I’ve been thinking a lot lately about consumption (really all year) in the context of economics. Over the last few weeks I’ve been trying to make the connection in my head between consumption and it’s relationship to the church. So I think I’m going to try and develop some of these thoughts more fully and to see if I can’t connect the dots for myself a little.
I’ve been struggling for some time with my thoughts on ecclesiology (the study of the Church as a thing in itself, and of the Church’s self-understanding of its mission and role). Part of this could be because I have only “been to church” 3 times since I quit my full time staff position almost 2 years ago. Experiencing the two extremes – of being at a building 6 out of the 7 days and now never going – has left me with the question, “What’s the point of church in it’s traditional understanding, i.e. going to a building?”
I don’t intend to be critical with the asking of this question. But rather, being removed from traditional understandings of church (meeting, gathering, event, songs, message, etc) I’m finding myself feeling less and less “in need” of the church. Now this certainly may have something to do with my own baggage. And I’m sure there are elements of my own stubborn vanity and selfishness influencing this conclusion as well.
But standing on the outside looking in . . . I’m actually finding my life to be more holistic, serving, and integrated now, more so than when when I was a part of a traditional model of church. I’m still far from perfect. I’m certainly not a very gracious or loving person, as my post yesterday will attest to. And I am most definitely a hypocrite when it comes to buying and spending habits, espousing one thing with my mouth and then practicing something else with my wallet. But I am finding myself closer and closer to the clue of Jesus than I have at any other point in my life. And I’m doing this without the “church” . . . the gathering, the event, the songs, the sermon, the organized community.
It’s not even that I’m opposed to plugging back into a local church. It’s just that if I’m going to do it, I want it to be for a reason . . . to make a difference in my life and the life of others. And if it can’t do that . . . then with all apologies . . . I am choosing to opt out.
So switching gears a bit . . . here is my primary reason for “opting out” at this particular time. And it is deeply related to the way most churches view themselves.
Evangelicals usually take 2 stances in the understanding and formation of their ecclesiology.
1) The church either affirms culture (seeker movement), or 2) The church creates a subculture (fundamentalists).
In regards to the affirmation of culture . . . the seeker movement churches (the North Point, Saddleback, and Willow Creek models) do some great things for the local community and world. I think of what Rick Warren is doing with aids and what Willow Creek means to the suburbs of Chicago. But ultimately, I think they still exist on the same foundation that the larger culture exists on. Values such as happiness, individuality, success, and financial freedom are the norms, mirroring the same values as the host culture. The church is a dispenser of services to the individual, meeting their “wants” and “felt needs”. This model of church as a whole is largely uncritical of the larger culture of corporate greed, economic inequity, racial and sexually inequality, and local/global injustice. I speak from experience on this having been a member, volunteer, and summer staff member at North Point in Atlanta. Multi-site campuses are the equivalent of franchises and Sunday mornings the equivalent of a well produced, marketed concert. This model perpetuates the myths of consumption.
This as opposed to the fundamentalists who attempt to create a subculture within the larger host culture. Christian radio, Christian books, Christian day cares, Christian sports leagues, and Christian schools are not seen as oddities but rather the right and normal thing for the church to be involved with. While this model of church is usually quite critical of the larger culture . . . instead of rejecting the premise that the culture is built off of . . . they simply want to co-opt culture and make it thoroughly Christian. Never changing the systems and patterns at their roots, instead they just want to take the reins for themselves. Again, this is a model that perpetuates the same myths of consumption.
As it relates to consumption, I’m beginning to better understand the engine that is driving the emerging movements. I think what many in the emerging movements are proposing is the church as a-cultural (no doubt influenced by Hauerwas, Yoder, and others). That is to say that the church should be a counter-culture, subversive, and antithetical to the predominant host culture. In our case, Christian, scientific, political, capitalist, consumerist, and materialist, to name but a few. Their ecclesiology is primarily one of critique, distance, and resistance to the prevailing culture. Rather than seek to affirm it or exist as a sect within it, their aim is to stare it in the face and name it for what it is. Which is a sort of recognition that it has no real lasting power, control, or influence.
So this is my starting point. I see 2 primary models available. One of affirmation and one of a subculture. Both building off and perpetuating the myth of consumption. Rarely, if ever, calling into question the consumptive engine of the host culture.
Am I wrong? Right? Moving in the right direction? Anybody else see this connection? Made it already? Still a disconnect?
