurisdictions our bishops’ authority rests more with persuasion and positive influence (when it is positive) and not princely or dictatorial rule, as do, say, United Methodist or Roman Catholic bishops.
The Project
The Red Hook Project NYC is coming along, but still has a way to go. Input welcome.
Lovers more so than thinkings or believers
An interesting review by Eric Miller of a new book by James K.A. Smith, who wrote the book, “Whose afraid of Postmodernism,” that we are studying this summer at St. Paul’s. This new book deals with what Smith considers to be a misplaced dependence or allegiance to the concept of “worldview.” Smith’s “postmodern” mentality comes through, it seems, and I like it. I think he is onto something!
Book: ” Desiring the Kingdom: Worship, Worldview, and Cultural Formation,” by James K.A. Smith, philosophy professor at Calvin College (a Dutch Reformed school).
For Smith, worldview-centered education reflects a continued understanding of human beings as primarily rational creatures, moved and animated mainly by ideas. From this assumption has come a particular form of education—very much in line with the secular academy—that elevates the classroom and privileges fact, argument, and belief. To those who espouse this view, Smith poses one fundamental question in the form of a thought experiment: “What if education wasn’t first and foremost about what we know, but about what we love?”
If educating is indeed about properly ordering our loves, as Smith (following Augustine) believes, then formation rather than information should become the primary end of our institutions…
“Could it be the case that learning a Christian perspective doesn’t actually touch my desire, and that while I might be able to think about the world from a Christian perspective, at the end of the day I love not the kingdom of God but rather the kingdom of the market?”
The kingdom of God requires a better shape and end. So what kind of schooling must we have? Smith urges an elemental shift in form from the “Christian university” to the “ecclesial college,” the latter distinguished above all by an anthropology that understands that it’s not the cognitive processing of information that fundamentally shapes our identities, but rather what and whom we worship. We are homo liturgicus: “desiring, imaginative animals,” in Smith’s formulation. “Humans are not primarily or for the most part thinkers, or even believers,” he insists. “Instead, human persons —fundamentally and primordially—are lovers.”
When we are called to love God with all of our heart, mind, soul, and strength and to love our neighbors as we love ourselves… well, that is being not so much “thinkers” or “believers,” but it is a call by God to be “lovers.” Interesting…
Becoming the Imago Dei in our current Context #1 – Why?
A modest proposal to enter into a process of Re-formation:
Over the past decade, numerous socio-religion studies have shown a dramatic change in the landscape of religious faith and its expression in the United States.[1] Above and beyond generally normal generational changes and changes as a result of human events, there has developed over the past several decades a fundamental shift in the perceptional understanding of our world and ourselves in the world. The move from a “Modern(ist)†understanding of the world and our place in it coming out of the Enlightenment endeavor of “Descartes’ doubt†and the “Cartesian dream of absolute certaintyâ€[2] into the “Postmodern(ist)” understanding that is now the foundational perceptional understanding of Generations X and Y and following. This move is causing growing conflicts within Western Christianity through dramatic shifts in the way the Church and Christianity are understood and experienced within current culture. The “Emergent Conversation†has been instrumental in delving into the significance of Postmodernity to the Church and experimenting with changes in how “church” is done and conceived. In addition, the theological concepts held up by “Radical Orthodoxy,â€[3] a theological work to place the Church and Postmodernity in alignment, have laid a new foundation for the Christian endeavor in a changing world.
How do we do “church” and live the Christian Life[4] and how do we become the Imago Dei in these new contexts are the questions asked and is the milieu (mêlée) into which we dive. Within the developing reality of our Post-Christian and Postmodern culture and as our Church is always in the midst of reformation, there is the need for transitional forms of community as the changes currently underway come to fruition. We can foresee what the future holds, and we wish to be in the conversation and in the development of ministry in a changing Christian reality far different than the experiences of the past few generations.
It is our contention that the Christian Tradition[5] as experienced in historical, non-reactionary Anglicanism[6] is primed to take advantage of these shifts. This includes the changing attitudes and longings of younger generations now being realized in a shift in their ascetical sensibilities toward traditional (more ancient and time-honed) forms of liturgy, sacramental expression, architecture, language, music, means of formation, and the search for integrity among the members of the Church. Regarding this last point of integrity, they seek people whose lives honestly reflect the image of God and not just our present cultural norms, conservative or liberal. It is our hope that in the conversing and in the doing we will find again the means to pass on to new generations the living Tradition.
