Exile’s associate pastor, Sy Nease, preached his fifth sermon is a series on Christian Practices on Sunday evening, focusing on the topic of community. He rooted the idea in the Holy Trinity, according to which God is a Father who eternally generates a Son and thus has always existed in the context of love and communication from all eternity. He then discussed the community between Jews and Gentiles that the Gospel creates, focusing on Paul’s words in Ephesians 2:11ff.
Where things got interesting, though, was toward the end when he began suggesting some practical obstacles to community. For example, does our commuter culture mitigate against community? Does the fact that we drive everywhere we go and can simply pull into our garages when we return home and effectively skip the step of greeting our neighbors destroy community? What about our technology, which enables us to put reality on “Pause” so that we can tweet or check Facebook in the middle of a live conversation?
As good a sermon as it was, what frustrated me was that the preacher was somewhat limited in how directly he could make application since, according to Sola Scriptura, a minister may not go beyond the biblical text in binding the consciences of God’s people (don’t get me wrong, it’s a necessary principle for obvious reasons, it just has its drawbacks as well). In a word, I wanted to delve more deeply into the questions he was raising, but a sermon on the Lord’s Day was not really the place to do it.
Part of me wants to set aside one of our Sunday school terms and discuss Paul Stiles’s book Is the American Dream Killing You? In it Stiles makes the case that what he calls “The Market” is exercising an undue influence upon just about every aspect of our lives as Americans—everything from urban sprawl to two-hour commutes, from big box stores to the lack of beautiful architecture, is either a direct or indirect result of the Market’s stranglehold over us and our culture.
(Incidentally, after initially reading the book, Stiles and I began an extended conversation over email which turned, strangely enough, to the issue of the resurrection of Christ [he’s not a believer]. I found out later that he moved his family from his native Annapolis to the Canary Islands, so it seems the guy put his money where his pen is.)
There are a number of conversational directions this topic can take: Does our culture mitigate against the biblical ideal of community, or is community overrated? Is it an abuse of the pastoral office to consider such a book in a Sunday School setting? Can Sola Scriptura sometimes hamstring a preacher when he wants to make direct application of a biblical principle?
I just finished reading Sidewalks in the Kingdom, New Urbanism and the Christian Faith. Though I haven't read Paul Stiles book, Sidewalks covers much of what you mentioned, and has me wanting to move out of my average subdivision and into an urban neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteI'm anxious to hear other comments!
I don't think it's a drawback of sola scriptura that he couldn't prick consciences on a Sunday over debatable cultural analyses and mores. If you think they're not debatable, then I'd suggest the sola scriptura thing has already been lost somewhere. (And I say that as one with a large amount of sympathy with what you're talking about, but just so privately and in the civil arena.)
ReplyDeleteIs the Biblical ideal of community meant only for the church/christian community? Do we not witness to the world when we live out community as the Bible teaches it?
ReplyDeleteI thought Sola Scriptura simply referred to Scripture as the ultimate authority for faith and life, but not the *only* authority. Nor was it a limiting force upon how we approached Scripture.
ReplyDeleteI think the very fact that Scripture doesn't speak to everything in life, but gives us wisdom to deal with it, necessarily means that we apply its wisdom to the modern context for our congregants.
All that aside, wouldn't identifying a problem be different from binding everyone's conscience to a specific solution? Such as preaching a sermon about the poor while mentioning that we have poor in America, but not laying out a 5 point plan for how the congregation can, or should, solve it?
Does our culture mitigate against the biblical ideal of community, or is community overrated?
ReplyDeleteI wonder what a biblical ideal of community is? If you mean does our culture punish even repentant law-breakers instead of forgive them like the church does, then I suppose it does. And I would count myself happy for it. What I wouldn’t be so wild about is either the church adopting the cultural ideal, where repentant law-breakers are punished, or the culture adopting the biblical ideal, where repentant law-breakers are forgiven.
But I also have to wonder if there really is no such thing as a “biblical” ideal of community, but simply an ideal notion of community. I mean, I would say that an ideal notion of community precludes the very concept of, say, Wal-Mart. But I would be hard-pressed to say I could back that up “biblically.”
Richard,
ReplyDeleteIs the Biblical ideal of community meant only for the church/christian community? Do we not witness to the world when we live out community as the Bible teaches it?
Yeah, and he dealt with the fact that we are necessarily communal because we are humans made in God's image, and not just because we are believers. But like so many things, the believer is in a better position to give expression to his true humanity because we know where that humanity comes from.
I think I just espoused a "grace perfects nature" kind of deal....
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteI thought Sola Scriptura simply referred to Scripture as the ultimate authority for faith and life, but not the *only* authority. Nor was it a limiting force upon how we approached Scripture.
Well, if the authority of a minister is to speak in Christ's name with a "thus saith the Lord," then he may do that only when he is declaring what Scripture has already stated. But to use the pulpit to espouse his own opinions is to go against Sola Scriptura since he is proclaiming extra-biblical opinions under the guise of preaching God's Word.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI would submit for consideration that Protestantism itself is directly and indirectly to blame for our fragmented communities (or lack of true community):
1. Protestantism rejected the traditional "ands" of Catholicism: Instead of grace and nature (grace building on nature), nature was seen as depraved and therefore not worthy of itself. Instead, it was something to be exploited.
Now instead of seeing money and wealth as a means to a (good) end, like building a Cathedral or commissioning artwork, wealth became an end in itself. Man was then used a the cogs in the new factories, etc. etc. Capitalism was born.
2. The iconoclasm of Protestantism denuded churches of the beautiful images, paintings, icons, and statuary that had traditionally filled them. Utility and function were more important than beauty.
3. Whereas Europe developed with Catholic Christendom as its vivifying principle, the United States developed with a different ethos. European towns are walkable, densely-utilized, beautiful places. The connections between people and the land are (or were) emphasized.