Listening: Picaresqueties by The Decemberists
31 Comments:
Many churches represent a combination of the two, I would think. I’m sure many people at a “seeker” church also would fall in line with the “fundamentalist” mentality. To many, the affirmation and use of modern culture is only a mechanism/tool to reach and connect with people, but the ultimate goal is to get them to disconnect with “secular” culture, and its negative influence, and switch to the “christian” culture – which ends up looking pretty similar to the secular culture anyway.
I like a lot of what the emerging church people bring to the conversation, but some of what I have read and seen seems to be changing style more than substance. There’s some validity to addressing the style, but the best “emerging” writers that I’ve read helped me see that it’s not about the culture so much as it is in addressing the nature of the church and what it should be — so rather than being seeker oriented or fundamentalist oriented, we should simply be about restoration, and the NT shows that restoration is about bringing people into the body of Christ. We should be about restoring the church to the way God designed it, and the way it is described in the NT, not necessarily the way we grew up with it.
The other thing is that there is a sense of the church in the NT understanding that the kingdom of God was distinct from, and existed apart from, the world. The goal was not to change the world so much as it was to build the body of Christ. That’s why you see little emphasis on evangelism in the NT and a very heavy emphasis on discipleship. From that perspective, seeker-oriented, subculture-oriented, or subversive-oriented don’t make much sense.
ahhhhhhhhh! derek! we were so close. literally the closest we’ve eve been to agreeing! what happened with the last couple of sentences?
tongue in cheek obviously.
i couldn’t agree with you more. but i will push back in two areas. i don’t see the emphasis on evangelism. but i don’t necessarily see it on discipleship. unless of course you’re meaning to learning to follow the way of jesus. which i think you might mean. if that’s the case. i have to ask what the point of “discipleship” is? and i would argue it’s for the sake of subversion – resiting the empire’s way of doing things (injustice, inequity, retribution, violence, oppression) and learning the master’s way (love, hope, life, justice, equity, etc).
and then i would also say that i’m not so sure about restoration. i’m not sure there is a particular model that we should go back to and emulate. as if it was all set in stone 2000 years ago. but i’m sure my thoughts on the evolving nature of this whole narrative bump up into that.
but other than that . . . we might be close.
This is such a sweet moment. You guys will have to go on Vespa rides together now.
Of course, Josh may just start talking about government health care and the whole thing will be shot to literal hell.
I love your chewy summary of the two models. Being new to church avoidance, I apparently need to read more Hauerwas and get aquainted with Yoder, to whom I have no exposure beyond seeing his name floating around. Thanks for a great post, glad to find your site!
“i have to ask what the point of “discipleship” is? and i would argue it’s for the sake of subversion – resiting the empire’s way of doing things (injustice, inequity, retribution, violence, oppression) and learning the master’s way (love, hope, life, justice, equity, etc).”
The point of discipleship is building the church together into the body of Christ. I don’t know of any other purpose given in the NT. In that way, the major thrust of the NT is discipleship – building up one another, encouraging one another. The people becoming God’s temple, housing the Spirit. The church acting as Christ’s body with Him as the head. Becoming Christ’s spotless bride. These should be our driving visions when considering the church.
I don’t disagree with your second sentence there, in the way it was worded, other than to say that I think the point is less about changing the empire and more about changing ourselves by being more and more united in Christ. We do resist the empire/worldly way of doing things, but simply by doing them differently ourselves. This is not a means to an end, this is the end itself. We are to be subverting our own nature, which is consistent with what you said, though I know you meant more than that. (I know you well enough at this point to know when we agree on the surface but will be likely to disagree when we dig deeper!)
“i’m not sure there is a particular model that we should go back to and emulate.”
I’ll have to be careful about using the term restoration, because it has some funny associations in the Church of Christ kind of fundamentalist meaning. It’s not about that, or about emulating every single little thing and trying to live as if we’re in the 1st century A.D. But it is about restoring the intended purpose of the church, about restoring the organic nature of the church, and about restoring Christ’s authority over the church via the Spirit.
“Of course, Josh may just start talking about government health care and the whole thing will be shot to literal hell.”
Hey Eric, it’s early in the commenting, just give it time!