To an increasingly “un-churched†and disinterested population (albeit increasingly lonely and directionless), the way we make known the saving grace of Jesus Christ will not be the same as it has been over the last century. The center of Christian witness will need to rediscover the pre-Constantinian notions that people are drawn to Christ by way of what they see in the lives of Christians. A process of re-formation[7] out of those learned aspects of the present culture that work contrary to the will of God and into the Life in Christ[8] is becoming increasingly necessary.
Footnotes:
1. See as examples: Barna Research Group’s study reported in “unChristian;†Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life report, “U.S. Religious Landscape Survey;†LifeWays study on Church Architecture; The Church and Post-Modern Culture Series – http://churchandpomo.typepad.com/; Hartford Institute for Religious Research report on Megachurch Research.
2. James A. Smith, Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?: Taking Derrida, Lyotard, and Foucault to Church, [Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2006, 116-125]
3. Radical Orthodoxy is a postmodern Christian theological movement founded by John Milbank that takes its name from the title of a collection of essays published by Routledge in 1999: Radical Orthodoxy, A New Theology, edited by John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock and Graham Ward. The name ‘radical orthodoxy’ was chosen in opposition to certain strands of so-called radical theology. Such forms of radical theology asserted a highly liberal version of Christian faith where certain doctrines, such as the incarnation of God in Christ and the Trinity, were denied in an attempt to respond to modernity. In contrast to this, radical orthodoxy attempted to show how the orthodox interpretation of the Christian faith expressed primarily in the ecumenical creeds was in fact the more radical response to contemporary issues, and both rigorous and intellectually sustainable. (See entry at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Orthodoxy)
4. The “life transforming†that results from intentionally interring into the process of Christian formation and discipleship within the World, but not of it.
5. Those aspects of the Christian faith that have withstood the test and trail of place and time for over 2,000+ years and within a mired of cultures, yet remain with us.
6. Our current Episcopal/Anglican troubles might best be described as a war between reactionary “conservatives†and reactionary “liberals†both coming out of Modernist sensibilities and often reacting to the Postmodernist challenge.
7. This is an intentional process where we identify cultural norms accepted by most people that work contrary to the Christian Life, resulting in a mal-formed understanding of who and what we are with regard to God’s design, then to intentionally inter into the time-consistent (ancient) Christian Disciplines so to be re-formed into the image of God through Jesus Christ (otherwise known as Catechesis in new contexts).
8. This kind of experiential and demonstrable life is distinguished from the life caught up within the Systems of the World
The Future of the Church
So, where is the future of The Episcopal Church going? How generational is the change? Here is a great piece by Derek Olson from his blog Haligweorc entitled “The Episcopal ‘Reform of the Reform’â€
He writes:
I suggest that there is a “Spirit of ‘79″ that was born from and exists in parallel to the “Spirit of Vatican II.†That is, the 1979 BCP embodied wide-spread changes that were rooted in the scholarship of the Liturgical Renewal that was embodied in Vatican II’s Novus Ordo liturgies. Like the Spirit of Vatican II, the Spirit of ‘79 has understood the generous freedoms and liberality of the ‘79 BCP as a authorization of liturgical license in general rather than a provision of space for legitimate options. Furthermore, I believe that this Spirit was not simply introduced in the texts but as part of a socio-liturgical movement.
In addition, he begins with the Roman Catholic Church and the place were the “reform of the reform” is well seen: New Liturgical Movement blog.
Campus ministry!
I’ve done some research… In the Diocese of Ohio, according to the latest attendance figures of all the four-year colleges and universities, there is a total student population of 178,651 within the boarders of the Diocese (the northern half of the state, above and not including Columbus). In the zip-code areas of current parish churches in the diocese of Ohio, there are approximately 165,829 students. There are 79,720 students in “college towns” with Episcopal parishes. In the personal, leadership, and spiritual development of students, this is a critical time in their lives. They are our future, they are becoming the movers and shakers of society, of business, of media, of politics, of war and peace, of the Church. It is tremendously important to provide them opportunities for discovery of the Gospel for the first time and for their faith development and Christian formation. That’s a lot of people at a very strategic and important time in their lives.
Campus Ministry: It is a fact, whether some want to face it or admit to it, that the future of this world rests in the hands of the students living and learning right now in our colleges and universities.
It is also a fact that for most mainline denominations, the support for campus ministry continues to wain and fail. Again and again I read of the ending of a college chaplaincy of The Episcopal Church, let alone all the other denominations. I wonder whether too many of those in leadership of mainline denominations have simply written off student ministry as a lost cause (even though giving lip service to its importance)? Among American-Evangelicals, it really is a funding issue, since they well realize that to influence the academy is to influence the world.
