What Millennials Want in Church

Why millennials are leaving the church
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/27/why-millennials-are-leaving-the-church/?hpt=hp_c3

 

By Rachel Held Evans, Special to CNN

July 27, 2013

 

(CNN) – At 32, I barely qualify as a millennial.

 

I wrote my first essay with a pen and paper, but by the time I graduated from college, I owned a cell phone and used Google as a verb.

 

I still remember the home phone numbers of my old high school friends, but don’t ask me to recite my husband’s without checking my contacts first.

 

I own mix tapes that include selections from Nirvana and Pearl Jam, but I’ve never planned a trip without Travelocity.

 

Despite having one foot in Generation X, I tend to identify most strongly with the attitudes and the ethos of the millennial generation, and because of this, I’m often asked to speak to my fellow evangelical leaders about why millennials are leaving the church.

 

Armed with the latest surveys, along with personal testimonies from friends and readers, I explain how young adults perceive evangelical Christianity to be too political, too exclusive, old-fashioned, unconcerned with social justice and hostile to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

 

I point to research that shows young evangelicals often feel they have to choose between their intellectual integrity and their faith, between science and Christianity, between compassion and holiness.

 

I talk about how the evangelical obsession with sex can make Christian living seem like little more than sticking to a list of rules, and how millennials long for faith communities in which they are safe asking tough questions and wrestling with doubt.

 

Invariably, after I’ve finished my presentation and opened the floor to questions, a pastor raises his hand and says, “So what you’re saying is we need hipper worship bands. …”

 

And I proceed to bang my head against the podium.

 

Time and again, the assumption among Christian leaders, and evangelical leaders in particular, is that the key to drawing twenty-somethings back to church is simply to make a few style updates – edgier music, more casual services, a coffee shop in the fellowship hall, a pastor who wears skinny jeans, an updated Web site that includes online giving.

 

But here’s the thing: Having been advertised to our whole lives, we millennials have highly sensitive BS-meters, and we’re not easily impressed with consumerism or performances.

 

In fact, I would argue that church-as-performance is just one more thing driving us away from the church, and evangelicalism in particular.

 

Many of us, myself included, are finding ourselves increasingly drawn to high church traditions – Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, the Episcopal Church, etc. – precisely because the ancient forms of liturgy seem so unpretentious, so unconcerned with being “cool,” and we find that refreshingly authentic.

 

What millennials really want from the church is not a change in style but a change in substance.

 

We want an end to the culture wars. We want a truce between science and faith. We want to be known for what we stand for, not what we are against.

 

We want to ask questions that don’t have predetermined answers.

 

We want churches that emphasize an allegiance to the kingdom of God over an allegiance to a single political party or a single nation.

 

We want our LGBT friends to feel truly welcome in our faith communities.

 

We want to be challenged to live lives of holiness, not only when it comes to sex, but also when it comes to living simply, caring for the poor and oppressed, pursuing reconciliation, engaging in creation care and becoming peacemakers.

 

You can’t hand us a latte and then go about business as usual and expect us to stick around. We’re not leaving the church because we don’t find the cool factor there; we’re leaving the church because we don’t find Jesus there.

 

Like every generation before ours and every generation after, deep down, we long for Jesus.

 

Now these trends are obviously true not only for millennials but also for many folks from other generations. Whenever I write about this topic, I hear from forty-somethings and grandmothers, Generation Xers and retirees, who send me messages in all caps that read “ME TOO!” So I don’t want to portray the divide as wider than it is.

 

But I would encourage church leaders eager to win millennials back to sit down and really talk with them about what they’re looking for and what they would like to contribute to a faith community.

 

Their answers might surprise you.

 

----

 

Rachel Held Evans is the author of "Evolving in Monkey Town" and "A Year of Biblical Womanhood." She blogs at rachelheldevans.com. The views expressed in this column belong to Rachel Held Evans.
 

The Editors - CNN Belief Blog     For futher discussion:   More on millennials and the future of Christianity...(a list of resources & conversations)

Phase III - Building a Postmodern Theology that is both Weak and Apocalyptic

Initially entitled:

Comparisons between Postmodern Christianity, Radical and Liberal Theology

 

by R.E. Slater

July 26, 2013

 

As Americans, we have read our view-of-the-world from an American perspective within the pages of Scripture. A perspective that is robust, militant, and rigorously individualistic. So when reading the Bible, or thinking of the God of Scriptures, we tend to believe God as robust (He can do anything as a controlling force in the universe and in our lives); that God is militant (God's truth-and-righteousness will win out as we, His divine minions, bow to His almighty will and rage economic, political, and ideological warfare upon the world-at-large); and God is rigorously individualistic (God will do what God will do, ultimately encapsulated in our conscripted reading of the Hebraic idiom "I AM whom I AM").

Our American churches have likewise acquired this selective method of reading God's Word within its congregations gained from the perspective of all our past wars and industrial feats of technical prowess. Beginning with the American Revolution and proceeding forwards through the 20th century's major world wars, America has shown a commitment to a number of regional warfares waged upon cultures vastly different from our own. Each war demanding newer technologies, more efficient distribution and logistical solutions, and a populace at one with itself in the face of its perceived enemy. In effect, America has been fighting for the human rights, liberties and equality, of not only itself, but for other societies as well, through its democratized republic full of purpose-and-will. Similarly, we have read these primal American idealisms backwards into Israel's Old Testament struggles with her surrounding heathen neighbors as they fought-and-warred with one another over the many, many, long centuries.

Certainly, we do not wish to discount the American ideal of Life, Liberty, and Equality. And indeed, from the reports we've read, many who live beyond America's borders would wish those majestic qualities upon themselves benighted within oppressive countries of totalitarianism, hopeless states of unending abject poverty, and the cruel forms of slavery everywhere abounding. Moreover, we are not so naïve as to disbelieve that these forms of oppression, poverty, and slavery do not also exist within America's borders itself, even though we still tend towards the idealisms of Americanism as expressed by our national motto of Life, Liberty, and Equality for All. And because of its importance to us, these idealisms have also influenced our reading of the Bible, our understanding of God, and how we might conduct ourselves in this world as we  have perceived and constructed it.

