The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex
I really appreciate everyone who has contributed to the conversation in the comments of this series. I must have struck a chord because there have been over 90 comments on 3 posts as of this writing. Judging from the tone and nature of your responses, I’m considering this a good thing as many of you have resonated with the rough outline I’ve begun and have helped advance it in some new directions. I hope that you’ll continue to engage, push-back, and help develop these disconnected thoughts that I’m throwing against the wall.
I’d like to pick up where I left off in the last post on The Religious Industrial Complex. I ended it with asking:
Better yet, I wonder why the conventional church and Christians consume at the same rate of the culture around them? Where’s the pause button? Where’s the step back? Where’s the brakes?
I then gave two reasons that I think provides a starting point to begin answering those questions.
1. For those who are the leaders of the Religious Industrial Complex it pays the bills and pays their mortgage. And for those who sit in the pews on Sunday morning, it keeps them happy and pacified. Marx was right, religion becomes the opiate of the masses.
2. If people were to listen to and at the very least consider the voices of the prophets at the margins, it would undermine and subvert much of their lives. Thus requiring them to move from blind indifference to radical change. In many ways it would kick one of the legs out from under their chair (a four legged chair being made up of consumption, fear, objectivity/absolutism, and individualism) sending them crashing to the floor.
To rephrase both of these answers more bluntly . . . it would cost us something, perhaps everything.
I think something could also be said about the general disconnect people have between the gospel and economics. The gospel and politics. The gospel and relationships. The gospel and consumption.
What people don’t get is that the gospel is all of these things. It is not just spiritual. Or rather everything is spiritual. The gospel is deeply political. The gospel radically restructures economics. The gospel critiques our hyper-consumption.
To use what’s quickly becoming a cliché phrase, if the gospel is what it claims to be, then everything must change.
I think most Christians/churches sit on the sidelines never imagining the gospel could be more than they’ve known it to be. Never realizing that it’s more dynamic and revolutionary than what they have now. I often wonder if these people, who hold to conventional views, are so into Jesus, then how come their lives look so similar to their lives before Jesus? How come, outside of a few cursory outward changes, their lives look the same as everyone else’s?
Sure they don’t drink, have kinky sex, or curse. But they still reflect the larger culture . . . believing that more stuff means more happiness . . . violence will lead to peace . . . exclusion works better than embrace.
The Christians and the church have the same spending habits as the larger culture. They have the same amount of debt and the subsequent stuff. They have pastors that look and act like CEOs. They have buildings that look like Wal-Mart warehouses. They dispense goods and services on Sunday mornings. And they market these goods and services by preying on the felt needs of their demographics.
Seriously . . . where are the brakes?
Opium is a wonderful thing. It keeps the leaders hooked up to the steady stream of (false) influence and income. And the people in the pews get to have their guilt absolved for the week and to be reminded of how bad this world is and how good the afterlife will be.
When does religion move from pacifying us until the afterlife to making us a bunch of peculiar people who are wild-eyed enough to act like Jesus meant what he said?
To truly believe the gospel means that everything must change. And the sad truth is that most people don’t want to change. Including me if I’m honest. I prefer my franchise shopping, my processed food, my expensive electronics, my comfortable car, my mind-numbing crappy tv, my warm suburban home with 3 times the rooms that I need.
I love when I want something to be able to pull out a credit card and buy that something. Even if I don’t have the money for it. I want it so I get it.
But ultimately, it pisses me off that I want. It makes me sick to know that my spending habits might be creating injustice somewhere. It makes me sad to know that how I live is only possible because I’m standing on someone else’s back who produces stuff for me that they themselves can’t afford.
The sad thing though is that for most Christians and churches, it doesn’t bother them. And to have ungrateful guys like me griping about America and waste simply gets in their way. To have environmentalists warn about the state of our planet gets in the way. To have academics intelligently discuss the role globalization plays in destabilizing nations gets in the way. To have theologians talk about our role as caretakers and stewards of creation gets in the way.
This is the same thing that happened to us when we left Cross Pointe almost 2 years ago. There were a lot of people who said the same things that we said behind, except they said it behind closed doors. But to say them out loud and be willing to do something about them meant that it would cost them something. So instead of agreeing with us and supporting our decision, it was easier for them to criticize us. If they could make us look like rambling fools and bitter discontents, then they would never have to deal with the facts/truth themselves. If they could minimize us, then they could dismiss us and it wouldn’t cost them anything. They wouldn’t ever have to walk away from a salary. They wouldn’t ever have to walk away from health care. They wouldn’t ever have to put off having a baby and getting a bigger house because they didn’t know where the next check was coming from.