The U.S. on the other hand developed under more Protestant-Enlightenment ideals: individual freedom, capitalism. Coupled with the technological ability to travel greater distances quickly, Americans spread out across the country, cities became huge sprawling messes as everyone wanted their affordable McMansion fortress in suburbia.
I don't blame all this on Protestantism, but the principles of the Reformers interacted in unexpected ways with the Enlightenment, the industrial revolution, and the scientific revolution. Now we are in a sad state. I think the way back is to recover and make applicable to our modern world the principles on which Catholic Christendom was built: things like sustainable agrarianism, the new urbanism, etc.
I would suggest reading Christopher Dawson for a much more in depth explanation of how all this happened.
Zrim,
ReplyDeleteI wonder what a biblical ideal of community is?
When I speak that way, what I mean is that man is created as a communal creature (since God is triune), and therefore he is not supposed to be living his life in isolation from others.
But I also have to wonder if there really is no such thing as a “biblical” ideal of community, but simply an ideal notion of community. I mean, I would say that an ideal notion of community precludes the very concept of, say, Wal-Mart. But I would be hard-pressed to say I could back that up “biblically.”
Yes, there’s certainly not some biblical blueprint for the specifics, but I do think it’s legit to ask whether or not living in a gated property mitigates against the biblical ideal of community that is rooted in our divine image-bearing, wouldn’t you?
"Does our culture mitigate against the biblical ideal of community ... ?"
ReplyDeleteI'm going to assume Acts 3:42-47 is the biblical ideal of community, devotion to: teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread and to prayer (vs. 42) followed by the early church seeing God working in space and time (vs. 43), followed by the sharing of resources and economies (v. 45) followed by unity of worship in the temple and unity/ community in private gatherings (v. 46), they were praising God, the people trusted them/ respected the early church and they grew in number (v. 47)
I really don't see how promoting sharing resources both in people power/ time, community and $$$ is good for Capitalism/ Consumerism/ Business which is what drives much of the American way of life. I mean seriously if we break bread in each other's homes every night that's not very business friendly. If we shared resources the too big to fail banks and big box retailers will close when usury goes out of fashion too.
I don't know, this community thing you're thinking about sounds like a revolutionary idea.
Personal Jesus is a lot easier fitting into an American lifestyle-economy/ needs than like expecting me to sacrifice my American Dream and think about church unity/ community/ people. Besides the sinner's prayer said NOTHING about community/ unity/ church. *tongue firmly in cheek*
Devin,
ReplyDeleteI would submit for consideration that Protestantism itself is directly and indirectly to blame for our fragmented communities (or lack of true community)
Although I’ve not read Weber’s book, I have heard people say his thesis (that Protestantism is better soil for capitalism than Catholicism) has fallen out of favor among sociologists. Have you read his book?
Protestantism rejected the traditional "ands" of Catholicism: Instead of grace and nature (grace building on nature), nature was seen as depraved and therefore not worthy of itself. Instead, it was something to be exploited.
This sounds to me more like one of those “The logical outcome of Protestantism is x” statements than anything else. As a well-trained Protestant I have never encountered the idea that earth is anything but good and worthy to enjoy. In fact, we think it’s the evangelical gnostics who call nature into question, because we certainly don’t.
Now instead of seeing money and wealth as a means to a (good) end, like building a Cathedral or commissioning artwork, wealth became an end in itself. Man was then used a the cogs in the new factories, etc. etc. Capitalism was born.
Again, there may be something to this, but it seems a bit too clean and airtight (as if rich Catholics build hospitals and rich Protestants build private homes). It seems too easy to refute anecdotally.
The iconoclasm of Protestantism denuded churches of the beautiful images, paintings, icons, and statuary that had traditionally filled them. Utility and function were more important than beauty.
This I agree with.
Whereas Europe developed with Catholic Christendom as its vivifying principle, the United States developed with a different ethos. European towns are walkable, densely-utilized, beautiful places. The connections between people and the land are (or were) emphasized.
The U.S. on the other hand developed under more Protestant-Enlightenment ideals: individual freedom, capitalism. Coupled with the technological ability to travel greater distances quickly, Americans spread out across the country, cities became huge sprawling messes as everyone wanted their affordable McMansion fortress in suburbia.
Completely agree.
I would suggest reading Christopher Dawson for a much more in depth explanation of how all this happened.
I will look him up.
"Christianity began as a personal [-communal] relationship with Jesus Christ. When it went to Athens, it became a philosophy. When it went to Rome, it became an organization. When it spread throughout Europe, it became a culture. When it came to America, it became a business."
ReplyDeleteI just read this online in another discussion and thought it fit well into the current discussion. Sums it up pretty well!
Jason,
ReplyDeleteYah, I am a novice in this area--this is actually my wife' area of expertise. And I painted with a pretty broad brush. I don't blame Protestantism for everything, and certainly Catholics haven't done a great job of rebuilding community here or in Europe, to our shame.
I don't think I've read Weber's work--I assume this is the Weber I read in sociology classes in college.
God bless!
But like so many things, the believer is in a better position to give expression to his true humanity because we know where that humanity comes from.
ReplyDeleteI think I just espoused a "grace perfects nature" kind of deal....
I think you did, too. But whatever else Protestantism’s “grace renews nature” entails it certainly entails the idea that un/believers have an equal ability to do creation well. I am not sure that a created/redeemed creature is really in any better position to give expression to his true humanity than a created/unredeemed creature is. I mean, is a believer in any better position to give back correct change than an unbeliever? If not, then I don’t know why he’d be any better at other, higher order things; if unbelievers can produce a superior cultural product than believers then I am not so sure how we can “give a better expression to our true humanity.” But, we’re the only ones who do redemption not only well but right.