Hence, our more popular theologies found within American churches tend towards a high view of Calvinism that emphasizes God's strength, power, and will; an absolutist call of Christ to enforce our perspective of God and Scriptures upon all nations, religions, and faiths unlike ourselves; and a strict humanism that is both secular and individualistic as a means to encompass our views and objectives. Which brings us to the idea of postmodernism. An idea that rejects modernity in its egresses; that disdains the secularity our American churches have embraced; that wishes to temper our view of an all-controlling God in the face of natural disasters which have left us horrified by the suffering left in their wake; that cannot comport with man's wickedness and evil when small children are shot and killed; or, when sex slavery is dismayingly discovered running rampant throughout our American cities; and questions whether we Americans are truly the Masters-of-our-Fate in the strident courses of our business ethics when money and politics are involved.

Postmodernity looks at modernity's shortcomings and says that maybe there is another way. We see that in our kids who have endured two recent Global Recessions (2001-2004 and 2008-2010); lived in a constant state of terrorism and terroristic acts (both within our American homeland and abroad); grew up with the knowledge that American is at war with somebody over something at all times; have seen the failures of their homes broken beneath the weight of workaholic mom-and-dads, domestic abuse and anger, and the shallowness of material wealth; and the results of addictions within a society placing a heavy emphasis on hedonistic behavior. These kids then do something amazing. Something which is totally unexpected by us, their parents, teachers, coaches, civil magistrates, and youth workers. They become unlike us. They center on the truer values of ethics again. They reach out in compassionate projects of service to those in need. They see the circus of career, job and dollar, and ask if whether life might offer more than these things. They show to us a color-blindness towards race, gender equality, and same-sex marriage. And they become intensely interested in the ecological health of this world that is burgeoning with over-population and the scarcity of resources, time, and production.

Yes, postmodernism is here (and more likely merged into a form of post-postmodernism by now). And yes, with its coming some important questions have arisen as to whether our Americanized view of God and the Scriptures might be a little askew of where they should be for the church today. Thus my interest in producing Relevancy22 beginning in the late spring of 2011. Phase I found my first six months questioning my Evangelic roots as I witnessed well-meaning Christians venting Calvinistic and Reformed views upon Rob Bell's book, Love Wins. It was not pretty and gave me time to reflect and react upon the state of Evangelicalism itself rather than on Rob's book in particular. At which time I chose to balance the subject off by speaking to the themes of God's love (relational theism), arminianism (which emphasizes prevenient grace and human free contra Calvinism), a non-coercive divine sovereignty (as opposed to meticulous sovereignty), missional pluralism (reaching beyond our enculturated gospel) and many other classic doctrines gone askew in the hands of an over zealous Evangelicalism within whose womb I had grown up. It gave me a chance to percolate and become up-to-date with Christianity's more popular forms of expression.

After the first six months I slipped into what I would call Phase II and began writing about a more expansive expression of Christianity that was less sure about things, more in doubt of itself, and more willing to explore supposedly "non-classical" doctrine as it was deemed by those who were clearly laying claim to a very narrow selection of preferred dogmas.... Even though they were just as clearly wrong though I knew it not at the time I began. This was my deconstructive phase where I more-or-less moved towards a form of Emergent, Postmodernism in a re-interpretive (or reconstructive) understanding of God and Scriptures. And which, in many ways, I am still even now pursuing. However, in my continued interest in enlarging my personal and interpretive hermeneutic of Scriptures, I have come to what I might call Phase III of this re-interpretive project to re-write a more current postmodern understanding of God and the Scriptures (that is, a Postmodern Theology if you well).

Hitherto I have written only a few articles about God's weakness (known as "weak theology") and our correspondent responsibilities as followers of Jesus in light of God's preference that His Church now act in His place as His divine substitute, answer, and source of repentance, reclamation, rebirth, renewal, and resurrection . Nor have I written enough (if anything) about eschatology - especially from an apocalyptic angle that is radical and revolutionary (if not even anarchistic to our global societies' posthuman secularisms). Moreover, I wish to continue to explore a kind of anthropologic hermeneutic that synchronizes God's Love and Divine Sovereignty with Jesus' radical presence, death, and ministry through the Holy Spirit. For this I will need to look into Radical Theology as expressed most recently through the past 150 years of German Idealism before mashing it into an Emergent, Postmodern framework of discussion. (By definition, a radical theology is any faith teaching that clashes with the standard faith teaching of the time.... You see this with the prophets in the OT, with Jesus in the NT (John the Baptist, the Apostles, and early Church), and with any believer wishing to speak to the egresses of the believing community. Radical Theology is not new - but in its contemporary forms is always new - as it recalls one-and-all back to God's heart of purpose and living.)

 

Thus, as I have time to research and write, I wish to explore the ideas of Hegel, Ricouer, Heidegger, Tillich, Derrida, Zizek, and Caputo. Now don't be alarmed because even Karl Barth needed to interact with the Continental Philosophers of his day in order to produce his guiding theologies that God had laid upon his hear for the church-of-tomorrow. And having done that, had produced innumerable theologians who have spawned countless workers for the harvest of the gospel. But if we do not think through these issues, than Christianity will become irrelevant to the countless masses of men and women seeking a better spoken biblical theology than the one we are presently seeing in print and in media (mostly what I see disturbs me - thus my passionate articles and blog).

Hence, we have laid before us a worthy task if done right. And if not undertaken, than I'm afraid that we will see some lesser mutations of God's Word become popularized to the harm of Christian orthodoxy's sustainable presence. And yes, it is true, that we will be moving from Christian orthodoxy's Medieval classical expressions of itself (founded upon Greek thought at the time) even as we also move away from its Reformational and Evangelical expressions of itself (founded upon the Enlightenment and later-arising Modernity), to a Postmodern expression for the 21st Century. Thus we will be no less guiltless of interacting with our present world than past godly men and women who had wished to do the same however the spirit we might ascertain. And though creedalism and confessional theology is a bad word among postmodernists, I also realize that we are symbolic creatures that will need help in remembering who God is, and what He intends. Thus, as a historic Christian I do not wish to forgot those past statements of classically-inspired orthodoxy and creedal-sacramental confessionalism, but to build on top of them towards a newer, more contemporary expression for today.