Mike,
Here’s a good resource for learning Hauerwas:
http://www.bigbrother.net/~mugwump/Hauerwas/
mike. thanks for the kind words. and nate thanks for the link.
derek. i think we are closer than we both think sometimes. but i do think we’ve got some foundationally different starting points. not to break up the man love that eric tried to usher in of course.
i think i’m fine with your first paragraph describing discipleship. to me, you described what the church is and should be about. it’s essence. i guess my next logical step would be to then say “for what point?” if all that is true (and i believe it to be), then what is the point of all that? and i would say at that point it becomes about being a subverter of the larger culture. to be a-cultural. i agree with you. it begins with a subversion of ourselves. but then it moves primarily outwards and begins to subvert the larger culture as a whole and the larger narrative that it exists by.
so i’m fine with the definition of discipleship. and am fine working it into the equation. but one could certainly argue that a lot of seeker churches and fundamentalist churches have a moderate to decent “discipleship” thing going on. but yet they still exist by the same framing stories and larger narratives that the host culture exists by.
i’m certainly not trying to pick a fight. but i know you’ve talked about war before. and i know you’ve talked about health care. and other assorted things.
i think the question we both need to ask ourselves is at what point does christ subvert our understanding of these issues. does the conservative branch of the church simply mirror the conservative politics of the host empire? and does the liberal branch of the church simply mirror the liberal politics of the host empire?
are you happy eric? i know i’m getting off track because i want to talk about the consumption side of things. but it seems to me that too often the church (on both sides) is not subverting the larger narratives of culture and is instead affirming them or rejecting them only so that they can be co-opted or control them.
[...] definitely check out Josh Brown’s post entitled “The Consumptive Church: The Context for my Starting Point”. He is wrecking it, in a good way. Rock on, Josh, rock on wit’ yo’ bad self. As it [...]
“it begins with a subversion of ourselves. but then it moves primarily outwards and begins to subvert the larger culture as a whole and the larger narrative that it exists by.”
I’m open to discussion about what that would look like, yet I find little to no Biblical foundation for it. The “point” of the New Testament church was to build a holy, spotless bride for the returning Christ. The “external” subversion wasn’t change within the system, it was the expectation of a complete and total transformation, upon the return of Christ, into something completely different. Making the kingdom of God not only real in the hearts of those following Christ, but a true reality (whether in heaven or on earth, that’s a whole different discussion).
My point has always been, including, I think, some of my first comments on your blog, that the very thing you’re yearning for cannot come to pass until Christ returns. Until we’re not only seeing Christ as the head of the church, but when Christ asserts His authority over all creation.
I understand the idea of gradual, subversive influence in the greater culture and redeeming it towards something more Christ-like. And I’m not saying that this doesn’t or shouldn’t happen. I just don’t find a justification for it in Scripture, especially when talking about the purpose and/or “the point” of the church (which I would argue are the same thing).
That’s not to say I’m going to advocate us sitting idly by. We are called to fight injustice and to provide mercy. We should not be under a delusion, however, that this is equated with trying to impose the church on the world, either by enforced morality or enforced charity.
“too often the church (on both sides) is not subverting the larger narratives of culture and is instead affirming them or rejecting them only so that they can be co-opted or control them.”
I’d say this is primarily because the church has lost the central purpose of becoming a holy, spotless bride. If we were truly seeing Christians doing that, living out a character of love, mercy, and compassion, we’d find that not only would we not be affirming culture, but we’d find that we would be the ones rejected by the culture. The more we become like Christ, the more we become persecuted. That’s the Biblical example of subversion, anyway.
again . . . i think we’ve got 2 fundamentally different starting points. i think there an example in scripture with jesus and i think jesus has more to do with transforming the culture by resisting and subverting the empire than coming as a way of making the church “holy” so that they can get persecuted, goes away as “fake-out”, and then comes back later on to eject everybody, and destroy everything.
doesn’t sound like the church to me. but rather a cult.
In many ways, Christianity did start out as a sect/cult. They formed their own community based on selfless love and encouragement, practicing healing, prophecy, and speaking in languages they had never learned before. Singing praises to God while in prison. Offending the religious/cultural elite by proclaiming the truth of the gospel. Forsaking worldly treasure and status for heavenly ones. This isn’t exactly the behavior of a group trying to transform culture. This is the behavior of a group that was infused by the Spirit, convinced beyond any doubt that Christ was the Messiah, and unwilling to see themselves as part of the world, but as part of the kingdom of God.
Your summary about the “fake-out” really just seemed like a complaint about early church history. You can believe that the purpose of the church is to transform the culture “by resisting and subverting the empire,” but until you have kind of scriptural support for that point of view, you’re going to have a hard time convincing people of it.