Yes, there’s certainly not some biblical blueprint for the specifics, but I do think it’s legit to ask whether or not living in a gated property mitigates against the biblical ideal of community that is rooted in our divine image-bearing, wouldn’t you?
I think it’s one thing to ask whether the rich may keep the poor from the Lord’s table (answer: no). But I do think it’s another to suggest that the created order should reflect an egalitarian arrangement.
Rana, I don’t know if you’re saying this, but I am as skeptical of suggesting that Acts 3 gives us a way of undoing capitalism as I am of the idea that Romans 13 props up limited government.
I am not suggesting that Christians use the idealism of Acts 3 as "a way of undoing capitalism". No not at all.
ReplyDeleteI do think that Christianity in the USA is much more reflective of American culture/ consumerism than it is of Christ/ the early church. Consumer cultures like in the USA are more consumption/ convenience/ individual/ independence-freedom driven rather than community/ unity/ sharing resources driven.
Devin,
ReplyDeleteMaybe Jason has already answered to your satisfaction, but I wanted to add a few comments to you points 1-3:
1. It's human nature which is depraved after the Fall, rather than nature in general. Nature is subjected to futility of course and experiences the ravages of God's judgment on man since man is God's representative here on earth, but we don't think that there is something inherently depraved about nature itself.
2. I've been in plenty German churches that were birthed Catholic and then became Protestant. The interior of these edifices do often look like they have been torn asunder and only sort of put back together. But how do you escape this if you are trying to rid a structure of idolatrous elements? Of course you don't think that there were any idolatrous elements to begin with, but what if you did? What is more important - aesthetics or truth?
I think it's worth comparing these structures that were wrenched from their Catholic moorings with others that began Protestant like some of the Anglican cathedrals. High altars, images of the Trinity, and such things are not a sine qua non of a beautiful church building. Wouldn't you agree?
3. I've walked European towns from Italy to Norway and I agree that there is something definitely missing with the average American city in comparison. But I think this has more to do with American philosophies like Pragmatism than anything distinctly Protestant. There are after all many wonderfully planned Dutch communities where livability and aesthetics trumped anything utilitarian. And for all of Holland's current problems, that's still true today.
Definitely an interesting topic.
Cheers....
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteYes those are good responses I think. The nature thing is interesting, as what we have done with the industrial food model is to ignore how God has created animals and instead forced them to fit our efficiency mold.
So we have chickens debeaked, packed together in small cages their whole lives, and fed full of antibiotics to prevent the inevitable diseases that such surroundings lead to. I don't know if that mentality that we can twist creation to fit out ends is Protestant--probably more from Hobbes if I recall, and even some Protestants today, notably Joel Salatin, are rediscovering the idea that God created animals in a certain way and we should respect that.
Regarding images, yes if you think it is right, you must follow that. So Muslims whitewashed the Hagia Sophia I recall reading. And Calvinists denuded churches. But I would say it was an overreaction, as perhaps the Anglicans show Protestants by the fact that they have beautiful churches. So the theological debate about icons/images is very important to resurrect.
And with European cities, they developed during eras without electricity and modern transportation and all that, so they had to be small and tightly knit together. In the U.S. we had land out the wazoo and could just expand expand expand with modern technology. Hence, Houston, Texas. :)
God bless.
Devin,
ReplyDeleteHave you ever seen the movie Food, Inc? It's scary stuff! We buy part of a cow from a small farm not too far from us that is grain fed and no (or at least fewer) hormones and preservatives. I'd like to find a way to do this with chicken as well.
Houston - Ugg! One day we will wake up and realize how short-sited and wasteful such sprawling metropolises are. And why does every reasonably affluent family of four need 3500 or 4000 sq. ft to live in? I don't get it. The last time I was at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam I noticed how many paintings there were of simple family life. The artisan or the milkmaid doing their jobs well were portrayed as beautiful. In contrast the nobility were often portrayed as ugly and foolish. This respect for simple living still is part of the Dutch mindset today and American expats who buy up the biggest houses and live their luxurious lifestyles are generally despised.
"the Market’s stranglehold over us and our culture. "
ReplyDeleteDare I argue that our culture IS the market? That the market IS our culture? If there is no market, how is there any culture? Isn't market a necessary component of culture? Where on earth do you think the apostles were getting the ingredients for that bread they were baking and sharing? They certainly weren't subsistence farmers.
All that to say, you can't separate one from the other. In fact, you could define culture as how a group of people interact in a marketplace.
Elliot,
ReplyDeleteYou can say that "the culture is the market and the market is the culture," but that wouldn't prove anything. In fact, it would just confirm Stiles's point that the market has swallowed everything else and has made us rather unbalanced people.
What would we look like as more "balanced" people? How do you live a life freer from the mouth of the market, to use your imagery? I'm truly curious. Would we just stay at home all day?
ReplyDeleteElliot,
ReplyDeleteAre you truly curious? And do you seriously think that Stiles is advocating "staying home all day"?
You should read his book. He argues for a balanced combination of market, politics, and religion (though he only gets to this at the very end, and doesn't work it out in any practical detail).
I would add that things like art, relationships, and sports are other elements that can combine to make us more human than merely being consumers or producers in a factory.
Yeah I am curious. I often hear people bemoaning our current economic system, but they never seem to be able to offer anything better. If they could, I would be far more willing to listen. So yes, I am curious. I cannot deny the obvious flaws, but I am left wondering if they are caused by the system itself, or the people that inhabit the former.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the system is neutral; sinful mankind is the problem.
All that to say, I like your suggestion of art and sports as things that can operate outside of the market, although of course they rarely do. I'm a little less clear about what he means if he "argues for a balanced combination of market, politics, and religion," although if he doesn't get into it very much, I can't expect you to elucidate. Does he advocate replacing some of the market's influence with political influence? That truly scares me. I would much rather trust people looking out for their own interests (the market) than those supposedly looking out for mine (politics). The former group acts in predictable and rational ways far more than the latter.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteYes I've also watched Food Inc (and others like King Corn). They've confirmed what my wife and I realized some time back: our food system needs major changes.
