Category Archives: generations

Links

Posted on by

Just some interesting articles and other stuff.

Here is an article on “sin” in “Dallas News.”  The reporter has various local religious leaders write a brief blurb on their denomination’s or religion’s sins.

http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/05/texas-faith-what-is-the-sin-wi.html

Here is a link to the “Q Gatherings,” sponsored by Gabe Lyons, on of the authors of “unChristian,” a book that challenges our commonly held notions of the perception of Christianity and the institutional Church by the majority of the emerging generations.

http://qideas.org/event/concept.aspx

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Contemporvent

Posted on by

I’ve been thinking over and through aspects of “contemporary” Evangelical worship practices.  This past Sunday, I was home in Ohio for Mother’s Day (I surprised my Mom – and she was!) and attended the church my sister and her family attend.  It is a growing Church of God (Anderson, IN) with a new building and all the “spiritually correct” stuff that is supposed to draw large crowds.  It was a fine enough service.  The band was very good.  The worship leader was a young guy and I could tell that he really enjoyed what he was doing – his personality was infectious.  As I watched the crowd, they were actually singing.  In many of these kinds of worship services, I’ve noticed that a large majority of the people simply stand and watch the band rather than interring into the worship experience, so I was glad to see that there was more going on than just a “spiritual concert.”  The preacher gave a good sermon.  Babies were dedicated – it was Mother’s Day after all.

North Point Ministries is a very large mega-church.  They’ve done a parody video of themselves, as I understand it, and it captures the new wave of doing church that is supposed to be the “relevant” and “contemporary” thing to do. This too, shall pass.  Not that there is anything wrong with it if it is done well and within context, but if, as is happening, everyone jumps on yet another bandwagon that is supposed to save the church in America, then it once again becomes inauthentic and just another passing fad, a puff of wind.

Here is the video parody:

“Sunday’s Coming” Movie Trailer from North Point Media on Vimeo.

By the way, my sisters church service was a whole lot like this – including the cool video with relevant questions.  I don’t get the impression that the pastor thinks he has all the answers, however. 

Part of me really liked it – it was fun being back in that environment, even without the all encompassing Charismatic-Evangelical aspects that are not part of the Church of God, Anderson theological belief concerning the Gifts of the Holy Spirit.  Yet, I’m not there any longer.  To me, it smacks of religio-entertainment.  People come to God through it, people grow in their relationship with God and one another in the midst of it (if the pastor preachers well, that is), but I would rather be involved in a “full-bodied” experience that I’ve come to know in Catholic worship in its Anglo-Catholic form.  We all participate and we all do the work of worship and liturgy together. 

The Church must change?