If we want to advocate for justice, say, or the precepts of the Christian Life (if we believe in them, that is, as being the way to honest freedom, peace, and inner joy), if we truly want to have an influence on the course of human events, then we must be involved in the lives of students, professors, and university staff. The majority of students entering the university these days are unchurched. In most cases, they have not been given a foundation upon which to make ethical or moral judgments beyond their own feelings or self-interest. They have not been given a foundation upon which to make judgments about legitimate religious expressions and cultic (in the venacular sense) groups. This is quickly becoming the common state of affairs, and student services staff fight against such things all the time (even though the underpinnings of the fight they wage is based on secular and often anti-religious positions).
“The World” has no problem asserting its influences on the lives, well being, and future direction of students lives. I worked with students for 20 years, I can attest to all kinds of “others” that simply want to exploit and manipulate students and turn them into consuming machines.
We should not continue to ignore the vital nature of university ministry by simply relinquishing the positive influence of the Gospel in academe and give students over to the deleterious effects of the negative influences they face every day. This is a vital time in human development, a strategic time to influence for the good, but we pull away and give over to the “principalities and powers of the air” our students, their future, and our own future well being.
Again, I have said that if we recognize the trends of our times (revealed repeatedly in study after study), we should realize that the historic traditions of Anglicanism play into the current “sense” of today’s students. Yet, it is not being realized.
There must be a way to reinvigorate campus ministry within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Christian tradition in this country. It will not be upon the model in place for so many years – this is a big reason why so many ministries are failing and being closed. If the World looks at us and sees nothing much different from itself (themselves), then what’s the point? Why should people give a listen and consideration to the Gospel, since in their eyes those who claim it are just like them. Does not this Gospel change us fundamentally into a different kind of person… if we allow it, yield to it, and take it as our own? This doesn’t necessitate an Us vs Them dynamic if we remain in humility… the kind that is realized when we “love our neighbors as ourselves.”
Focusing on justice issues and good works without the transformation that happens within individual students by the life-changing experience of the Gospel is in the long run of little importance, IMHO. Re-formation (out of the Systems of this World and into a Life in Christ) must happen within individual students so to propel them to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humble with their God.
As we continue on in a Post-Christian environment, the idea of establishing living-forming communities and residences with students among our campuses can be a model that gives us both a financial and non-political/ideological means of engaging students in their faith development and Christian formation. As we give ourselves to the Christian Disciplines, God works within us to build within us the means of changing the world for the good.
It is my desire and quest to be engaged in the re-development of campus chaplaincies / ministries within the Anglican tradition. I think it is vitally important for the future of this Church and for the well being of not only the students, but for academe and our society.
The Narrative Character
The Narrative Character of our Faith
“Too many Christians are just pious versions of Ulysses Everett McGill protagonist in the movie Oh Brother Where Art Thou]; that is, too many Christians have bought into the modernist valorization of scientific facts and end up reducing Christianity to just another collection of propositions. Our beliefs are encapsulated in ‘statements of faith’ that simply catalog a collection of statements about God, Jesus, the Spirit, sin, redemption, and so on. Knowledge is reduced to biblical information that can be encapsulated and encoded. And so, in more ways than one, our construal of the Christian faith has capitulated to modernity and what Lyotard calls its ‘computerization’ of knowledge, indicating a condition wherein any knowledge that cannot be translated into a simple ‘code’ or reduced to ‘data’ is abandoned. But isn’t it curious that God’s revelation to humanity is given not as a collection of propositions or facts but rather within a narrative — a grand, sweeping story from Genesis to Revelation? Is there not a sense in which we’ve forgotten that God’s primary vehicle for revelation is a story unfolded within the biblical canon?”
James K.A. Smith, PhD., Who’s Afraid of Postmodernism?; pp. 74-75.
Lyotard’s “computerization of knowledge” reminds my of Polanyi’s “Tacit Knowing.”
“This is why the Scriptures must remain central for the postmodern church, for it is precisely the story of the canon of Scripture that narrates our faith… The narrative character of our faith should affect not only our proclamation and witness but also our worship and formation. …we need to know the story, and that story should be communicated when we gather as the people of God, that is, in worship. That is why the most postmodern congregations will be those that learn to be ancient, reenacting the biblical narrative. Just as Lyotard’s account of narrative knowledge shows a link between premodern and postmodern, so worship in postmodernity (which appreciates the role of narrative) should signal a recovery of liturgical tales — the narrating of creation, fall, redemption (as well as crucifixion, burial, and resurrection) in the very manner in which we worship.” (pp.75-76)
They kept saying, “Show us a sign. Give us proof. Then, we will believe.” And He responded always, “No.”