But it will also require a more expansive hermeneutic than the one we presently are witnessing under Evangelicalism's more popularly acclaimed literalistic (if not dogmatic) reading of God's Word that is restricting today's church to time-bound, modernal interpretations of Scripture.... Interpretations that I've reacted to over these past two years to little avail.... But if done right, might allow us to see God better, along with better envisioning God's will for His Church today in this life of ours. While perhaps avoiding the many nuanced expressions of a segmented Christianity fractured by too many conflicted dogmas and stylisms; interpretive preferences and bigoted statements; and generally refusing to embrace the radical reversalisms found in Jesus' teachings and ministries. At least this is my hope as I explore Weak Theology and Apocalypticism for the postmodern orthodox church of the 21st Century.

By God's grace I have awaken from my dogmatic slumber and would wish the same for God's church today as it arises to the conflicts lying within herself and this world's conflicted needs. And by God's grace I wish to begin by re-introducing postmodernism's relationship with radical theology in comparison with liberal theology from a more positivistic plane of biblical discussion than from the more cursed anathemas that the church has heaped upon either. At the last, I am learning not to be afraid of words as I once was taught. For I am finding words to be quite helpful when re-contextualized outside of the phrases of religious men and institutions. Words that can help provide the freedom of expression I could not find earlier until creating mine own. And especially when formed around the person of Jesus and His Word rather than around the extra-biblical dogmas and folklored, Christianized religion I grew up within. It has not been for naught these past two years of writing that I have written about my faith in a more expansive form than formerly presented in mine own life of study, worship, and observation. And if you have not yet had a chance to catch up then mark this date because Phase III has begun as we build towards a postmodern theology that is both weak and apocalyptic and unafraid to rethink what a biblical Christianity might really mean shed of its pretentious statements and debilitating words. Thank you for your consideration.

 

R.E. Slater
July 26, 2013

 

 

* * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Postmodern Christianity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_Christianity

 

from Wikipedia

 

Postmodern Christianity is any form of Christianity which has been influenced by postmodern philosophy. Although it is a relatively recent development within Christianity, some Christian postmodernists assert that their style of thought has an affinity with foundational Christian thinkers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, and famed Christian mystics such as Meister Eckhart and Angelus Silesius.

 

In addition to Christian theology, postmodern Christianity has its roots in post-Heideggerian continental philosophy, developed ca. 1960s to present.

 

Some people who eschew the label "postmodern Christianity" because the meaning of the term "postmodern" is frequently debated, even between those who use the label. Therefore some say [who?] it has almost no determinate meaning and, in the United States, serves largely to symbolize an emotionally charged battle of ideologies. Moreover, such alleged postmodern heavyweights as Jacques Derrida and Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe have refused to operate under a so-called postmodern rubric, preferring instead to specifically embrace a single project stemming from the European Enlightenment and its precursors. Nevertheless, postmodern Christianity and its constituent schools of thought continue to be relevant.

 

 

Liberal Christianity

Main article: Liberal Christianity

 

Liberal Christianity, sometimes called liberal theology, has an affinity with certain current forms of postmodern Christianity, although postmodern thought was originally a reaction against mainstream Protestant liberalism. Liberal Christianity is an umbrella term covering diverse, philosophically informed movements and moods within 19th and 20th century Christianity.

 

Despite its name, liberal Christianity has always been thoroughly protean. The word "liberal" in liberal Christianity does not necessarily refer to a leftist political agenda but rather to insights developed during the Enlightenment. Generally speaking, Enlightenment-era liberalism held that humans are political creatures and that liberty of thought and expression should be among the highest human values. The development of liberal Christianity owes much to the works of philosophers Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher. Overall, liberal Christianity is a product of a continuing philosophical dialogue.

 

In the 19th century, self-identified liberal Christians sought to elevate Jesus' humane teachings as a standard for a world civilization freed from cultic traditions and traces of "pagan" belief in the supernatural.[1] As a result, liberal Christians placed less emphasis on miraculous events associated with the life of Jesus than on his teachings. The effort to remove "superstitious" elements from Christian faith dates to intellectual reformist Christians such as Erasmus and the Deists in the 15th–17th centuries.[2] The debate over whether a belief in miracles was mere superstition or essential to accepting the divinity of Christ constituted a crisis within the 19th-century church, for which theological compromises were sought.[3]

 

[As an extreme example],the Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was Thomas Jefferson's effort to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.

 

Many 20th century liberal Christians have been influenced by philosophers Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger. Examples of important liberal Christian thinkers are Rudolf Bultmann and John A.T. Robinson.

 

 

Christian existentialism

Main article: Christian existentialism

Søren Kierkegaard

Christian existentialism is a form of Christianity that draws extensively from the writings of Søren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard initiated the school of thought when he reacted against Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's claims of universal knowledge and what he deemed to be the empty formalities of the 19th century church. Christian existentialism places an emphasis on the undecidability of faith, individual passion, and the subjectivity of knowledge.

 

Although Kierkegaard's writings weren't initially embraced, they became widely known at the beginning of the 20th century. Later Christian existentialists synthesized Kierkegaardian themes with the works of thinkers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Walter Benjamin, and Martin Buber.

 

Paul Tillich, Lincoln Swain, Gabriel Marcel, and John Macquarrie are examples of leading Christian existentialist writers, building upon a legacy of neo-orthodox thinkers like Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, who similarly disdained the propositionalism of traditionalist Protestantism.

 

 

Continental philosophical theology

 

Continental philosophical theology is the most recent form of postmodern Christianity. The movement was fueled heavily by the slew of notable post-Heideggerian philosophers that appeared on the continent in the 1970s and 1980s. Groundbreaking works such as Jean-Luc Marion's God Without Being and John D. Caputo's The Prayers and Tears of Jacques Derrida ushered in the era of continental philosophical theology.

 

Radical orthodoxy

Main article: Radical orthodoxy

 

Radical orthodoxy is a form of continental philosophical theology that has been influenced by the phenomenological writings of French Catholic philosopher Jean-Luc Marion.

 

Radical orthodoxy is a style of theology that seeks to examine [and maintain] classic Christian writings and related Neoplatonic texts from a contemporary, philosophically continental perspective. The movement finds in writers such as Augustine of Hippo and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite valuable sources of insight and meaning relevant to modern society and Christianity at large.