We've gone fairly far toward eating differently: cheese, vegetables, and fruit via a CSA, buy raw milk and grass-fed beef by the quarters and halves, raise bees, chickens, etc. Nonetheless, I typically take the kids to Chick-Fil-A at least once a week. Hey! It's a Christian establishment. :)
@Eliot: The meaning of the word "culture" has been degraded somewhat in our modern lexicon. For good reading on true culture and its religious foundation, I would recommend Roger Scruton and Christopher Dawson.
Culture is religion (the gospel) applied to every aspect of everyday life. And the perfecting of that aspect.
For example, food plants grow naturally in creation, however, we cultivate them. In light of our faith, we do so in a way that gives glory to God and respects the design of his creation. Same with animals--see my remarks above about modern chicken farms. Also with art, music, etc. Notice most music today is banal and the lyrics are meaningless. Same with art.
The market is another area where we apply the gospel. That means we place people over profits, for instance, and explains why unbridled capitalism is bad.
That is very helpful, Devin. I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteWhat about those who aren't applying the gospel to everyday life? Are they engaged in culture? I suppose you could say they are at least applying the creation/fall part of the gospel, although I'm not sure that's what you mean, since they are not involved in the "perfecting of that aspect" (whatever that means - are we really planning on perfecting anything? I thought that was Christ's job, at the second coming). Please correct me if I'm wrong; I really like to learn.
They are certainly unknowingly obeying the creation mandates, at least.
For example, food plants grow naturally in creation, however, we cultivate them. In light of our faith, we do so in a way that gives glory to God and respects the design of his creation. Same with animals--see my remarks above about modern chicken farms. Also with art, music, etc. Notice most music today is banal and the lyrics are meaningless. Same with art.
ReplyDeleteDevin, what do you make of those who cultivate earth the same way you do (i.e. well and in a way that respects the designs of creation) but who also do not share your faith? And what do you make of those who share your faith but also cultivate poorly (i.e. make banal and meaningless art, music, etc.)? I think you’d have to admit these are feasible scenarios. I do, and the implication seems to be that faith isn’t really as directly relevant to earthly pursuit as seems to be implied by your statement.
One more note to Andrew:
ReplyDeleteHouston does have a special place in my heart, for all its ugliness. I'm a native Texan (though living elsewhere now for the first time in my life), and lived in Houston, Austin, and Dallas.
But unfortunately I think Arcade Fire's song Sprawl II describes "living in the sprawl" only too well.
Eliot,
ReplyDeleteI think certainly all people, by the very fact that they live in society, are a part of and contributing to its culture, though it is possible their contributions are not advancing the culture but degrading it. By advancing I mean making it more truly human, which means more in line with how God has created us.
Nonetheless, I have lots of non-Christian friends who seek to live good lives, work hard, etc., and I do not intend to demean them in any way.
By "perfecting" I mean making it more human, more in line with how we should live. It does not mean we will attain it this side of Heaven--we won't--but just working toward that. Kind of like when Jesus said "be perfect, therefore, as your Heavenly Father is perfect."
@Zrim, certainly you are right. There are earthy-crunchy atheists who revere "Mother Nature" and are raising animals in ways that are more humane that many Christians who do the factory model. They do not believe in the gospel but have been able at least to see God's design of nature (even if they wouldn't call it that), almost like the "natural law" applied to the natural world. Of course, they also then sometimes do things like put animals above human beings, which is wrong.
And many Christians are just blind to these things. We are surrounded by our society and its values and norms get instilled in us, so much so that, for instance, one of my Evangelical friends laughed at me and ridiculed me for a month when I told him I was eating beef that didn't come from a feedlot.
But though these scenarios certainly occur all around us, they are something of a poverty. They should change. We should live the gospel better in all ways.
Well, know that I'm not dogmatic about these things--just ideas I've been noodling. Of course I am dogmatic about other matters. :)
Cool. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteElliot,
ReplyDeleteI often hear people bemoaning our current economic system, but they never seem to be able to offer anything better. If they could, I would be far more willing to listen.
Well, I don’t know who “they” are, but there’re plenty of books out there that seek to tweak or give alternatives to capitalism.
I would say that the system is neutral; sinful mankind is the problem.
I would say that’s naïve. Sure, ultimately sinful mankind is always the problem, but that doesn’t preclude there being systems in place that play into man’s sinfulness and greed, systems that give more expression to or freedom for these things than others.
All that to say, I like your suggestion of art and sports as things that can operate outside of the market, although of course they rarely do.
Well, sure, if you watch a baseball game on TV the starting lineups will be “brought to you by Taco Bell,” and the instant replay will be “brought to you by Radio Shack.” But then you could always turn off the TV and actually play baseball (which, amazingly, requires no corporate sponsorship at all!).
Does he advocate replacing some of the market's influence with political influence? That truly scares me. I would much rather trust people looking out for their own interests (the market) than those supposedly looking out for mine (politics). The former group acts in predictable and rational ways far more than the latter.
Again, I think it is naïve to think that (1) government is other people making decisions for you and (2) capitalism is not (in fact, the former is democratic while the latter is completely totalitarian by definition). If you read Stiles’s book you’ll see that the market is every bit a decision-maker, and rarely for the better. And if you read Naomi Klein then fuhgeddaboudit.
Thanks Jason.
ReplyDeleteHow do you play baseball without corporate sponsorship? Make a ball out of grass? A bat out of a tree limb? Field with your bare hands?
I would ditto much of what what Zrim said. Funny how the "biblical" idea of "community" in church small group settings is always whatever "I" say it is. Followed of course by scripture twisting to back my point, etc. etc. "Here is "biblical" proof Walmart is evil or here is "biblical" proof Ronald Reagan was the greatest President. While I like Reagan , Walmart & Wild Oats I think it is best to just recommend a book like this rather than make it a Sunday school study.
ReplyDeleteIs it an abuse of the pastoral office to consider such a book in a Sunday School setting?-----Yes
Can Sola Scriptura sometimes hamstring a preacher? ----Yes, this a good thing not a bad thing.
However your blog and influence/recommendation as a friend can get them thinking.
As shepherds of souls, pastors can and should speak authoritatively to how communities are forged. And if not, on occasion, say in the informal suite of a Sunday School class, then when? On the porches of homes where everyone gathers of a summer evening to share their lives? Acts, after all, gives us bread and butter examples of one such forging of community, in the early NT church. Let's not divorce biblical doctrine from our humanity. Scripture speaks to the fellowship of believers not through theological guidelines but through examples/stories of the power of such friendships.
ReplyDelete--Kirk
Kirk, what have you against porches or homes? That’s where most of life is lived. But I don’t think the point is to divorce biblical doctrine from humanity. Rather, I think it’s to guard sheep from the potential social and political hobby horses of shepherds, whose yokes tend to become heavy pretty fast. For my part, when it comes to his ideological views, I’d rather meet my pastor on a porch than at the pulpit. Maybe you think that is an undue compartmentalizing or divorcing, but I think that’s just good old-school two kingdoms.
ReplyDeleteThe whole point, from the beginning, is that we are not meeting on porches. And shepherds walking in the Spirit impart freedom and life as they tell and show us how to love one another. No yoke in that, and no need either to assume that nothing can be said at all without heading into a ditch on one side or another. You are ever speedy at taking an askance view, fellow heir of the kingdom.
ReplyDeleteDevin,
ReplyDeleteThe Roman Empire created the infrastructure of Western Europe and defined many of its great cities. Europe "developed" well before the pontiffs Leo III, or Sylvester I, or even Peter. True, Madrid is a product of iconoclastic (Protestant-Enlightenment?) Muslims; London, Paris, and Rome, however, were all infused with that vivifying imperium of the SPQR. And when one considers the attention the Romans gave to their latifundia, one realizes that the medieval aristocracy wasn't alone in enjoying the labor of peasants, serfs, and slaves perfecting nature - why else would the peasant and slave rebellions be so brutally crushed?
I love Paris in the rain, of course, but I don't quite enjoy going out for a stroll in the banlieues.
"As shepherds of souls, pastors can and should speak authoritatively to how communities are forged."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely no argument on that point, other than perhaps a point of clarification (which may put a fork in this road, but not in Christian fellowship)................
Yes indeed, in the sense that the Gospel forges communities and in the sense that our identity is in Christ, amen! We see from Scripture no authority was Biblically given to be a "blabber mouth" leader, telling the flock how they should or should not go to Walmart or who they should or should not vote for, etc. At least not from the text, pulpit, office of pastor (including a sanctioned Sunday/Sabbath school /small group study), especially when 90% of churches these days will claim that "the real important stuff" in our church happens in the small group, community etc. Essentially making the community the Church! Therefore, it makes it very disingenuous and flip-flopping to say, "Oh, well it's not the church worship or in preaching it is a Sunday school class". When many said leaders edify the small group/Sunday school community as the "more relevant" place to be as opposed to the ordinary means worship service we have the big problems we are now seeing the fruit of. This ordinary means clearly has biblical warrant. I'm not so sure I can say the same for what passes for most Christian community groups/small groups. Do not hear what I did not say, I did not say leaders cannot say abortion is wrong, stealing is wrong, sin is wrong, etc. etc. Nor did I say leaders cannot talk about almost anything on their front porch, (instead of saying we will never get the front porch back, just go out there and have a beer 1 night a week) with all sorts of people, Christians and non-believers.
What I am saying is that we should not be bored with the ordinary means or the confines of Soli Scriptura in favor of "the nitty-gritty practical stuff, worship or in small groups.(Not saying that is what people here think, but rather what I see out there) And of course "practical" in the "big tent" sense is not the Gospel, the ordinary means of grace, the Word, doctrine or theology. Because we all know "that stuff" just does not effect change we want and is not practical. Practical in this sense is a conversation or small group on global warming, art in culture, how to raise good teens, have a good sex life for jesus, how to raise myself up and most important others up in a world of sin (note: we can use the word "sin" and yet still get it all wrong), how to Partner with God to be a change agent, blah blah blah, look at me and my fruit and my community. To which some "grumpy mean TR" would simply say, "No, look to Christ alone, which is not a faith that stands alone, it has fruit." So it indeed will have impact on community. However, the spotlight will still be beamed on Christ alone not my fruit or in this case community. I might add the fruit may show up way later when least expected and not as strategized. I do not think this is nit picking , rather good theological and Biblical clarification.
Together for the Gospel,
For more on this, as it does relate check out.................
http://thechristiancurmudgeonmo.blogspot.com/2011/06/bye-bye-kuyper.html
And read Jason's book
http://www.ligonier.org/store/dual-citizens-worship-and-life-between-hardcover/
Anon (Kirk?), I am not sure what you mean by speedily taking the askance view. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed to me that you were pushing back against E. Burns’ point that sacred space isn’t the proper place for pastors to prop up their ideologies, and I was trying to support it. How is that taking an askance view?
ReplyDeleteBut I don’t consider a Sunday School class to be the informal place you seem to. It’s as formal a space as the pulpit, and so I don’t see how either is the place to exegete a book that captures the pastor’s particular outlook. I don’t think that is way to prevent “…shepherds walking in the Spirit impart freedom and life as they tell and show us how to love one another.” In point of fact, I think to play by 2k rules is to protect Christian liberty which imparts freedom, etc. Maybe the pastor thinks a book articulates creational norms pretty well and so may suggest it informally, but I think that’s very different from formally treating it in the sacred space reserved for the Bible alone.
E Burns, Well-said, and good clarification.
ReplyDeleteZrim, We're talking about improving our "one another-ing" and unity of the body, which, being mentioned a number of times in Scripture, doesn't bear any resemblance to "pastors to prop up their ideology" or "capture the pastor's particular outlook". The former are fruit of true community; the latter, well, are fruit of self-focus prevalent today in general. Sheep at times need training in how some things play out in real life, in the times in which we live. And sheep are prone to turn liberty into license if they don't get good at pouring themselves out in service to one another instead. Sometimes a paradigm other than perpetual 2K talk is actually helpful, and it doesn't need to be assumed contrary to 2K.
-Kirk
One of the questions Jason asked in his original post was............."Does our culture mitigate against the biblical ideal of community, or is community overrated?"
ReplyDeleteOn the first part, I don't think think the Bible does clearly show in the nitty gritty details (other than our identity is in Christ and the Gospel is the center, etc.) what the "ideal" community is. All the "community" buzz churches try to create from the verses in Acts 2:42-47 get it wrong most of the time. I see those verses botched most of the time when turned into a way to over emphasize "community". Look at the very first part of those verses......"devoted themselves to the apostles teaching". That's doctrine folks!! Then the verses next talk about about sacraments. Yet almost every time I see those verses uses in a "Kellerite community" church they skip right past that part and dive head first into the works or deeds part, selling things, mercy ministries, growing the numbers and filling seats etc.. But we see from the text that the foundation is doctrine. When expounding that text I literally heard one PCA pastor say "we don't have time to talk about the doctrine part of the text."
So is community overrated?----YES! Because this is how "community" is presented by the Keller style PCA or Keller "Transformational" NPARC churches. An approach that completed botches it. It is this view that is extreme, it is not the 2ker view that rightly emphasizes oridinary means of grace, word, sacrament, etc. as the foundation for fellowship. Where as while they will never admit it, in practice this is what I see "Tim Keller" style NAPRC churches doing. Essentially they are agreeing with Rick Warren...................................."The first Reformation was about creeds, the new one needs to be about deeds." This over emphasis also makes "community" have a kind of Messiah complex.
I know , I know the Kellerites will come back and say..........."no we think it is both creeds & deeds". I just see them putting the spot light on the deeds, big time!
Whereas a 2ker like me is saying no I want that spot light on the creeds, because it will in fact put the spotlight on Christ. Again, which will in turn lead to good fruit.
PS......Hopefully this goes without saying, but in the final analysis it does not matter what I (being a 2K guy) or a Tranformationalist want, but rather what the Bible says. As I read the whole over all motif of Scripture it would seem obvious the primary spotlight is on Christ, grace & the Gospel. Which is why I am blown away that some so call Reformed leaders are so ardently opposed to 2K positions that essentially are just wanting to keep that large spotlight where God's word keeps it. I expect it from Hybels or Warren types, it is sick to see it happening in NAPARC churches. Does not mean in this life there are not other torches or flashlights ie. practical concerns, I don't know of any sound 2kers that are saying that. But I guess when ones over emphasized focus or massive budget and ministry philosophy is built on such things as mercy ministries, small groups, all things practical (because doctrine or the 5 Sola's are not practical in that paradigm), they will be opposed to anything that takes the primary spotlight off that.
ReplyDeleteSometimes a paradigm other than perpetual "transform the world" talk is actually helpful, and it doesn't need to be assumed contrary to believing that the Gospel transforms things.
Kirk, the post is appropriately tagged in “two kingdoms,” so I think the doctrine has relevant bearing on the questions being posed. So I guess your answer to the question of whether a book like Stiles’ is appropriate for a Sunday School class is yes. Mine, like E. Burns’, is no, and my reasons have to do with 2k. Is it correct to say that the reasons for your “yes” have to do with Stiles shedding light on what it means to “improve our [Christian] one anothering, etc.”? If so, couldn’t any book be interpreted that way? I guess I don’t see what the problem would be in simply saying the Bible is what we mine for what it means to promote redemptive concerns like Christian one-anothering and other books like Stiles are what we mine for what it means to promote creational norms in common one-anothering.
ReplyDeleteI never commented on Stile's book and indeed in that specific case I would vote no as well. I am reacting to a premise that seems to rear up that the places we live out our lives in real time are "off limits" for pastors to comment on within church walls. We do need to evaluate how much we know of true Christian fellowship and spend the time to make it happen; and sometimes we need to be instructed and led in this, by wise ministers who find their counsel in the Word of God (hence no on Stiles).
ReplyDeleteE Burns, I'm still with you. But just because things are in such a mess in the church at large does not mean we corporately over-react (not you, but all of us) and dismiss the need to flesh out what community is by biblical standards, because it is a biblical concept. I think your comments are entirely helpful to this end, but if the members of the church where doctrine, Christ, gospel is being faithfully preached do not love these things and teach their children to love these things, community will still not exist. As well, there is a caring for one another that is Christlike and driven by gospel wisdom which cannot be exactly the same as "common" neighbor to neighbor. Perhaps you are assuming this care and fellowship (minus the hoopla you described in many churches) is happening in doctrinally sound churches, but I see that this is not necessarily the case.
zrim, I agree with your delineation "what we mine for".
-Kirk
Kirk,
ReplyDeleteHow would you feel about every Sunday school community/small group being encouraged to get behind the vision represented in Bill Hybel's book "Contagious Christianity" at a Reformed NAPARC church? To get behind that vision they are to study through that book for a quarter in Sunday school class, not worship. I don't think I'm being outlandish when saying that the Theology from Hybel's is Arminian & even Pelagian like.
What say you to this? Is that OK?