It would have cost them something.
The same thing goes for consumption. If you can write off what I’m saying . . . if you can dismiss me as fringe critic . . . an idealistic dreamer . . . a practicing lunatic . . . then you can go on with your merry life. Pretending Jesus never really meant what he said and that the early church never really sacrificed what they sacrificed.
I get a lot of criticism for being negative. And perhaps that’s a fair assessment. But one thing you can’t criticize me for is to keep pressing the issue . . . to keep saying the same things. I’m a horrible hypocrite at times. But I’m sincerely trying.
So dismiss me all you want. But let me be clear, I’m not the one smoking opium.
Listening: Everything All The Time by Band of Horses
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
44 Comments
Josh, you asked/said, “I think most Christians/churches sit on the sidelines never imagining the gospel could be more than they’ve known it to be. Never realizing that it’s more dynamic and revolutionary than what they have now. I often wonder if these people, who hold to conventional views, are so into Jesus, then how come their lives look so similar to their lives before Jesus? How come, outside of a few cursory outward changes, their lives look the same as everyone else’s?”
Because this is what we have been socialized to. This is what we have been taught it right and is Christianity. And you are right, we are so afraid of change. Tony Jones came out here and let me tell you, I caught a lot of crap for bringing him. The two things that I learned of our church out of that were, 1. people really don’t want to think for themselves. They really do like being told what it is that they should believe. 2. people really don’t want to change. And when confronted with a situation that might require change the quickest and easiest thing to do is to attack, as it sounds like you experienced.
“But ultimately, it pisses me off that I want. It makes me sick to know that my spending habits might be creating injustice somewhere. It makes me sad to know that how I live is only possible because I’m standing on someone else’s back who produces stuff for me that they themselves can’t afford.
The sad thing though is that for most Christians and churches, it doesn’t bother them. And to have ungrateful guys like me griping about America and waste simply gets in their way.”
It seems to me you’ve struck on the central reason why church has become so consumptive and exclusionary and settled and institutional, Josh, and it’s nothing really radical (if by “nothing really radical” I mean a consistent Biblical witness that cannot be ignored if one has a desire to let Scripture speak outside the bounds of one’s proof-texts). You said it.
“If people were to listen to and at the very least consider the voices of the prophets at the margins, it would undermine and subvert much of their lives. Thus requiring them to move from blind indifference to radical change.”
You know what the screwed-up thing is? Jesus was a prophet at the margins, and the religion that bears his name (at least in a generalized way in the West) has marginalized the voice of the very one that (supposedly) gives us our identity. And once Jesus is marginalized and discipleship is internalized and spiritualized, you’ve got a religion that has no UMPH! to it…it’s take it or leave it emotional gobbledy-gook.
And to honest with you, if that’s what following Jesus was really all about, I don’t blame folks who look at Christians refusing their evangelism and best efforts. I could easily be more entertained and happy in front of my TV or a variety of other entertainment outlets than to be a part of the church. And Christians look no different because they recognize this version of Christianity is emotional gobbledy-gook that offers nothing really substantive for human life now; so Christians find the same entertainment outlets as their non-Christian friends.
I think one of the first substantive changes we need to make is an awareness that the kingdom of heaven starts today, and our actions today have a ripple effect into eternity. Jesus talks about the judgment day far-off, yes, and talks about the kingdom far-off, of course, but the majority of the time he’s talking present-tense (Matthew 21:28-32 in the daily lectionary today); both in those joining (tax collectors and sinners) and in those who face judgment for rejection of it (the religious establishment in this case).
I could ramble on for awhile here, but I’d just be emotionally dumping, and that’s not healthy. I will say, though, that I’m glad that you’re pissed off and sick and sad at the present state of affairs, and I’m glad that you’re seeking to model that change you desire to see. I’m glad that you see how interconnected reality is, how globalism benefits some and crushes others, how capitalism benefits some and crushes others; and most directly, how the gospel affects everything…how it’s not just “Jesus’ finished work on the cross,” whatever the hell that means.
I get a lot of criticism for being negative. And perhaps that’s a fair assessment. But one thing you can’t criticize me for is to keep pressing the issue . . . to keep saying the same things. I’m a horrible hypocrite at times. But I’m sincerely trying.
I think if we want to see change happen, no matter how incremental it takes place, we have to have a willingness to deconstruct what strikes us as screwy and hope and reimagine about what we can construct in its place. What is unhealthy is often a twisting of something that began as a meaningful thing, and we are called to recover that.
As I see it (and from reading your thoughts, you see it), this is a f-ed up system that requires a ton of painful deconstruction to find a solid foundation and solid material to build on.