It’s not about a “fake-out” and destroying everything. Christ left intentionally so that we would have the Spirit, which was necessary. We do not become holy so that we can be persecuted, we become persecuted because we are holy, and because we cannot expect better treatment than Jesus himself received. And the point isn’t to eject everybody and destroy everything, it’s to renew God’s creation to its original glory.
I’m really not coming up with this stuff on my own. It’s not what I think or what I’ve figured out. Every distinction I made in my last paragraph is plainly stated in the NT. Where as to get to transforming the culture, resisting and subverting empires, you have to read into scripture something that isn’t there, or at a bare minimum, something that is not plainly there.
i wholeheartedly disagree. it’s all about how you see it. when you start recovering the historical contexts that jesus was speaking and acting in, it becomes all about subversion and very little about personal holiness that invites persecution that invites escape to an afterlife.
i could quote scriptures but i’d have to copy 90% of the red letters and a good portion of everything else.
that’s why i keep saying it’s 2 different starting points for us. i’m really not being facetious when i say this, but i really only see that element when i read the gospels and the whole of the nt.
i’m not trying to be a smart ass. it’s just that to me it seems that jesus was about subverting the larger culture and the narratives of caesar and empire. and that’s all i see. everything is wrapped up in that framework for me.
love your enemies, be concerned with justice, turn the other cheek, be meek, seek reconciliation . . . these aren’t about some personal holiness for me. but rather counter-points and the antithesis to the way of empire and caesar, one might say “the way of the world”. in this way jesus infused and injected a different way of living, the kingdom of god, into the world so that it would be a stark contrast to the larger culture and the narratives that it exists by.
“these aren’t about some personal holiness for me. but rather counter-points and the antithesis to the way of empire and caesar, one might say “the way of the world”. in this way jesus infused and injected a different way of living, the kingdom of god, into the world so that it would be a stark contrast to the larger culture and the narratives that it exists by.”
First, you’re right that it’s not about personal holiness — but it is about holiness. It’s really about the holiness of the community. That’s a central theme. Most of the time when the NT is talking about holiness and becoming more like Christ it is in context of the community, though in our modern culture we incorrectly interpret it as primarily individualistic.
Second, I don’t disagree with what you’re saying there. Christ was establishing something that was directly against the way of the Roman empire. When a soldier requires you to carry his pack one mile (the legal limit he could require you do carry it for him), take it two. Absolutely.
The point I’m making is that it’s not about being subversive in order to change the nature of the empire. That’s more or less what happened, though, when Christianity became mainstream, and it ruined Christianity to the point where we’re still trying to dig ourselves out of that hole today. We’re talking about purpose here, you’re asking what the point of it all is. The purpose is not to revolutionize worldly systems, or replace worldly systems with religious ones. You are not going to find that purpose described in scripture. It’s to prepare for the coming revolution of Christ returning and asserting His authority over ALL creation. Christ rejected the worldly systems when He refused to let His followers prop Him up as a political leader, and spoke repeatedly about His return as an event to prepare for.
It seems like you’re seeing what I would describe as an appropriate impact of the church on the world and calling it the church’s purpose. I’m saying that the purpose of the church is something different from the visible impact it should be having on the world.
fair enough. i get where you’re coming from. i just don’t think it’s in a 2nd coming that the focus is, but rather in a renewal of all things here.
and i agree with you. i’m not about replacing systems. or simply replacing one power structure (secular) with another (christian).
but i’m not a big proponent of a 2nd coming where christ forcefully exerts authority when the first time he didn’t come that way.
and i still get confused with the “point” of the 1st coming of sacrificing, non-violent death only for the 2nd coming to be a forceful exertion of authority.
if there is a literal 2nd coming, i’m not sure why there was a literal 1st. and even if the 2nd is literal, why it would be so drastically different in nature than the 1st.
Now we’re starting to get to the good stuff — stuff I can’t talk definitively about, but have been mulling over for years. But I believe it’s part of the “narrative” you’re drawn so much to.
Simply stated, the 1st coming was necessary to prepare for the 2nd.
Israel was originally intended to be God’s chosen people, not as an end to itself but as a nation that would minister to the world upon the coming of the Messiah. Yet Israel was stubborn, refusing rule by God through the prophets and judges, and demanding a king, wanting to be like the world. Had Israel fulfilled it’s original purpose, I believe that the Messiah’s coming would have signaled the full redemption of creation. The establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.