 

John Milbank and James K.A. Smith are leading proponents of radical orthodoxy.

[Radical orthodoxy is substantially different from Radical Theology. The former wishes to resurrect classical Christian doctrine in postmodern dress, while the latter wishes to push on beyond classical Christian expression using postmodern thinking and hermeneutics. - res]
 

 

Hermeneutics of religion

See also: Biblical hermeneutics

 

The hermeneutics of religion is another form of continental philosophical theology. The system of hermeneutic interpretation developed by Paul Ricœur has heavily influenced the school of thought. A central theme in the hermeneutics of religion is that God exists outside the confines of the human imagination. Richard Kearney is a prominent advocate of the movement.

 

Non-dogmatic theology (weak theology)
Main article: Weak theology

 

Weak theology is a manner of thinking about theology from a deconstructive point of view. The style of thought owes a debt to Jacques Derrida, especially in light of his idea of a "weak force." Weak theology is weak because it takes a non-dogmatic, perspectival approach to theology. Proponents of weak theology believe that dominant contemporary explications of theology are inherently ideological, totalizing, and militant. In response, weak theology expresses itself through acts of interpretation.

 

According to Caputo, the distinctive reinterpretive act of weak theology has resulted in the notion of the weakness of God. In the body of thought, the paradigm of God as an overwhelming physical or metaphysical force is regarded as mistaken. The old God-of-power is displaced with the idea of God as an unconditional claim without force. As a claim without force, the God of weak theology does not physically or metaphysically intervene in nature. Weak theology emphasizes the responsibility of humans to act in this world here and now. Because God is thought of as weak and as a call, weak theology places an emphasis on the "weak" human virtues of forgiveness, hospitality, openness, and receptivity. In each of these virtues, a metaphoric "power of powerlessness" is at work.

 

John D. Caputo and Gianni Vattimo have recently completed works that further develop the idea of a weak theology. Earlier, liberation theologians such as Jurgen Moltmann also dealt with concepts such as the kenotic, or self-emptying nature of God in Christ.


 

How Might We Interpret the OT for Today?

 

 

Suffice it to say that today's article would be a great beginning point in the postmodern Christian's understanding of how the OT might relate to the NT. However, at first blush it would seemed that there may be a few more things going on here than we might currently admit. Mostly, we must think about why certain societal rules or cultural norms appeal to us. A postmodernist will question everything, and one of the things s/he must question is ourselves, then our social group, our church fellowship, and lastly our society.

 

But rather than saying everything is relativistic we should be asking how the Bible might help illuminate us as we find ourselves in our time-and-place when re-enacting God's great love that He has shown to us through His Son Jesus. Not judgmental love even though proper love will judge both its challenger as well as its motivation to meet that challenge. But to love in the sense of bringing peace and justice, reconciliation and purpose, back into a person, a situation, or a society. Even so, it must all begin with Jesus even as He questioned everything, teaching an ethic that stood everyone on their head, and spun them around in their thinking, from what they thought He might say to what He was actually saying TO THEM.

 

Further, a good historian of the Bible knows that ancient biblical culture - both in the OT as well as in the NT - are mostly lost to us in the sense of knowing how people thought and behaved back then. Oh yes, we can make our conjectures based upon our comparative readings of ancient histories, but most of these histories were written much later after-the-event-had-occurred! Even in the Bible's recorded histories by the biblical writers themselves as they too wrote from their cultural-and-historical perspectives (sic, via an  enculturated boundedness, personal biases and judgments). In its present form the Jewish OT was written in the Second Temple era from records as much as a thousand years earlier, many of which had been lost to time and inattention. Truly, we mostly are at a lost as to what people were thinking back 2000 years ago (the NT period), let alone 4000 years ago (the Torah period).

 

Which also gets us to the idea of remembering that language by its nature is both fluid and ambiguous. Even today, amongst our literate societies news-events are continually questioned as to their correctness of interpretation! Whether they are punning towards a particular view, outcome, or bias - or whether, it is in sincere search of the truth - our words carry multiple meanings to multiple hearers and societies. How much more than has the church done the same with its own ancient records and traditions as demonstrated by the vernacular speeches and commentaries held forth by today's current crops of Christian writers, pulpiteers, and media outlets? Words carry meaning. But they also carry ambiguity. Words are not mathematical symbols with strict mathematical properties. The best words of poets know this. And those kinds of lucid poets will write in a way that will carry an idea as expressed in a poem on many levels of meaning to many kinds of ears and eyes. Even in the church's traditional creeds we find our postmodern thinking wanting more (or less) when reading those grand confessions of faith. Especially when couched in the newer terms of process theism, relational thought, open theology, and the emergent strains of radical theology in its pithy cores and poignant questions to Christianity's truer meanings.

 

For all these many reasons, and many more, today's articles by Christianity Today and Scot McKnight make for a great beginning point of conversation. But not an ending point. Why? Because CT's expression is couched in the church's traditions and classical creedal expressions. Whereas McKnight's is showing a more nuanced reading of those traditions and expressions which may help guide the street-level Christian in his/her's reading of the OT. But still, we may push forward by asking even more questions. Questions of our preferred hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible: whether it pushes us far enough from our comfort zone, or if whether it keeps us too smugly wrapped up in our biases and bigotries towards those whom we should share God's love with. Whom we should advocate and mediate justice for. Whom we should forgive and reach out to. If whether we might lay down our religions clubs and shields long enough to work together in irenic debate and peaceful argumentation.

 

At the last, it is a beginning point. And hopefully, as we have discussed here at Relevancy22 in previous articles about the Bible and biblical interpretations, we might have been asking the hard questions of how we might discover Paul's readings aright in light of his Jewish orientation and not his Calvinistic or Reformed interpretation that we have covered him in. Or his Americanized, Western dress that we see Paul in. But not only must we learn to rethink the OT, so even must we learn to rethink the NT. When making our brazen speeches that "Paul said this or that" we may only be marking ourselves by our own (biblical) shortsightedness to what Paul may or may not actually be saying (or not saying!). Issues of gender equality, same-sex marriage, homosexuality, political rightness, poverty, victimization, and injustice continue to challenge us by God's Word. Let's just say that it would be a fearful thing should Jesus return today within our lives and churches. Just how many of our judgments and biblical assurances might you think remain?