And we’re all hypocrites. Quite often the persons who seem like the biggest ones are the ones with the biggest ideals. And followers of Jesus should have the highest ideals (gospel-informed, of course) as well as the honest desire to meet them. The most unhealthy form of hypocrisy is claiming to have an ideal and either not giving a damn about it in practice or claiming naivete about what the ideal demands from us.
So dismiss me all you want. But let me be clear, I’m not the one smoking opium.
I’d modify that last comment to say, “I’m not smoking the opium of satisfied consumer christianity.” Because you’re still smoking a good deal of opium. I am too. The process of finding out the opiates is a lifetime thing of painful incremental awareness and change. Karl Marx had his own opiates that medicated him against reality too.
Josh,
You are hitting on good points. But can you clarify this for me. Please provide me with the scriptures references that address this idea about the gospel.
What people don’t get is that the gospel is all of these things. It is not just spiritual. Or rather everything is spiritual. The gospel is deeply political. The gospel radically restructures economics. The gospel critiques our hyper-consumption.
Wes,
As a foundation, three words. Jesus is Lord. That’s a deeply political statement by itself, with much deeper implications in a variety of areas.
Regarding economics, I’d encourage you to read all of the book of Deuteronomy (specifically the second half of Chapter 10 focusing on fatherless, widow, and alien; the second half of chap 14 on the intent of the tithe; all of chap 15 and the jubilee; and the second half of chap 24); then take note of Jesus’ extensive quotation of Deuteronomy in his early ministry to establish the parallel; then read Matthew 5,6,and 7 and see if there is a part of human life Jesus doesn’t address.
And you might as well toss in, in a wider sense, what happened in Acts at the genesis of the church (radical sharing of goods, Jews and Gentiles sharing deeply counter-cultural relationship), why Paul had to address women at all in churches (they were a non-entity before, so they must’ve found the gospel deeply liberating), and read the words of the Roman emperor Julian the Apostate about how the church’s radical generosity was subverting his rule
Nate,
We are no longer under the mosiac laws. Josh specifically said the Gospels. I want to know where Jesus addressed those ideas or the Gospel writers.
Yes Jesus is Lord. Hence there are lots of scriptures that talk about being “sanctified” or be in other words being separate from this world. We are to live in it but not to be of it. Anyways, I am curious with what passages in the 4 gospels address this. Thanks
i can’t speak for josh, but the idea that the gospel is political, economical and anti hyper consumption is very important and deserves more reflection. i don’t think it is something that can be reinforced by quoting or proof-texting from scripture, rather i think it is something that has to be learned through the study of the context of the gospel. the religious context, the political context, the social context, the historical context and so on.
part of the problem is we live within western culture. it influences us and we don’t even realize it. for example, we tend to compartmentalize and categorize things, namely religion, politics and economics. not so within the context of 1st century palestine. everything was much more fluid and holistic. religion affected politics and economics and vice versa. religion was more of a lifestyle (part of the reason why the word religion would’ve seemed alien to jesus and others) that influenced and guided every other part of life.
this is why it is sometimes difficult for us to understand the political aspects of the gospel, because we’ve already separated them, and created a false dichotomy that wasn’t originally there. that’s why many christians can go to church on sunday, hear a sermon on “the least of these” and the go out on black friday and participate in collective hyper-consumption and not think twice about it. because the two are perceived to by different. religious and political life exist separately.
i recently read a book by richard horsley called “jesus and empire” wherein he discusses this western phenomenon of the “domestication and depoliticization” of jesus and the gospel. its not a huge book, i would highly recommend it.
Ok as I sit here and think about this, I think Josh is right on with his thoughts. However, this is only half of the problem and should not be the only problem we focus on.
Because as all of this is important but if we lose the primary focus of the Gospel message I think we are doing as much that is wrong with the Church.
The Gospel message is about changing one’s life. Which encompasses all the things Josh talks about. But the portion that is missing is how about our own holiness about putting our faith completely into Christ. He tells us if we love Him we will obey Him.
I guess thats what I struggle with because only 1 side of the issues is being addressed. Is the other side of the gospel message addressed.
It is a complete package. Thanks Josh for the thoughts. I really hope Derek does his peace on the Acts 2 church.
Wes
Blake,
I wanted some text in the bible because what I read and understand is that Jesus came to first fix sinners, then to establish the proper church. He didn’t come to change the government of Rome. I think about the passages like give to Caesar what is Caesars. Did he even care about Rome?
The world is always going to be jacked up around us. Thats why there are so many passages about being separate from it.