Yet Israel did not fulfill it’s purpose, which is the summary of the OT. It strayed and strayed, until prophets no longer spoke (the end of the OT). Christ came to establish a new covenant, that would replace Israel’s purpose – to build a community of people through whom God would minister to the world. Yet what people were seeking from Christ was what He would not do – establish the kingdom of God in a literal sense. He first had to build a new temple, a new body, a spotless bride. This is part of what Paul is talking about when he talks about the “great mystery” that was only revealed after the church was established (Ephesians).
This temple could not be built by humans, only by the Holy Spirit. And as the OT reveals, the presence of the Holy Spirit requires spotlessness. If a priest was not pure when he entered the holy of holies, he’d drop dead when he entered.
This is the reason why His first coming looks very different than His return will. The purification of His sacrifice was necessary so that we could receive the indwelling of the Spirit.
Similar to Israel, Christianity strayed as well – compromising truth for acceptance, and becoming a part of the political structure rather than relying on Christ alone. Yet because this body has no physical temple (as Israel did), and was not defined by political or racial boundaries (as Israel was), a remnant always remained, and this temple cannot be completely destroyed (as Israel’s was). God’s purpose for the church remains – to become the “nation” through which God will minister to the entire world, and restore God’s glory to all creation, upon Christ’s final return. And as the church is being renewed, it will be through the Spirit, via apostolic and prophetic ministry.
i mean i’ll try to be sensitive because this is what i used to believe. but doesn’t that sound really, really complicated.
and doesn’t the kingdom of god in the here and now make a hell of a lot more sense?
The great epics, the great stories, the great narratives, are all full of twists and turns and drama and mystery. Summing up thousands of years of story into a couple of paragraphs is bound to sound complicated. If it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be compelling.
Besides, your version really wouldn’t be much less complicated. Perhaps a paragraph shorter or so.
In any case, it’s not really about what makes sense. It’s about what fits the story, from start to finish. And while I do believe that Christ’s 1st coming established the kingdom of God as the church, there is still something bigger coming and the only way you can ignore that is to ignore the parts of scripture that describe it. Which I’m not willing to do.
If you want to question it, you can just as easily question the futility of it all, and question why God even bothered. Which I’m sure is one of the questions I actually will ask God when I get the chance.
In any case, thanks for being sensitive.
no worries. i really don’t see myself as ignoring parts of scripture.
here’s my overall short cliff notes.
1. god created something good and beautiful. partly out as pure overflow from his creative spirit and partly for relationship. in short, god created because god can and wanted to.
2. humanity fouled it up. not comprehensively. not totally. but fouled it up enough that history took a trajectory away from god and towards the individual. call it sin. call it selfishness. and when i say comprehensive, i mean that there is still something of god written on the soul and we’re not as depraved as “the Fall” says we are.
3. god got upset that humanity was moving away from him. so he decided to destroy it. then he felt bad about it. and decided to spare a few people (this backs up my thoughts on god not knowing everything, he seems to change and be adaptable a lot).
4. the whole thing starts over except this time instead of adam and eve (individuals), he decides to do with a community (israel).
5. israel mucks it up the same way. they veer away from their intended purpose. namely to live in community with god and live as god intended them to live in the garden of eden (which is a prequel to “heaven”).
6. prophets arise (talking non stop about justice and reconciliation) reminding israel of what they’re supposed to realize in regards to their true created intent.
7. israel continues being stupid.
8. instead of destroying the world this time like he did with noah. he decides to interject himself into the story.
interlude. keep in mind that the whole time, adam and eve to israel, that the narratives of a larger culture (self, world, empire, violence, jealous, anger, fear – which all derivatives of a poor view of self) are being challenged and called into question by god’s way of doing things. in the old it was the law. in the new it was jesus which we’re about to see. we might call this subversion.
9. jesus enters in. decides to challenge the system. the societal machinery. the existing narratives that have given meaning to israel and the rest of the world. he says now that he is the way. and begins to model a new way of living.
10. this way is non-violent, loving, odd, embracing, and comprehensive.
11. the larger cultural narratives that framed people’s story didn’t like jesus messing with theirs so they killed him.
12. this non-violent sacrifice furthers gives a model for everyone to follow.
13. those who follow begin to gather to bear witness to this model and to model this type of lifestyle as well.
14. as we continue to bear fruit and witness to the life, death, and resurrection of jesus we begin to bear witness to the new way of living in the world, i.e. as originally intended in the garden of eden, i.e. the kingdom of god.