 

In Paul's day, even this great Rabbi of the Jewish faith (I'm speaking of the Apostle Paul) found his faith impoverished, his ideas conflicted, his ministries oppressive, his love hardened before he met the Resurrected Jesus on the Damascus Road. An experience that burned up the chattel of his life and reapportioned his livelihood to the re-righting of his earthly calling to public ministry. A ministry of love-and-reconciliation rather than of one of oppression-and-judgment. So too must we each must be confronted by our own Damascus Road experience beginning with how we might skew (or unskew) our interpretations of the OT text and NT principles we think we understand today in the postmodern sense. No, we do not speak of a relativism, but of a loving God's guidance of His church to err on the side of love, mercy, peace, and forgiveness. To do all in the name of Jesus as we are able or gifted by our separate callings. No more, and no less. And to abandon our guilt, and the oppression of our conscience, by taking all to the Lord as He gives us insight into our lives, our calling, our purpose here in this life when confronted by the crucified Christ.

 

At the last, how did Jesus answer his accusers? To Love the Lord Your God with all your heart, mind, body, and soul. And to Love your neighbor as yourself. Even so may this be prayer and admonition be in our lives this day, as difficult as it is. As challenging as it can be. To do good to everyman... and even more, to love in the power of the Holy Spirit by God's grace and mercy, peace and forgiveness. May this be so for you as God gives you strength and confession, repentance and trust. Amen.

 

R.E. Slater

July 25, 2013

 

 

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

 

 

Chris Wright on Old Testament Law and Today

by Scot McKnight

Jul 25, 2013

Comments

 

Introductory comments from an article in Christianity Today:

But just as well, we should never say, “Oh, we don’t bother with those things because they are just Old Testament rules.” There are principled reasons why Christians not only need but also should not observe certain Old Testament laws simply as written. And regarding two kinds of law, the New Testament itself provides those reasons. 

The sacrificial laws: The New Testament makes it clear that the religious system of temple, altar, animal sacrifices, priesthood, and the Day of Atonement has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ through the Cross and Resurrection. He has accomplished once and for all what that great system pointed toward. The Book of Hebrews stresses that, whether we are Jewish or Gentile believers, we must not go back to that system, because we already have all that it represented through Christ’s sacrificial death and ascended life in the presence of the Father. 

The food laws: The distinction between clean and unclean animals and foods was symbolic of the distinction between Israel as God’s holy people and the Gentile nations (Lev 20:25–26). In the New Testament, that separation is abolished in Christ, as Paul says in Ephesians 2. Through the Cross, God has made the two cultures one new humanity. And as Peter discovered through his vision in Acts 10; before going to the home of the Gentile Cornelius, what God has called clean should no longer be called unclean. Today some Messianic Jewish believers choose freely to observe the kashrutregulations as a mark of their Jewish community and cultural identity. But in their unity, believers are free from food laws. 

But just because we no longer keep these laws literally does not mean they can’t teach us anything. We are called to present our bodies as a living sacrifice in the service of God. We are called to offer the sacrifice of praise. We are called to cleanness of life in a corrupt world. In fact, if we are tempted to mock Jewish fastidiousness over kosher food in the kitchen, we might ask if we have any sustained commitment to the moral and spiritual distinctiveness that the New Testament upholds. 

We can find principles even in Israel’s civil laws to apply today. The urban Christians in Corinth did not see oxen grinding corn in their city houses. But when Paul wrote to the Corinthian church, he took an Old Testament law about allowing working oxen to be fed from the product of their labors (Deut 25:4) and applied it to Christian workers in Corinth. He sees a principle in the case law—originally meant for the benefit of animals—and applies it to working humans. The principle: Work deserves reward. Later he applies another commandment about how manna was to be collected (totally irrelevant to Corinth, you might think), and applies it to the principle of equality between Christians (1 Cor 9:8–10; 2 Cor 8:13–15). These are biblical examples of creative application of biblical laws in nonliteral, but very appropriate, ways.

 

 

Additional Comments from Scott McKnight:

 

In Blue Parakeet, I advocated that we learn to read Moses’ laws as God’s ways in Moses’ days, and it seems Chris Wright gets close to this view by advocating a hermeneutic of questions that then get re-asked in our day:

The best way to derive principles from the Old Testament law is to ask questions. All laws in all human societies are made for a purpose. Laws happen because people want to change society, to achieve some social goal, to foster certain interests, or to prevent some social evil. So when we look at any particular law or group of biblical laws, we can ask, “What could be the purpose behind this law?” To be more specific: 

● What kind of situation was this law intended to promote or to prevent? 

● What change in society would this law achieve if it were followed? 

● What kind of situation made this law necessary or desirable? 

● What kind of person would benefit from this law, by assistance or protection? 

● What kind of person would be restrained or restricted by this law, and why? 

● What values are given priority in this law? Whose needs or rights are upheld? 

● In what way does this law reflect what we know from elsewhere in the Bible about the character of God and his plans for human life? 

● What principle or principles does this law embody or instantiate?

Now we won’t always be able to answer these questions with much detail or insight. Some laws are just plain puzzling. But asking questions like these leads us to a much broader and deeper grasp of what Old Testament laws were all about: forming the kind of society God wanted to create. 

Then, having done that homework as best we can, we step out of the Old Testament world and back into our own. Ask the same kind of questions about the society we live in and the kind of people we need to be, and the kind of personal and societal objectives we need to aim for in order to be in any sense “biblical.” 

In this way, biblical law can function sharply as a paradigm or model for our personal and social ethics in all kinds of areas: economic, familial, political, judicial, sexual, and so on. We are not “keeping it” in a literalist way like a list of rules. But more important, we are not ignoring it in defiance of what Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16–17. We are studying and using it as guidance, light for the path, in the joyful way of Psalms 1, 19 and 119.

 

Repost: Christian Music: Why It Sucks and What Can be Done?

 

 

Christian Music…Why Does It Suck? What Can Be Done?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geekgoesrogue/2013/07/christian-music-why-does-it-suck-what-can-be-done/

by Jonathan Ryan
July 23, 2013

Comments

 

By Geek-About-Town Editor, Alan Atchison:

 

What does it mean to make music with purpose or inspiration in this day in age? On one hand, it can be argued that everyone who makes music is inspired toward some sort of purpose. But specifically, what does it mean for Christians to make music in today’s culture? And what on earth is “Christian music” anyway? And how does it differ from any other kind of music that tries to tell an honest story? And is saying you only listen to Christian music the same thing as saying you only use Christian toilet paper?

 

How can today’s world listen to music that encourages them to get to know the counter-cultural person of Jesus when all they hear from Christian-based media are cheesy, regurgitated catch phrases? When it comes to music as an encouraging, sympathizing, and teaching tool, singer/songwriter, Derek Webb says, “A lot of what I see coming out of the church in terms of Christian music unfortunately deals in probably the most spiritual 2 percent of life and culture. And yet, the Bible gives us a framework and a language to deal with all 100 percent of stuff that we come up against in life. So it’s no wonder when people look at the art that comes out of the church in Christian music on the whole, that they see Christianity as this one-dimensional, irrelevant worldview to modern life that only deals with transcendent moments of worship and the afterlife.”

 

Despite much of Christian music’s apparent lack of depth, the Contemporary Christian Music (CCM) industry is continuing to thrive financially. Can it really be considered a coincidence that most CCM artists tend to churn out the same soft, fluffy messages? This, of course begs the question of whether or not the monetary motives of the CCM are no different than those of the standard mainstream record industry. If American Christians are eating up what the CCM is putting out, why would it fix what isn’t broken?

 

In a 2003 episode of South Park entitled “Christian Rock Hard,” eight-year-old Eric Cartman, upon realizing the potential for financial gain, and the ease in which Christian music can be crafted, decides to start a Christian rock band with two other kids from school. Cartman explains that “it’s the easiest, crappiest music in the world…all we have to do to make Christian songs is take regular old songs and add Jesus stuff to them…cross out words like ‘baby’ and ‘darling’ and replace them with ‘Jesus’.” (Spoiler alert!) Cartman’s band, Faith+1, goes on to sell a million copies of its first album, thereby achieving the fictitious “myrrh” status. Some may say that South Park shouldn’t be taken seriously as an indicator of social relevancy, but when most of today’s popular Christian songs make Jesus sound like our boyfriend, TV shows like this make a strong statement.

 

Christian rock music today includes little mention of loving and serving the poor, reconciling with enemies, being a presence in rough neighborhoods, sexuality, dealing with really difficult temptations, or even funny life situations (exception: Reliant K did a pretty sick version of “The Pirates Who Don’t Do Anything”). When these bands play live, their sets usually include tons of catchy songs full of clichéd lyrics followed by mushy, emotionally-charged “altar calls.” I’m not saying altar calls haven’t changed the lives of a certain contingent of the population. But all that these bands usually end up accomplishing is convincing a bunch of 12-16 year-olds to stand up at their seats, or at the very least, raise their hands when presented with the (often times vaguely-explained) challenge to “accept Jesus.” As these kids grow up and face real-life problems, it’s unlikely they’re going to turn to songs that simply tell them to ask Jesus to “wrap me in your arms.” If music truly is the universal language of the world, then this sort of production just isn’t going to cut it.

 

Music plays a huge part in shaping our culture, and vice versa. There is much that can be gained by listening, enjoying, and taking note of what today’s mainstream and indie musicians are saying in their lyrics and then responding accordingly in ways that build up Christ’s kingdom on earth. What would it look like if more people started being “musicians who are Christians” rather than cookie-cutter “Christian musicians?” What would it look like if Christians ripped down the sacred/secular divide and took notice of what so many artists around us are screaming about regarding the messed up state of our culture? We’ve fallen a long way from the days of Larry Norman, one of Christian music’s pioneers, who wasn’t afraid to perform songs that dealt with social issues, politics, spiritual warfare, and hypocrisy. Thankfully, a handful of scattered independent artists are beginning to take up Norman’s mantle and continue this radical, cross-cultural movement. But until the CCM decides that it loves money less than producing positive spiritual change in the world, we’ve still got a long way to go.

 

Alan Atchison is an Online Editor at the Center for the Advanced Study of India at the University of Pennsylvania, where he is also pursuing a Masters of Liberal Arts in Creative Writing. He is currently writing a fictional novel about a couples’ journey through the domestic adoption process. He lives with his wife and daughter in Philadelphia, PA.

 

 

 

Catching Up with Radical Theology

 

 

 

This summer, in my spare time, I thought it would be fun and interesting to join Tripp Fuller and Peter Rollins each Thursday night in a reading group centering on what Radical Theology is, and how it is important to the Christian faith. First, I wanted to know more about the subject itself, and second, to be with a group of Christians who are interested, like myself, in updating our thinking about God and Christianity. Especially as it relates to today's 21st Century's global communities.

 

Importantly, the reading group's discourses have been from a Christian philosophical approach whereas mine have come at it from a postmodern/emergent theological one, as I, and others, have tried to develop and underscore Christianity's relatedness to today's living churches and global societies. Especially since my own, personal faith has evolved out of an evangelic past once focused on a Jesus-faith and Spirit-movement, away from an evangelicalism that now seems to have become dogmatized, institutionalized, and rhetorically excluding to my ears.

 

I believe evangelic Christians who can adopt the spirit of a postmodern, emergent Christianity will find their fellowships and churches busier in the work of the harvest than if they were to remain content with their present-day church forms and teachings that are non-critical of themselves while remaining intensely critical of others. But to begin down this road is to let go (or undo) some of the things we have clung too tightly onto. Confusing worship forms, dogmas, and religious mindsets that have usurped centrality to the Christian faith but in hindsight seem filled with extra-biblical socio-religious boundaries holding the church back from progressing forward.

 

Over the decades it seems that the Christian faith has been broken into thousands of belief systems and centering doctrines, each one emphasizing a portion of Scripture that is thought most important to one's faith-fellowship. But according to the Lord, the church is one, and should utilize its unity as a strength, and not as an opportunity to point out how one group is closer to God than another because of what they believe or practice. Moreover, it seems that Christianity has gotten too defensive of itself rather than listening to the councils of the Spirit everywhere present through this world of ours - as harsh as they sometimes are. We are but burden-bearers and servants, and are not to behave as unthinking, strident voices protecting our dying cultures and decaying time periods. We cannot cling to the past simply because we feel comfortable there. But must allow others in, and in doing so, must learn to bear other's burdens and become servants to their spiritual needs.

 

After many long years of witnessing this state of affairs within the church I began more recently on a journey that would culminate in discovering a postmodern, emergent Christianity that was more expansive and progressive. One without denominational or institutional boundaries. That sought a new voice amongst the din of religious voices everywhere abounding. An assimilating faith that would try to put into words the gleaning processes necessary for an evangelic faith I believed had become irrelevant to a global society's needs and questions. Towards an historic faith that is in the process of becoming more relevant to both believers and non-believers alike. One that might uncover the heart-and-mind of our living God whose handiwork is everywhere present amongst us though our spiritual sight seems too foreshortened to recognize it. One that might allow the updating of a classically-expressed faith delved from its Medieval and Reformational moorings, towards a newer postmodern, emergent orthodoxy that would embrace the past. But would also be more willing to move beyond its classical limitations once culled from within the dark fires and suffering turmoils of the Dark Ages and that of the twin kindred ages of the Enlightenment and Industrial Modernity as expressed by their syllogisms, logic, and humanism. An orthodoxy that has become out-of-date with today's present scholarship and academic discoveries as it clings to fading transitory truths that no longer work but serve only to separate the church from its missional calling as well as from itself.

 

Enter Radical Theology, a philosophical approach that has been 200+ years in the making through the likes of Kant and Kierkegaard, Spinoza/Hegel and Nietzsche, Marx and Freud, in their good, and bad, and ugliness. To be translated and moved forward by this past century's existential and phenomenological philosophers by the names of Ricoeur and Heidegger, Bonhoeffer and Tillich, Caputo and Zizek (not to forget Derrida and Whitehead who turned it all around). Whose insights have now become the responsibility of today's newer Christian disciples in relating God's Word and Self, Spirit and ministry, to a sin hardened world-and-church become blind-and-deaf to the sonorous sounds of God everywhere abounding. And when combined with a postmodern, emergent theology searching for linguistic expression and fluidity of biblical message, Radical Theology seems to be a partial answer along the road of life as we live and die, suffer and laugh with one another. Thus my interest.

 

As Christ followers, we wish to bear forth as expansive a gospel message as is possible given today's social technology and expanding pluralistic, global communities of trade and commerce. A message that might resound from as many sources as is legitimately possible. Nor do we wish to qualify those avenues of help based upon previously built-in religious exclusionary thought. But to listen to all voices - both sacred and secular - while trusting the Spirit of God to lead and direct His Church throughout this period of seismic epistemic growth and assimilation. To begin, we need to look at our own faith and fellowship - both the good and the bad of it - and to judge where it has failed as well as where it has been a blessing. And upon this judgment move it forward towards a more holistic faith that would do justice to God's Word and Mission for this day-and-age.

 

As such, what messages have been bourne here upon the pages of Relevancy22 have not come easily nor without cost. It has been bourne through a very long process of evaluation and learning, research and listening. Of sharing a burden that might allow similarly burdened souls the Spirit's freedom away from the old epistemic boundaries that would bind and kill. That would legalize God's love as Law. A Law that would crucify again the Son of God upon the altars of human pride and religious zeal. That repented not of its judgmental spirit. Nor asked the Lord to open the doors of a closed-minded heart. Nor sought God's grace and mercy to fall afresh from the living councils of His Holy Spirit. An Incarnating God, who came as the Messiah/Savior Jesus to lift the sorrows we bear for the joy of the Cross set before Him.

 

These things have not come easily but at a cost... a cost of giving up old ways of thinking and doing. Of no longer clinging to the older doctrines intemperate of all things unlike itself. Of praying for spiritual wisdom and discernment so that God may again be seen as clearly today as He was eons earlier by Israel and the early church. Of learning to write a new language unlike the evangelic one I've grown too accustomed. A language that lives again under foreign names, tongues, symbolisms, and new theological categories; that is expansive, embracing, enjoining, and enlightening; that is reforming, reclaiming, renewing, rebirthing, and resurrected. May these things, and this mindset, become yours as well, as we pursue the Lord and His mission together by all the avenues made available to us by the Lord's Spirit. Amen.

 

R.E. Slater

July 23, 2013

 

*Side Note - Interestingly Bo Sander's article came out after mine own (Bo works with Tripp at Homebrew). So I have included it below, along with Peter's helpful outline, to help us better understand what Radical Theology intends or subtends.

 

 

 

 

High Gravity Radical Theology Reading List

http://peterrollins.net/?p=4657

 

by Peter Rollins

posted July 23, 2013

 

Recently I’ve been leading an in-depth, online reading group with Tripp Fuller that aims to introduce people to some of the seminal thinkers behind the movement often called Radical Theology.

 

With two hundred people having signed up for the six weeks the whole thing has been a great success and is something I’m keen to experiment with again. Anyway here is a list of what we covered in the course. If you sign up you can still access all the articles and video lectures.

 

Week 1 – Paul Ricoeur

 

“The Critique of Religion” and “The Language of Faith”

Union Theological Quarterly, 28, no. 3 (1973)

 

Week 2 – Martin Heidegger

 

“Phenomenological Explication of Concrete Religious Phenomena in Connection with the Letter’s of Paul”

 

The Phenomenology of Religious Life

 

Week 3 – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

 

Excerpts from Letters and Paper’s from Prison

 

Letters and Papers from Prison

 

Week 4 – Paul Tillich

 

“God above God” and “Two Types of Philosophy of Religion”

 

Theology of Culture

 

Week 5 – John Caputo

 

“Theopoetics as the Insistence of Radical Theology”

 

The Insistence of God

 

Week 6 – Slavoj Žižek

 

“The Fear of Four Words: A Modest Plea for a Hegelian Reading of Christianity”

 

The Monstrosity of Christ

 

Over Lent in 2014 we will be running another online reading group as part of Atheism for Lent. More information to follow.

 

 

 

For Additional Reading:

 

Paul Tillich's "God Above God" and, the "Restlessness of the Human Heart"

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/2013/07/paul-tillichs-god-above-god-and.html

 

 

 

 

 

 Radical Theology Cliff Notes

http://homebrewedchristianity.com/2013/07/23/radical-theology-cliff-notes/

by Bo Sanders
July 23, 2013

Comments

 

Sometimes you stumble into something so wildly different than anything you have encountered before that it can give you a bit of whiplash.