No Wes, Josh specifically said the gospel. The Gospels contain our central instruction on the gospel, but they do not contain its fullness.
The gospel is the good news that God has come to redeem us and model and give expectations about what it means to be fully human and live for what we’ve been created for.
Which is where Deuteronomy comes in, and the reason why I quoted it, because it carries a concern that is consistent from Old Testament to New; care for the widowed and the oppressed (including foreigners in your lands) and the marginalized, invest in them to the point that it destroys your comfort zone.
The Gospel message is not, I repeat NOT about changing one’s life. It is, as Josh highlighted, about changing everything, which includes my life. But my life’s only important as it finds its place in God’s redemption of the whole picture.
And the confession “Jesus is Lord,” Wes, means Caesar (or Presidents Bush or Putin or whoever) is not Lord. Which understandably ruffled the feathers of the surrounding establishment. Jesus is Lord means our primary citizenship is in the kingdom of heaven that exists (in an incomplete way) here on earth; made up of those living into God’s will.
nate. you said it extremely well. so well that i don’t even have anything to add. thanks for sharing. that’s a blog post in of itself.
wes. nathan is right. paul’s constant use of the phrase jesus is lord is a deeply political, economic, and social statement. if you’re reading nt. wright and some of the new perspectives on paul like you said, you’re probably quite familiar with this idea of jesus as lord being an extremely subversive statement not only to caesar, but the whole of the roman empire.
as for specific gospel messages. first of all when i say gospel i’m talking about the kingdom of god. and not 4 books. but since jesus is situated in those 4 books, then i’ll share some passages.
and since you don’t want something from the law, perhaps we should look at The Expounding of the Law passage, also known as The Antithesis to the Law passage. this passage is situated in the middle of the sermon on the mount. which one could argue is highly political, economic, and social in nature. by calling into question and critiquing not only the mosaic (read religious) way but the larger culture’s way of dealing with adultery, oaths, divorce. essentially throughout the whole sermon on the mount jesus is flipping everyone’s understandings of these things on end and showing how subversive his interpretation of them really is.
but let’s look at The Expounding of the Law passage. in a culture that was highly militarized, built on the back of violence, and where retribution was not only the norm, but justified under both mosaic law and roman law . . . jesus makes some extremely interesting statements about turning the other cheek and going the extra mile.
in the case of the extra mile . . . most interpret this as we should do nice things for people. what jesus was saying is that, rome has the “right” to demand that you carry a soldiers pack if he should ask. but instead of just carrying it the required mile which was demanded, you should carry it two miles. sounds easy enough. but to carry it more than the 1 mile that was mandated by law, would get the soldier in trouble. you had to take it a mile willingly. but you couldn’t do two miles without getting rome in trouble. so for someone to carry it two put the soldier in a rather awkward place. 1) it exposed the shallow nature of the roman law in the first place. and 2) it forced the soldier to make a political decision. accept the gracious gift of having his pack carried an extra mile thus violating roman law and embracing the generous theme of the kingdom of god. or to submit to the roman law and deny the generosity of the kingdom. effectively boxing him in to make a decision about which kingdom he would give allegiance to.
same for the turn the cheek bit. the text actually says that if someone hits you on the “right” cheek, turn to them your left. at that time you couldn’t touch an “unclean” person with anything but your left hand. so to strike someone on the right cheek meant you had to back-slap them. to then turn your other cheek to them after they slapped you with the back of your hand would be a political statement. you were exposing the violence of the empire. to give them your left cheek would mean they would have to punch you with that same “left-hand” or to back slap you with their right hand, thus declaring you clean by touch. it was a defiant act that again forced the hand of the empire.
effectively what both of these stories were saying is, fine . . . you can hit me . . . you can make me carry your pack. but it means nothing to me. i don’t do it because of roman law. i don’t do it because i’m supposed to. i don’t do it out of fear of violence. i do it because of the political nature of the kingdom of god that sees no power in what you do. it’s not that you don’t exist. it’s just that you don’t have any power over me. because you’re an empty politic. an empty kingdom.
one more example below.
sorry it got too long.
2 stories in matthew juxtapose against each other and help us in our thinking. matt. 22:15-22 and matt. 17:24-27. shane claiborne in irresistible revolution and walter wink in the powers that be speak to the dynamic interplay going on in these two separate stories.
matt. 22 is where we get “give to caesar what is caesars” when the religious elite hand jesus a coin with caesar’s image on it and ask him who it belonged to. and matt. 17 is where jesus tells peter to pull a fish from the waters edge and take the coin out of his mouth and pay the temple tax with that.
the coin in both stories is the denarius, which was minted solely for tax purposes. it bore the image of caesar on it and had inscriptions and symbols proclaming the divinity of Caesar.
so in the first story jesus tells them the coin is caesars. it has his image on it. so it must be caesars. so give to caesar what is caesars. and in doing so develops the relationship between jesus and the state. the state may have the coins. it may demand the allegiance. but just because caesar’s name is on the coin doesn’t give him the power over life. an image doesn’t demand allegiance.
this story would have been built off of the backs of matt. 17 with the fish and the coin story still fresh in the minds of his followers. the authorities come to find out if jesus pays the temple tax. peter immediately says yes and pays it. later on jesus tells him to go down to the waters edge, pull out a fish, and you’ll find a coin in the fish’s mouth.
this was a lesson to his followers that you can pay caesar his tax to avoid trouble and to show your allegiance, but never forget who has the power to create life itself. the power to create a coin in a fish’s mouth. it’s not that jesus was opposed and antithetical to the state. but rather he existed on another plane altogether. he saw the frivolity of the state. it’s lack of real power. the only power it had was because god gave it power. so it wasn’t an issue to give to caesar what is caesars because what is caesars is god’s.
jesus could have easily said just pay the tax. or forged a relationship between “church” and “state”. but instead he made the point that the “state” only has power because of god.
that’s a political statement.
and i’m not sure how you couldn’t look at the cross and see that as a political statement. choosing to die non-violently instead of rise up in violence to oppose the oppressor? the cross is the most political of all.
wes,
i disagree. i mean I completely understand that jesus came to teach people about personal transformation and i do believe that is highly important, but when i study scripture the context of the empire and judaism the fact that jesus resisted and subvert rome becomes very, very clear.
as for rendering to caesar. again, context is imperative. that statement was highly polemical and ironic statement and jewish hears living in the first century it meant something totally different than what we in the west would like to think it means for the reasons i mentioned above. jesus render render to caesar what is caesar’s and to god what is god’s. for jesus and his hearers everything belonged to god. nothing legitimately belonged to caesar. so, yes in that light, render to caesar what is caesar’s.
again, i would direct you to the horsley book i mentioned above and any of walter wink’s works. i recently wrote and academic paper about all this as well. you can read it here . the bottom line is, like i mentioned above, we need to really study these contexts before we throw scripture around, lest we twist it into something it likely wasn’t.
right on blake. horsley is at the top of my stack on my night stand. as soon as finish the 1300 page monster that is war and peace.
i should also say that my interpretations above are all wink’s thoughts. just not as concise and a bit dumber. you should read the powers that be wes.
and while i understand where you’re coming from about not wanting to lose the “focus” of the gospel, i agree with blake. it’s much more holistic than i think we give it credit for. to say that god is only concerned with the spiritual holiness is to miss the whole point of what holiness is for. namely to be set apart. to live your life in such a radical way that you would drastically different than the culture at large. which is my point.
i’m afraid for western christendom we have so embedded within republican politics and just war and hyper-capitalism that we no longer see how our the message of the kingdom subverts those very things.
but i do agree with you on give to caesar what is caesar’s. i don’t think he so much as didn’t care about caesar. but instead just saw him for what he was. getting and gaining power but never understanding the source of things.
i think he just looked at caesar as nothing more than a man playing dress-up. living out his dream or acting out his imagination. as opposed to having any real power.
yes! everyone should drop what they’re doing right now and read “the powers that be.” seriously.
Nate,
I respectfully disagree. If I don’t change myself first good luck on getting anything else changed. It is what the gospel is all about a persons relationship with Christ from changing “my” ways to Christ ways.
And I agree the church at large is a mess.
I am not disagreeing with you guys. What I am saying is your missing the other half of the puzzle. It is about changing us as individuals first.
i don’t think anyone would disagree with you about changing us as individuals. as long as it doesn’t stop there and become about upholding a moral code, or waiting around for an afterlife.
at some point being changed as individuals affects our politics, our economics, our relationships, our consumption patterns.
it doesn’t just make us more pious.
for all it’s faults, the emerging church gets this while the conventional church is arguing about styles of music.
i would add, that the whole point is people. ultimately it is all about people, their transformation and their well-being.
all i’m saying is too many people stop with personal transformation and never move to prophetic transformation of social systems and power structures which ultimately affect the well-being of people. people are images of god, the bear the mark of the divine upon their being. anything that disrespects that must be challenged whether it is personal, social, political, economical, whatever.
jesus emphasized both (personal and social transformation). we need both.
Josh,
Yep absolutely. But what I do think is you focus too much on what is wrong with the church and less focus on your holiness and being truly Christ like on a personal level. (me included i am a work in progress)
Not forsaking one for another. Just like my very first post on your site Josh was about someone who said Jesus cares more about us loving our neighbors than using foul mouth language.
It is both. He misses the point of the gospel then. Love, holiness and faith in Christ as our Savior.
well. first you have to convince me that cussing is a sin.
second. you’d have to convince me that it’s a sin against god as opposed to a sin against my brother.
and third. you’d have to convince me that god cares more about my cussing that he does with the systemic sin and systemic injustices across the world.
i’m not sure he spends too many nights tossing in bed worried about my cussing and moderate drinking. but i’m pretty sure he cries when babies cry from hunger. and when mothers cry because their children are being killed in war. and when fathers cry because their country is torn apart by injustice. and when soldiers cry because of the nightmares they have. and when single mothers who work for a company make over a 1000% less than the CEO.
these are things that my jesus is concerned with.
i would also say that you’d have to convince me that jesus cares more about my cussing than he does churches with 90% of their budget and time going to individual needs like mortgages, salaries, sound systems, pre-packaged curriculum, t-shirts, christian radio, etc.
Sorry I disagree Josh. Is that the only thing you struggle with, if it is then you are a way better follower of Christ than me? How about your thought life or even as most of you have admitted you don’t even follow all the ideas you espouse. Read Matthew 5 and the sermon on the mount. It is just as important as what you are talking about here.
I was using that as an example and you know the scripture references that I have previously given like Ephesians 5:3-5.
You are missing the point I am not talking about cussing alone I am talking about us being sinners in full depravity without Christ.
obviously this isn’t the only thing i struggle with. you brought it up specifically, and i made a specific point about it.
you said i only care about part of the gospel because i don’t want personal transformation because i still cuss and see nothing wrong with it.
i said i don’t think god cares about my cussing and cares about systemic injustice.
let’s not flip it again and ignore the larger questions that i asked. everytime i respond decently, you jump off to something else. i’m not sure if it’s a rhetorical device used to box me in or keep me busy fighting fires until i stumble up and say something you really don’t like.
you asked me to give you verses in scripture that supported the political. i gave you 4.
i’m staying on topic and responding specifically to what you ask. surely you can respect that.
“Is that the only thing you struggle with, if it is then you are a way better follower of Christ than me?”
i’m really not comfortable with this rhetorical device aimed at false guilt and changing the conversation when i respond satisfactory by all debate standards but unsatisfactory according to the answers you want.
I am not trying to attack you Josh. I am trying to make you think about “also” what Christ wants from us.
This is where the emergent church loses me. You guys do a great job about the environment, oppression, the jacked up church, but you avoid holiness and following Christ’s commandments. Your do a great job of addressing half the problems but I don’t see the other side of things.
Please forgive me if I offended you. It was not meant as an attack on you. I am trying to see both sides here in my little narrow mind.
no worries. i’m not offended. just didn’t want to jump off track.
and i’m still a little confused to how all of these things are interrelated. i’m not sure how holiness doesn’t involve the political, the war, the economy, the injustice, the abuse of power.
that’s what i’m saying. is that to me these things are all about holiness. or rather “holiness” is about those things. to relegate holiness to some sort of inner sanctum misses the point to me.
what’s the point of being “set apart” if not for action?
micah 6 seems to be a good start for me. i don’t want your worship. i want you to do justice. do kindness. and walk with your god.
Joining in late .. can I go back to your first questions?
Better yet, I wonder why the conventional church and Christians consume at the same rate of the culture around them? Where’s the pause button? Where’s the step back? Where’s the brakes?
Now, here’s where I can’t relate to your caricature. Bizarre channels on satellite TV notwithstanding, I don’t have very much experience of North American churches (bizarrely, my experience is limited to repeated trips to Boise, ID, and rural IA, but I digress). However, I’m pretty certain that if you looked at British Christians, you’d find them significantly less consumptive than the surrounding population; with significantly less debt, less ostentation, smaller cars, and so on. Many meet in frankly depressing, damp, dull buildings. Not because they are stingy (do you have that word? tight-fisted?) — though that comes into it — but because they would count it “bad stewardship” to use resources in that way. Likewise, you’d also find Christians significantly ahead of the wider population in giving to the needy through charitable causes (I think; I’m speculating, I admit, but I feel confident on this).
Now, I’m in no way saying this is perfection. I’m not even sure it is improving rather than going the other way. But you didn’t claim perfection either. I do see a willingness to change, to accept that the gospel is about more than assenting to some pieces of theology. Not uniformly, not as much as anyone would wish, but enough to be unmistakable.
The sad thing though is that for most Christians and churches, it doesn’t bother them.
I don’t think I accept that, either. I’m not doubting that we/they could do better, but I’d say that it bothers many people very much.
andrew. sorry i should have given more disclaimers. i’m pretty much talking about the american church. and the evangelical, conventional model at that. which is pretty much the context that most churches exist in outside of the mainline. and especially in the south, although i think the north isn’t much better.
i should also say (and i’ve already got a post timestamped for this) that i think a lot of christians are coming around to these themes. rediscovering them and beginning to practice them in some new and imaginative way. so i do think there is hope. and this is where i’ll eventually end up as soon as i clear my head. but i would dare say that in america, the majority is still represented by those with conventional views as opposed to non-conventional views. and even within non-conventional views, like i claim to espouse, i’m not sure we go far enough in our “sacrifices”. i’m not sure it ever costs us much and instead works as a sort of guilt absolver.
this is why i think guys like andrew jones get it. so much of the “emerging conversation” in the states is the by-product of western white affluence. meanwhile, europe is much closer to practicing what we say we believe.
Andrew,
Do you know what the percent of people who go to church in Europe. I have heard different numbers I was just curious if you had more information from the inside.
@Wes: I don’t have hard figures to hand, but for the UK it would be something a little under 10% weekly.
@Josh: I’m not entirely convinced
Whatever you do, don’t hold up the European church as the thing to emulate. i’m not sure it ever costs us much and instead works as a sort of guilt absolver. Yep. I’m sure that’s true. I’ll have to blog, myself, on the political angle, because it’s getting to me.
andrew. let me clarify something else to about the political.
i’m not advocating a political activism. i’m advocating an (a)political subversion. in the vein of hauwerwas, yoder, even pecuilar people by rodney clapp.
one of antithetical resistance. not anarchy. and not co-option.
rather the gospel is the antithesis to our politics. to our economics. to our consumption.
it critiques, subverts, and undermine them. that is if it is unleased to be what it is.
This is an interesting fact Andrew. If only 10% of the people are followers of Christ how are they impacting 90 % of Europe in general terms about following what is being said here.
Food for thought.
I guess my question is – Is the church in Europe making an impact in being closer to what is being described with these ideas. Or is it just plain old worldly culture?
i’m not trying to demonize the states and romanticize europe. but it can’t be any worse than the crap we’ve got here. you should read european dream by rifkin. and they can’t be doing any worse with their 10% than we’re doing with our 50%.
That may be true Josh. But why do you perceive it to be better was the question. I was assuming because the Church was having a bigger impact. Or did I miss your point. Who is responsible for the “better” culture in Europe?
You are a fine debater.
i think they’re about 20 years ahead of as a culture. their epistemology evolves at about 20 years ahead of our cultural centers (seattle, minneapolis, new york, los angeles, portland). which then in turn takes another 10 years for it to hit rural areas.
i think in europe there is more cross pollination between cultures. people aren’t as afraid of change. or diversity. more ideas mix together. and things aren’t as homogenized as they are here. things are local with a global perspective. things are more community driven. and communal in nature.
i’ve also been thinking about the role education plays in this. i know this is a gross stereotype, but it seems like all the rednecks in the south are bush people. usually not very educated or cultured. and people in the metropolitan areas who have PHDs aren’t. so i think education plays a role in it.
Very well all those things are probably true. But you didn’t address the question is the European Church responsible for any of this or is it totally irrelevant?
Generalizations about Europe don’t work. Each country is very different.
In the UK, for example, the witness of the church is certainly dulled by the fact that (some of) it is a branch of the State. In the last census, around 70% described themseves as Christians, even though only a tenth of those will be regular churchgoers. There’s a generational collapse, however, with only a tiny proportion of 20-40 year-olds (hence 0-40 year-olds, probably) ever having had any contact at all with the church. Which is bad, in some ways, of course, but good in that people of my generation who describe themselves as Christians generally mean something by it.
So, allow me to re-interpret the question. Among the under-40s, does the gospel affect Christians’ whole approach to life, in the way Josh was describing in the original post? Two answers: (a) no, not very much; (b) there are too few; there’s too little data to give a meaningful general answer.
but . . . if you situate it within the context of the kingdom of god vs. whose “Christian” and whose not . . . then you certainly find more kingdom of god values in europe than you do in the states.
more justice. green initiatives. local/global shared economies. slower, relational living.
I like your summing-up. But I think you could argue it both ways. Yes, there’s a bigger concern for social justice here. There might be more relational living – but I’m not really sure how you’d measure that. There’s probably more concern for the environment. But I can’t help noticing better recycling facilities in Chicago O’Hare than London Heathrow. Our gasoline does cost about $8 per gallon – a large proportion of that being tax.