Posted on by

How often I hear these days that “the Church must change or die.” I think this kind of talk comes generally from people bent on institutional survival when things don’t look very good for the coming years. Funny thing, most of them seem to be anti-establishmentarians. I think it comes more from a place of insecurity and a lack of assurance that the Tradition has any longer much to say to contemporary culture. I could be wrong. I think they are wrong.
Of course organizations and institutions change. But the question I have to ask is what must change – everything, organizational structure, teaching, belief, attitude, expression, etc… Perhaps all, perhaps one, perhaps none.
Here’s the thing… When I hear that “the ‘top-down’ authority structures have to change or else the Church will die.” I don’t believe it. Why? Because the world totally functions within a “top-down” authority structure. There is nothing wrong with it, but then again there is nothing pre-ordained about it either. It simply is, and it is neutral. When I read or hear this kind of assertion, what I come away with is an experience of bad leadership. Rather than focus on helping leaders – be they priests, bishops, CEO’s, mayors, or any other authority of rank – be better leaders (which isn’t easy, I know), we would rather tare down the structure and replace it with what?, something we imagine will be better?
Here’s another thing… When I hear that “the teaching of the Church must change or it will die!” I don’t believe it. Why? Because the core teachings of the Church have flourished, when given an chance, in more cultures and languages than can be counted for over 2,000 years. There is something reliable there, folks. I think the panic comes from people who have lost their sense of imagination. Of course, there have been a whole lot of adiaphora forced onto the Church from centuries past that was (is) never necessary, and these things should perhaps be let go of, but this is a different matter.
What the Church and its members do need to do is learn from the enduring understandings and experiences of the Church in Christ and from the lives of countless Christians over two millennia. Too many of us, I think, have a somewhat vague notion of what a Christian is supposed to be like intellectually, but too many of us do not have the experience of God that enabled martyrs to endure their suffering and death, the down trodden to endure their hardship with a semblance of self respect, the grieving to somehow have joy, the pained to rejoice. This knowledge comes only through relationship, however too many of us have dysfunctional relationships with God. The problem is that we too often demand to stay in our dysfunction. God has other ideas, however, but He will respect our decisions.
What the Church does need to do, I humbly assert (and of course the Church is only individual people), what we need to do is learn how to translate the Faith and the Tradition and the Experience that have endured for all these centuries to emerging generations.
Our problem is a translation problem! Our problem is that we don’t translate or reflect the imago Dei very well in these times and in our own contexts. Many do, of course, and they don’t seem to have the same kind of “change everything” panic that tares at the heart of what enlivens the Church and enables Christians to be.

A working thesis:

Posted on by

On Facebook, I posted this working theses:

In the coming decades, society will look more pre-Constantinian than post. The majority unchurched population will not be intrigued by or drawn to the Gospel if all they see in Christians is a reflection of current culture, liberal or conservative. To be a people in the imago Dei, Christians will need… to recognize our distinct “otherness” in our formation. What does that mean? How will it be done?

A former seminary mate of mine responded: “It’s like Michele’s friend said: if you want to know if a person is a Christian, ask their neighbor. ”
I absolutely agree, but… The problem in our current situation is that common, disinterested people are not particularly impressed with the lives of their neighbors who claim to be “Christians.” (see “unChristian” for examples). What has to change at very fundamental levels within our churches and our individual lives that will causes us to be more reflective of Christ rather than culture?
The Gospel of Christ and the consequent life He calls us to is are profoundly disturbing and counter cultural. Are we too embarrassed or afraid, in the arrogate, to take on such a life? Are we to enamored with mammon? Are we too deceived? Too lazy? What???? These, of course, are questions that have been bantered around since the beginning, but what do they mean in our contexts and in our time?

Nothing but sex please, we’re vicars . . .

Posted on by

This guy, Richard Morrison, of the Times (UK) puts it all into perspective very well in his commentary, entitled, “Nothing but sex please, we’re vicars . . .”
His concluding paragraph (I recommend reading the whole thing!):

The tragedy for the Church is that it is missing a huge opportunity. There are millions of young people out there who are disaffected from mainstream politics but equally dissatisfied with the mindless consumerism and callous selfishness of modern life. You can see that from the numbers flocking to espouse green causes, or to work for charities this Christmas. With so many youngsters thinking deeply about what’s right and wrong for the world, this should be a golden age for Christianity — the most revolutionary of religions. But while the Church renders itself a laughing-stock over sex, it hasn’t got a hope of converting the young. At the moment some leading clerics come across as befrocked weirdos with one-track minds. And I’m not talking about their belief in God.