15. we continue to bear witness until a) jesus does literally come back and join us in the renewal process that all creation is groaning out for. b) jesus doesn’t literally come back but instead his “rule” is a figurative one that takes place as the world more and more comes under his peaceful, non-violent rule.
honestly, on the last one, i’m not sure what i believe. but you could convince me either way depending on what i was reading or listening to at the time. i could care less, the end result is the same.
granted it’s a rough sketch. but in this story, original intent is the same as final intent. genesis 1 is the same as the last chapter. and god doesn’t switch from giving us free will to forcing his will on us. and there is no weird jesus in the middle who is like an awkward pause before the “real” jesus comes with a sword and destruction and flames and all that other stuff.
i’ve got to go grocery shopping right now. but when i get back, i’d like to tell you how i interpret your version and why it seems weird to me. so just hang with me. feel free to critique this while i’m gone.
and now for the conventional view.
1. god creates humanity because he can and wants to
2. humanity screws it up.
so far the same.
3. god gets angry. and within a few minutes of the creation story, has to work out a 6,000 year (if you believe in the bible timeline) “fix” to the problem.
4. it involves blood sacrifices as a way to make humanity “clean”. since humanity is dirty, fallen, and depraved, the only way they can be clean and be cool with god again is to be covered in the blood of an animal. but only specific kinds.
5. humanity still screws things up. so goes through a process of screwing up. bathing in blood. screwing up. killing goats. screwing up. wearing sack cloth. god is still angry so more blood but be spilled to make it right.
6. god gets the bright idea to quit using animal blood and decides to spill his own so that humanity can be clean so that he can tolerate them temporarily while on earth until he can one day tolerate them permanently in clouds with the mansions.
7. god enters into the story via jesus to wipe the slate clean. makes a legal transaction on the cross. paying the price for humanity for their sins.
8. the whole point of jesus’ brief 33 years is to tell everybody about this legal transaction so that they can get signed, sealed, and delivered.
9. for some reason, god decides it’s not time yet for him to wrap everything up. that it’s going to be a couple more thousand years before he fixes what happened within the first few days in the beginning. so he goes away.
10. jesus dies. is raised from the dead in order to bring life to humanity. humanity forms into communities in order to encourage each other as they go out to tell more people about this exciting new legal transaction and a way to escape their depravity and the crappiness of the world.
11. the world sucks. humanity sucks. so god waits a couple more thousand years before he decides to come back on clouds with trumpets, with swords dipped in blood to destroy with plagues and with swords those who didn’t believe in him. those who die will then burn forever for not using their free will to willingly submit to god. so now he forcefully makes them submit. destroys the earth.
12. and finally in that burning of the bad people and rewarding the good people with crowns and mansions does humanity finally get a free pass for what 1 guy and 1 chick did in a garden 6000 years ago. and then finally jesus’ death actually counts as opposed to the first time.
i know these are exaggerations. but behind the exaggerations is a narrative that is all about a legal transaction being made. for something that went wrong between one couple in the first few days of humanity’s history . . . god then has to undergo this whole thing with blood and fire and death for 6000 + years to fix it. and even when he fixes it he changes character and does it by force and coercion.
1 view is all about a legal transaction with god acting like a judge with our crimes. and the other is about a god seeking to fix the human condition. in 1 view he fixes the human condition by force. and in the other he fixes it by dying the ultimate death, a death that exposed the powers and principalities of the world for what they were.
so again . . . not being an ass. but those are 2 pretty fundamentally different starting points.
1 begins with anger and blood and ends with anger and blood.
the other begins with sorrow, choice, and sacrifice and ends with joy, choice, and sacrifice.
I think you’re absolutely right about the two primary models building on the same deeply flawed foundation. Your take on the engine of the emerging movements sounds extremely encouraging and positive to me. But for more on that, and for a lot of what’s been said in the comments, I need to do more thinking before I start talking.
Keep up the good blogging!
[...] The Context For My Starting Point [...]
[...] of the larger narrative. I just read all the comments. Great and post and a great conversation. Check it out. ~bh [...]
[...] The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points [...]
[...] The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex [...]
[...] The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs [...]
[...] The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes [...]
[...] The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes, The Medium Is The Message [...]
[...] The Church as an Industrial Complex Take a look at Josh Brown’s series on The Consumptive Church. [...]
[...] The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes, The Medium Is The Message, Appeasing The White Man’s Guilt [...]
Leave a comment: