The Consumptive Church: Different Starting Points.

The Context For My Starting Point

Derek made some solid points about what the church is in the comments yesterday. We sort of jumped off on a rabbit trail discussing the nature of the church, which led me in to a rather generic cliff note version of the competing narratives that I perceive to be out there. So below are my two cliff notes (from yesterday’s comments) for the different ways of interpreting history, Jesus, the church, salvation, etc. They are sort of off topic from the conversation that began on the Consumptive Church, but I think ultimately, any discussion leads us back to one of these 2 views.

Emerging View

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 it 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 testament god try to achieve it with the law. in the new testament it was with 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.

And now the conventional view (and by conventional I mean the last 500 years or so)

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 they go 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 gal did in a garden 6000 years ago. and then finally jesus’ death actually counts as opposed to the first time.

12b. this also says nothing about weird “marriage suppers with lambs”, 7 bowls/7 trumpets/7 something else timelines, and other odd dreams from some guy who was dreaming on an island in the middle of nowhere by himself.

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.

Listening: Picaresqueties by The Decemberists

The Consumptive Church: The Context For My Starting Point.

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