 

When this happens in the realm of theology – it can cause a level of trauma to your faith that it feels as if it will never recover.

 

This is where translators and apologist can come in and play a healthy role.

 

I am not a practitioner of Radical Theology per-se. I am more of a practical theologian who is in dialogue with (or informed by) schools of thought that might be challenging to the population as a whole (or at least those who occupy the pews).

 

I received this week’s notes from one Mr. Tripp Fuller that he intended to utilize on the most recent episode of the High Gravity reading group co-hosted by the incomparable Peter Rollins. I took one look at them and thought to myself:

“Self… folks may not know what some of this stuff means. This is sad because much of it has deep implications on living out faith in the 21st century and even deeper implication on the cultural conversation that each of us finds ourselves caught up in the middle of.”

SO I thought it might be interesting to throw a few of the notes out there and to attempt to attach a helpful note on a few items.

 

Here is what I am up to: if you feel like you are interested in a Radical approach but find it out of reach or unclear … please respond in the comment section and we can either A) figure this out together or B) I will point you in a helpful direction if I know of one.

 

Before we start – a couple of overly-simplistic definitions: 

• Radical Theology – a theological approach that is not tied to a congregation, denomination or other sanctioning body. The freedom of not being anchored in a confessional approach allows thinkers to interact with daring, innovative and contemporary schools of thought without consequence of consideration of how the outcome will impact faith communities (at least not primarily). 

• Confessional Theology – a theological approach rooted in both historic tradition and local expression. Confessional theology takes classical perspective and either tries to update it for the current context or attempts to return to some previous incarnation with the hopes of a purer expression or acceptable orthodoxy/practice. 

• Theo-poetics – born out of an awareness that all of our god-talk is both perspectival and provisional. When we speak of god/the divine we do so in imagery, metaphor, and symbol. This awareness of our limitations of language release us to confess that our signifiers (symbols) can never fully or truly represent that which they signify. The result is a freedom to explore, innovate, ratify, renovate and adapt our god-language in order to both expose idolatry and inspire creativity in how we express our beliefs. 

• Big Other – The father-figure in the sky who watches over those [‘s/he’] loves and keeps track of who has been naughty and nice. This being can be called upon to bail one out of a jam or to intervene in some unpleasant situation. This Being also rewards those who live right with good things on this earth as well as eternal rewards and punishments as appropriate.

 

Here are some of Tripp’s notes:

Radical Theology v Confessional

 

 

1) Radical Theology is parasitic to Confessional Theology… on its behalf. Radical Theology is being faithful to what is harbored in the name of ‘God’ – the event & not the tradition on the tradition’s terms.

 

2) Radical Theology reserves the right to ask any question. Because Confessional Theology is accountable to a tradition & its institutions there will be places where questions-conversations-operating conclusions will serves as “conversation stoppers.” Places in which that activity of critical thinking puts one out of the building. (ex. Trinity or Same Sex Marriage)

 

3) Radical Theology seeks to be EXPOSED to the Event w/in the Confessional Theology tradition but not PROPOSE a new articulation of the tradition.

 

4) Radical Theology rejects both the apathetic silence about the Big Other & the theist\atheist debate about the Big Other. The Big Other does not exist.

 

5) Radical Theology displaces the boundaries & certainty of ‘belief’ w/in Confessional Theology – the “how” w/out articulating another ‘what.’ Why? Whatever the ‘what’ is w/in a tradition doesn’t correlate to ‘how’ it is enacted.

 

6) Radical Theology affirms the Event contained IN but not BY Confessional Theology.

 

7) Radical Theology is a material (therefore a political) theology. God’s insistence is about our existence, here in the world, in relationships, & not about our continued or reanimated existence elsewhere. Radical Theology is about faith enacted for this world, not faith in another.

 

8) Radical Theology leaves the logos of Confessional Theology behind for theo-poetics. For the Radical Theologian there is no divine-logic to be learned or sacred syllogisms to be mastered. When ‘words’ are used to close the circle around the truth, the poet protests ‘words’ enslavement… their demonic possession of the impossible possibilities that vanquished on behalf of the actual – the certain – the final – the verdict of Confessional Theology.

.....................

I thought it would be helpful at this point to outline how [John] Caputo frames the turn from Confessional to Radical Theology in his amazing and short book “Philosophy And Theology” . In chapter 5 he illustrates 3 turns that converge together to make the BIG turn:

 

 First up is the Hermeneutical Turn – this a confession we each read a text or interpret our experience from an angle [(e.g., "...from our own personal, socio-religious, point of view." - re slater)]. We all have a location and that means that we all see things from an angle.

Second is the Linguistic Turn – this is a recognition that every discipline and every tradition has its own set of vocabulary and [ideological] concepts that form the ‘rules of the game’ [(or, the rules of our religious faith or religion. -re slater)]. Just as one can not play ‘Sport’ but plays A sport (football or baseball) so one can not speak ‘Language’ but A language. One can not practice ‘Religion’ but A religion. One must learn and abide by the rules of language game that one is playing.

 

Third is the Revolutionary Turn – this is an admission that things change… or rather that the way we see things changes. Working off of Kuhn’s idea of ‘paradigms’ and scientific revolutions, we readily admit that even where the data does not change (the universe) the way that we conceptualize it does periodically alter in radical ways.

 

These three come together to form the Postmodern Turn. They are also helpful for illustrating the sort of thing that Radical Theology is up to [(e.g., Relational Theology will help one to "de-construct" his/her's images of God and faith so that it stands out more clearly, or more purely, against the idolatrous images we unknowingly would serve without thought or question otherwise. It is a form of deep spiritual insight or awareness.

A purity of aspiration or revelation to unlink from ourselves as religious beings, and to leave the "window-dressing" of our faith for its more singular elements of devotion, trust, belief and love. As example, its like becoming a monk without leaving the world; or becoming a more tolerant form of Christian without exposing more rules and confessional creeds; or becoming more devout in your heart, mind, and soul, without seeking the external dresses of devoutness so that others may see it about you. - re slater)].