E Burns,
ReplyDeleteFirst, I’m persuaded Hybels is a believer walking in the Spirit, and a fellow heir of the kingdom. Second, it’s been close to twenty years since I read the book so to answer intelligently on that piece would need a re-read, although I agree he’s fully Armenian and I agree that the converse doctrines of grace are treasure-stores we ought to spend a lifetime “mining”, which takes time enough. Third, I will say that during my 45 years in various Reformed churches that preached the Word (not one even had a worship band, a roving camera, or even a small group; parishes, maybe) I’ve gleaned much gold from writers who were not TR. An astute and godly pastor can use many resources while sifting the dross. An educated reader steeped in doctrines of grace and taught by the Spirit can gain much from a wide spectrum of believing writers (and non-believing). Those who limit their diet to only TR can, at times, get in-grown. The broader church triumphant (though it does not appear so now) is also legs-arms-ears of the Body in Christ. To our harm at times, we assume we’ve got it all buttoned down on The Complete Truth.
It’s a little like traveling in another country. Some things may seem appealing on the surface, like leaving an ER visit without a bill, but a discerning person realizes that some part of the philosophy is flawed, and that the end result of that piece, when taken to its full conclusion, is false/damaging (i.e. someone has to pay). And, in the end, it’s just good to be home. Does that mean the travel wasn’t worth it, or the visit not profitable/ enjoyable? No, of course not. So, the blessed Reformed doctrines of grace are home.
continued...
continued...
ReplyDeleteThat all being said, in speaking of pursuing community and understanding what the elements of it are, I’m speaking of something altogether more earthy. Our culture assumes *glossy-big-well marketed-book well-jacketed*. Let’s think outside the box, outside the Hybels. Do whole families come to prayer meetings? Are the youth outward-focused enough (one anothered) to care about the members of their church? Do they (and the parents) believe that their prayers make enough difference that they should not only show up cheerfully, but –pray? Aloud? In faith, believing? Do non-believing spouses come to church events because the warmth and just –plain—fun in the community is so powerful? Are respectful sons skilled to help out (and want to) on a work day? Are daughters skilled to help a struggling young mother (and want to?) Do we know the dark valley that fellow members are walking, and are we willing to walk with them? Do we make time? These are more earthy things that community is made of, in addition to the brew men share on the porch while hammering out ideas. These are real-life examples I have observed in churches that practice none of the trappings mentioned throughout this post. But they are rare examples, and I venture to assert we don’t practice them well enough on a larger scale.
And yes, hospitality factors large in true community. But where do we find ourselves? Daughters are at the mall, either making money or spending it, and are more at home on their iPhones than in the kitchen. They don’t know enough skills to be of help, and so having people over is too much work; besides, mom is too busy driving them to soccer practice to be hospitable even “on the porch”. Men work long hours and commute. The teenage guys would be found in the entertainment room, not listening to their fathers talking and thus learning to take on the mantle of manhood and leadership in the church, nor hearing /seeing evidence of loving Christ and others in a mature way. Oh, woe, we find ourselves back at Stile’s book after all, at least with the iPhones and entertainment rooms and work. You see, some of the cause/effects cannot be divorced from the other. A godly pastor sifts and teaches for the times in which we live. And since Hybels is nowhere to be found in this discussion, I’ll throw this in so he’s not left out: our unbelieving, life-fragmented neighbors should see that our lives are made up of the stuff they long for. Yes, and that is ultimately all found in a merciful, all-powerful and all-saving Christ.
-Kirk
**Arminian not Armenian
ReplyDeleteFrom Focus On the Family.....
ReplyDeleteDear Friend,
My colleague Stuart Shepard was in Walmart® last weekend shopping for back-to-school supplies for his son when he encountered some rather provocatively Christian notebooks and folders. One of them read: "God Recycles. He made you out of dust." Another read: "John 3:16. This message is illegal in 53 countries."
Usually when we report on Christian expression in the public schools, it has to do with some official trying to kick religion out of school. But when the country's largest retailer stocks school supplies with openly religious messages like this, we regard it as a pleasant change.
Such messages are perfectly legal and they conform with court rulings that give wide latitude to students who want to express religious views in public schools. Many times teachers have the mistaken impression that anything religious is not allowed in school, and they make on-the-spot decisions that religious items need to go. They are wrong. Some school boards have even adopted official policies that inhibit student-initiated religious expression. But these policies also are inconsistent with what the relevant laws actually say.
That's why Focus on the Family has developed website initiatives for parents and students such as True Tolerance™ and Day of Dialogue™, which equip parents and students with knowledge of their rights and ways to legally express their beliefs in our public schools. These programs have effectively helped families across the country—but with students heading back into the classroom, we need your help now.
Kirk,
ReplyDeleteYeah, so I'm gonna take that as a "yes" you do think it is OK to spend considerable time, energy & resources on "Contagious Christianity". (and the like) ? Enough to have numerous small community groups at Reformed (NAPARC) churches study it. With the stated vision that this is how we want to build and grow our community (church).
Let me say Kirk I do not in any way doubt your motives, or that you are as well a believer walking in the Spirit, and a fellow heir of the kingdom.