Dunno.
Getting back on topic, there’s a question of centrality here that Wes touched on that really sets the context for me of why Josh’s thoughts here are so important.
Put simply, you could answer the question, “Why is the church consumptive in nature?” with the answer “because the individual (evangelizing, converting, and equipping) is the audience of worship.”
That’s why I almost completely disagree with you, Wes on your comment that
“If I don’t change myself first good luck on getting anything else changed. It is what the gospel is all about a persons relationship with Christ from changing “my” ways to Christ ways.”
No, the gospel is all about God, and the character of this God who has created something beautiful, it has turned against him to selfish human-centered ways, and he in his steadfast love is redeeming and reconciling that creation to himself.
If the gospel is all about individuals and their relationship with God, a picture emerges of a world (God’s world!) fragmented by individualism and individualistic pursuits that can’t be corrected by others because “it’s my relationship with God, and I’m not subject to anyone but God and his Word.” This is, as a foundation, terribly naive, because any individual’s interpretation of God’s Word (or collection of like-minded individuals) is flawed and more informed by their experience than anything else.
But if the center is God and God’s counter-cultural, God-embracing, obedient, radically loving, radically forgiving, revolutionary kingdom that is retrieving the creation that has fallen into disrepair, denial, and darkness; well now we’re talking!!!! And this is one that challenges my understanding and the understanding of people most like me to consider that maybe our perspective isn’t the only one; and so we submit to the voices of the church from around the globe and the reality that their perspectives are just as valid as ours. Sure, Scripture is the foundation, but the interpretation of Scripture as to how it informs our foundation is a messy process.
And if we’re going with the second picture (God and God’s kingdom as central) over the first (the heart of the individual), which we should because it’s deeply Biblical and the first one isn’t, then I find where I as an individual find my place. And that place is right alongside others in God’s kingdom committed to discipleship and love in Christ’s example.
You see what I’m saying? You and I are not not important, we’re just important only as a part of the whole that we’re participating in.
That sort of perspective should immediately change the focus of our worship off the individual as audience (which leads to a consumptive church) to God as audience (which leads to a participatory church). And in directing worship to God, we get to talk about what right worship includes. Which, Biblically speaking, ranges from singing and praying and Bible study to glasses of cold water and clothes for the unclothed and healing for the sick and caring for the needs of foreigners among us (a very relevant reminder for Christians that should guide the way we think about the current immigration dispute in the US).
And that should alter an approach like yours following;
“This is where the emergent church loses me. You guys do a great job about the environment, oppression, the jacked up church, but you avoid holiness and following Christ’s commandments. Your do a great job of addressing half the problems but I don’t see the other side of things.”
Other than that being a sweeping stereotype that’s simply not true when you look more deeply into the wide spectrum of those who identify with “emergent” concerns, it underscores that you are coming from the opposite extreme an “emergent” could occupy. For you, holiness is represented in pious ways (singing, prayer, attention to individual relationship with God, Bible study) that neglect the call to “love your neighbor” in practical ways that inform the pursuit of holiness just as much as personal piety.
So while “emerging” types could be tempted to overemphasize social justice concerns at the expense of personal piety, they, in the most basic sense, are bringing a corrective to an incomplete picture of the pursuit of holiness that should inform and guide followers of Jesus to deeper faithfulness and holiness. Bringing balance to the Force, so to speak.
So be careful with your confident pronouncements on what is “holy” or “faithful” or “the point of the gospel.” I think Josh is right, holiness touches on everything ranging from what are often labeled as “liberal” concerns to “conservative” concerns. That’s why we need a good dose of humility, a good set of ears to listen before speaking, and a desire to pursue truth together; only then will we be wise in the ways of God and His kingdom.
Nate,
That is some good self refuting argumentation you got going on there. Thanks.
Wes,
You just proved my point that you’re here on Josh’s blog to troll. You managed by persistent questioning and minute details (to rile up Josh) to derail the comments far away from the intent of the post. Don’t be surprised if people ignore your trolling here on out. You built the bed…time to sleep in it.
Nate
4 Trackbacks
[...] The Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs [...]
[...] Context For My Starting Point, Different Starting Points, The Religious Industrial Complex, Opium & 3 Legged Chairs, The Model Speaks Volumes, The Medium Is 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 [...]
[...] these revolutionaries, not to be poster boys to garner political points. And we are comfortable. We are consumers. Sometimes I am apathetic, compounding our problem by adding more drivel on yet another blog. We [...]