Change

Posted on by

There is a very good post from Mark Harris, member of Executive Council of The Episcopal Church, on his blog PRELUDIUM, entitled, “Moving from corporate governance to incorporated governance.”
Is the change they perceive/believe taking place really the change that is actually happening? I disagree with Fr. Harris, I think. I posted a response on his blog, and it is below ——-
This is a good post, but I want to detail some thoughts that keep rolling through my mind as I read more and more stuff from the generation currently in power. I will say from the beginning that I could be absolultely wrong, so your responses are requested and welcomed. I’m sincere in this and don’t want to come across as accusatory or demeaning, even though I will probably sound like it.
To start, I read and hear again and again from Gen X/Y’ers that Baby Boomers keep insisting that they understand, but they absolutely do not – they don’t listen.
What I hear in this post is the insistence that there is a move afoot from an Episcopal form of governance to what might be closer to some form of egalitarian or “congregationalist” governance seated in the Executive Council. And that the justifications for such a change are being formed by the Baby Boomers in power as if coming out of what they perceive to be going on within the younger generations (notions of “Networked Societies,” being an example).
It also sounds to me too much like the Baby Boomer imperative of opposition to whatever currently is and the inclination to tear it down in order to rebuild it into their own image regardless of the consequences. I think this is a generational inclination that comes near to being an obsession.
I think that many Baby Boomers assume they understand the inclinations of later Gen X and Y’ers in their Postmodern thinking and being. It seems to me that this is often more about the taking of Gen X/Y, Postmodern sensibilities and trying to find a way to force them into hipper forms of justification for “Age of Aquarius,” Modernist sensibilities. Do Baby Boomers really understand? When I hear Gen X/Y’ers who are away from Baby Boomers, they say, “No!.”
I wonder whether for too many Baby Boomers, the idea of taking off the rose colored glasses warn by their generation to honestly understand Postmodernism or the younger generations’ sensibilities and way of dealing with the world and one another can occur. I don’t know.
This is an issue, I think, for Baby Boomers. Postmodernism is the way of thinking and understanding for later generations. Baby Boomers may well understand this objectively, but perhaps not subjectively. It is very difficult for anyone to jump out of their fundamental formational model of conceiving (enculturation). So, Baby Boomers make connections between aspects of Postmodernism and their “Age of Aquarius” notions too often wrongly. This may be more than simply the common differences experienced between generations.
Postmoderns are certainly living into “Networked Societies” and do not respond to authority in the same way as do Moderns, but Baby Boomers in their anti-establishmentarianism and rejection of the strong informing force of times past seem to insist that this means there is justification in the usurpation of power from established norms.
The problem is that Baby Boomers are now “the Man,” and later generations are rebelling in their own way against them and their way of thinking – which includes the strange sense of egalitarianism that results in the pulling down of anything they don’t like. How about younger generations actually preferring traditional language, liturgy, music, and architecture?
The war between the “Conservatives” and the “Progressives” in TEC, as an example, is really a battle between people of a generation. Most Postmoderns I know think it is a lot of ridiculous they way you all are acting that results in the tearing apart of TEC and traditional Anglican sensibilities. That’s just what I hear.
Executive Council may well take upon itself new powers and new authorities not specifically granted to it, but what is described here as a glorious happening is not really a Postmodern reaction, but a very generationally specific Modernist one.

We are witness to the change

Posted on by

In an article from Christianity Today, December 2009, entitled, “A More Social Gospel: Campus ministries swap pizza for compassion.”

… Advocates believe such efforts reclaim the church’s true calling.
“The social message and the traditional evangelism approach go hand in hand, ” said Bob Marks, recruitment specialist for Chi Alpha, an Assemblies of God ministry active on more than 200 campuses worldwide. One example: The University of California, Irvine chapter focused on human trafficking last year.
Josh Spavin, an intern with the University of Central Florida’s Campus Crusade for Christ chapter, said traditional evangelism still works, but times have changed with this generation.
“Students tend to not just take it unless they experience it or see it in someone else’s life,” Spavin said…
Spavin said he hopes his chapter will launch an HIV/AIDS outreach with a campus gay and lesbian group…

I’ve been saying as I’ve talked about the Red Hook Project and the ImagoDei Society that our culture is moving into a pre-Constantinian environment where society and the prevailing culture are no longer “Christian” – we are Post-Christian – and that if we hope to have an impact on people or society, then they have to see something compelling and different in the lives of those of us who claim Christ. They have to witness something different about us and that we certainly are not just a mirror image of the worst of the prevailing culture.
This quote from Spavin simply is another example of this trend or idea.
I also find it very interesting that a Campus Crusade for Christ chapter would be willing to do anything with a campus gay group. Of course, if they have an underhanded goal that this will be a vehicle for them to get these homosexuals to repent and give up the “lifestyle,” without a willingness to even suspect that their presumptions could be wrong, then their efforts will most certainly fall flat. If they revert to such tactics, then they will simple go backwards into a way of being that at least with these later unchurched generations does nothing but reinforce the negative image of Christians in general.

The Church and Public Worship (pp 13-16)

Posted on by

“That brings me to another question,” said the Doctor. “Why do the minister and the choir wear vestments?”
Both the Rector and the Major began to reply.
“To show their ministry of prayer and praise,” began the Rector.
“Democratic!” urged the Major.
“That brings us to the second underlying principle of the Church,” interrupted the Rector. “The Episcopal Church is democratic. The world over it serves all sorts and conditions of men. It has the same services and ministers in the same way to rich and poor, fortunate and unfortunate. It brings the universal spiritual satisfactions to the universal needs of our common human nature.”
“But how are vested choirs democratic?” asked the Doctor.
“Nothing so democratic as a uniform,” answered the Major. “Variety in uniform shows distinctive duties, but all uniforms are democratic. One minister is not clothed in fine broadcloth and another in homespun. All wear the simple vestments of their rank. Choristers too! Many a person would be kept out of a choir by lack of proper cloths if choirs were not in uniform. Nothing so distracting as a mixed choir in a denominational church. Twenty different kinds of hats, as many kinds of cravats. Whole scheme of unvested choirs too formal and aristocratic. Our method much simpler and democratic. Admits persons who would be excluded if fine clothes were a requirement.”
“That is so,” granted the Doctor. “Curiously, I had the opposite impression. I thought the vested choir was the height of form and very aristocratic.”
“All wrong,” affirmed the Major. “Most democratic scheme for singers ever devised. No form whatsoever. Just a band of plain people, properly garbed, singing the praises of God in the Church. Most reverent too. Nothing so irreverent as finery in the Church. Too distracting. Too self-approving…”
…”That opens up the subject of the general sensitivities of human beings,” began the Judge. “They are just as sensitive in their spiritual natures. You like to have your patients in a cheerful mood, do you not, Doctor?”
“Surely. Most necessary!” answered the Doctor.
“The Church likewise desires to impress the people with the cheerfulness of religion. But you do administer medicine, Doctor.”
“It helps,” was the Doctor’s comment.
“The Church must administer its truth and healing power, too. It has proper seasons for every phase of its teachings We use different colors to suggest the general nature of the season. Last Sunday we used white… symbolic color of joy. We use also purple, green, and red. Each is suggestive of the particular truths which are being impressed in lesson and sermon. Nature has taught us that are.”
“You can’t go wrong in following Nature,” said the Doctor.
“Quit right. And human nature too. Those who think the Episcopal Church is artificial are entirely mistaken. It is as natural as Nature herself. The Church through long experience has learned what human natures craves. Beauty, warm associations, pleasant environment, gracious clinging memories, forms of sound words, bright pictures for the mind, suggestions of spiritual mysteries, acts of personal worship, habits of reverence, a consciousness of a great Household in which cluster great ideals, the knowledge of the riches of the past brought to the heart of the present; all these things make the abiding impressions that fill the worshiper with feelings that never depart. The member of the Episcopal Church who feels these things never leaves this household. Religion to him would seem barren, ever after, without the riches and associations of the Church to enforce the lessons and deepen his sense of spiritual things.”
[The Episcopal Church: Its Message for Men of Today, George Parkin Atwater; New York: Morehourse-Gorham Co., 1950; 6-12.]
more to come…
My, how things have changed! Although, I do think there is truth in many of the things being emphasized above.