That said , to speak plainly no matter how good your motives I think what you expressed in your last two posts are exactly a big problem in the Reformed community and more specifically the PCA today. It sounds really nice (and is) but it is undermining our historic doctrines and becoming the get out of jail free card for introducing all kinds of other bad ones. I don't discount all that you said, we must have fruit of the spirit, & display the one anothering you spoke of , but at its core what I read you to say is that we should "do the gospel" or "be the gospel." And further more our reformed resources are not enough to get us those said results. Perhaps I'm reading you wrong. I apologize now if that be the case. I don't discount the wonderful fruitful items you mention, I disagree with what I perceive as an undue, even unbiblical focus/emphasis. ..."our unbelieving, life-fragmented neighbors should see that our lives are made up of the stuff they long for." Wow! So your neighbors long for having your life and therefore are going to want to become a Christian, cause its contagious that way? Yes a Christians life is different than the worlds and some parts may or may not be appealing to unbelievers. However, In total I would say most of the Chrsitian life will be unappealing to the unbeliever. Problem with this idea Hybels uplifts is it will lend itself to watering down doctrine and a host of other things in favor of things more appealing/"contagious" to the world. The same watering down or bending of theology would lend itself if the Stiles book was studied through in a Sunday school church class as well, because it (like the Hybels book) is not grounded in what we confess and believe. I very much appreciate that you plant the contagious life (one anothering, hospitality, etc.) in Christ. Seems a bit overly focused on my contagiousness to others though. I see the Word showing that my light should shine before men, but I see the spotlight on our glorious Christ not my contagiousness. (QIRE) I'm just not that good or charismatic. Perhaps you have already, but would I encourage you to read "Recovering the Reformed Confessions" by R. Scott Clark. Might I add that NAPARC churches would do well to spend their Sunday school time reading through this book instead of the others mentioned in this thread.
Continued.....
ReplyDeleteI'm in no way saying we cannot read or learn from other believers outside our Reformed traditions, but I expect the Pope to be Roman Catholic. Likewise I expect a NAPARC church to be Reformed & confessional, not just on paper. That is a reasonable expectation. Yet anti TR folks within NAPARC (like the ones who wanted the PCA out of NAPARC) paint it as the extreme or the view of over-emphasis. (Look at how they use the term TR pejoratively) We believe our confessions are Biblical, the most accurate and best representation of the Bible. "He is no schismatic who holds to the original position while the original body departs from it." The so called TR's are not the ones causing a fuss. Our Reformed community is as you say home and has indeed the most healthy spiritual diet. (Why in the world can't we say that! without being arrogant? Do we or do we not believe reformed theology is the best representation of the Bible?) So let's not us Reformed folk go about implementing foreign teachings into our pews when we could mine for a lifetime the rich Biblical diet we already have before us and the many Reformed resources. Bringing it back around to the post (though I think this was a valid and legit excursion) When it comes to books in a Sunday school class that are not Reformed/confessional or a book from the Bible in a NAPARC church...... let the flock travel on their own time.
E. Burns, just a friendly suggestion to dump the term "Truly Reformed" in favor of "Confessionally Reformed." Personally, I find the former term fairly arrogant.
ReplyDeleteZrim,
ReplyDeleteGood point. I very much agree. I prefer Confessinoally Reformed as well as it is more accurate. Used TR here more to make the point as to how "so called TR's" are often portrayed. Ie...dead orthodoxy, etc. etc.
I was going to buy the book, but it isn't available on the Kindle (stupid market!). I'm guessing replacing politics with capitalism means more taxes?
ReplyDeleteNaomi Klein has a book called the rise of disaster capitalism. Is this a good book to try to get an alternative of the current market driven environment?
Since the points I was attempting to make were quite missed and are mis-represented in your dialogue, I'll let it rest. For the record, no, I can't think I'd get excited about Contagious Christianity being a SS curriculum book. I can name a hundred others I'd much rather see, most all of them from dedicated Reformed authors who have written things worthy of deep study and discussion. Yes, some of them would be on the creeds and confessions of the Reformed faith, which I do hold as "the most accurate and best representation of the Bible". We've used them to much benefit in our family worship; and no, we wouldn't use Hybel's book there either. No, I was never saying that the way Hybels lays out building community was my vision for how to build it. Surprised you could get to there from what I actually did say, excepting my closing comment, which was intended merely to give respect to a fellow believer who has a passion for the salvation of lost souls.
ReplyDelete--Kirk
Jack,
ReplyDeleteNaomi Klein has a book called the rise of disaster capitalism. Is this a good book to try to get an alternative of the current market driven environment?
Yeah, but her argument is a bit more specific. She argues that recent history demonstrates that certain extreme-right economic policies that have had little democratic support have had to be implemented in the wake of some kind of shock (whether a natural disaster, a war, or whatever). So her overall thesis is that the idea that capitalism inevitably follows democracy is false.
Ha ha, I just came across this Onion article that sums up Klein's thesis perfectly:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theonion.com/articles/tea-party-congressman-calls-for-tax-breaks-to-put,21242/
WASHINGTON—With a massive wildfire currently raging out of control in his district, Tea Party Caucus member Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) pressed Congress to pass immediate tax breaks Tuesday to combat the rapidly spreading blaze. "This fire has already burned hundreds of square miles and left thousands of helpless families with only one hope: across-the-board income tax cuts and a sharply lower corporate tax rate," said Franks, stating that broad-based tax relief would spur investment and extinguish the towering flames that grow larger by the minute. "We must act now. The longer the oppressive tax burden on honest, hardworking individuals remains unaddressed, the larger and more deadly this fire will become." According to staffers, Franks plans to honor the nine individuals who have perished in the blaze by introducing additional legislation this week that would eliminate Medicaid.
I just completed the Stiles book first referenced in the post by our gracious host. Overall I think it is good and makes very valid points. He makes a great case (one in which I am convicted on about myself) that we Americans are spread pretty thin, no margins and really have lost true quality of life. He outlines the reasons why in a very insightful way. Points out that the "market" in many ways controls us. But he also rightly acknowledges that western society and capitalism have done more to advance good things like education, health, etc than any other system. But now that system seems to be killing us by slow suicide.
ReplyDeleteWhile not near as bad as Moore, I cannot help but feel a bit like I just stepped off a Michael Moore production where the evil villain is forever & always the business man. "The Man" in this case is the market. A rhetoric that creates a false dilemma between "Moral America" and "Market America" that was throughout the book was not helpful. Well worth the read and is probably a needed breath of fresh air more Americans need to hear.