Not So Different? (Church and Culture pt. 4)

In last two conversations of Church and Culture we took a look at the “Christ against Culture” model and the “Christ of Culture” model stating that they serve as the antithesis/opposite to one another. Yet despite their differences (of which there are many) the result of either posture is often the same: irrelevance to the world.

The irrelevance of the “against” posture is clear to see. Church communities that exist by praxis of escapism from the culture fail to find any common ground for conversation that can give birth to a mutually life-giving relationship between the Church and culture. The Church in this category is unable to speak any of the cultural language and finds its self unable to communicate effectively with the world around them. Further, the world sees the church in this posture as having nothing helpful (or even hopeful) to contribute; essentially the culture sees the Church as the “last” place to go for guidance and direction. The church in this posture becomes a holy huddle…wholly irrelevant.

By contrast of approach, yet with similar outcome, the “of” posture of the Church engages so deeply in the culture that the distinctives of the sacred community evaporate. Here the Church so immerses itself in the culture (by way of music, structure, ideology) that there is nothing “new” to be offered to the culture. As a result the culture doesn’t look to the Church for inspiration or direction because the Church looks just like the culture. The church looses its mission for sake of mimicking the world around them and fails to bring the type of fresh creativity that can inspire the culture towards the story of God.

How have you seen the irrelevance of the “against” posture in our culture?


How have you seen the irrelevance of the “of” posture in our culture?

"I've Run a Twisted Line"

"The Maker" - Daniel Lanois

Oh, oh deep water, black and cold like the night
I stand with arms wide open
I’ve run a twisted line
I’m a stranger in the eyes of the Maker

I could not see for the fog in my eyes
I could not feel for the fear in my life
From across the great divide, In the distance I saw light
Jean Baptiste walking to me with the Maker

My body is bent and broken
By long and dangerous leaps
I can’t work the fields of Abraham and turn my head away
I’m not a stranger in the eyes of the Maker

Brother John, have you seen the homeless daughters
Standing there with broken wings
I have seen the flaming swords there over east of Eden
Burning in the eyes of the Maker

Burning in the eyes of the Maker

Oh river rise from your sleep

Numbers Represent People?

I was in a conversation recently about what it means to be a healthy church. The conversation quickly changed when it became clear the metrics the person was using to determine a healthy church were all based on numbers (“how many people are coming to your church?” “how much money is given?”, etc). As the conversation headed down this road I became terribly disinterested. Sensing that I was checking out of the conversation the person I was talking with told me that, “Numbers are important because numbers represent people”.

Their statement didn’t lengthen the conversation any (I wasn’t interested in a justification for cold numerical statistics). But the statement did get me thinking.

“Do numbers represent people?” “Is that a reason to gauge the success of a ministry by the numbers?” Hmmm….

On one hand it can seem that numbers are important (think about a situation in which there is some sort of tragedy; the number of those rescued matters greatly). However I don’t sense that one’s participation at a Sunday church service is a matter of life and death (people can attend church without a commitment to kingdom living). Further if numbers matter, then often churches will do all sorts of things to simply get more numbers to their events. In doing so, churches set aside their prophetic call in this world and end up feeding the same things this world offers (autonomous individualism and consumerism).

So, do “Numbers represent people?” I don’t think so. Numbers are nothing but cold statistics meant to categorize people on the slide-rule of easy management.

But people…people cannot be confined to the statistics of numbers. People are living breathing organisms, made in the image of the Creator. They have joys, hurts, hopes, fears, talents, flaws, gifts, skeletons, hang-ups, and character traits that are as unique as the colors of life. Numbers cannot tell these stories.

What do you think of the phrase: “Numbers represent people?”
How have you seen church communities operate in unhealthy ways because they were “number driven?”

“So the Bible, Science, & Religion Walk Into A Bar…”

The mention of these three elements together seems to be either: the set-up for some cosmic joke or the creation of a powder-keg waiting to explode.

G.K. Chesterton said, “Private theories about what the Bible ought to mean, and premature theories about what the world ought to mean, have met in loud and widely advertised controversy…and this clumsy collision of two very impatient forms of ignorance was known as the quarrel of Science and Religion.”

Whether it is courtroom battles during the Scope’s trial, debates over “how the world was formed”, or whether or not there is a “gay” gene, we have all been witness to “Science” and “Religion” not playing nicely together. Yet within the constructs of history Science and Religion being at odds with one another is a relatively new phenomenon (it wasn’t until the Enlightenment of 19th Century when Religion distanced itself from Science in a competitive way).

So a couple of questions: Are Science and Religion really at “odds”?

What are the major barriers that keep the Science community and the Religious community from getting along well?

What helpful contributions do these two communities bring to the table?

OF Culture (Church and Culture pt. 3)

In our last conversation on this topic we discussed the “Christ against Culture” relationship. This conversation will focus on what could be seen as the antithesis to the “Christ Against” model:

Christ OF Culture

- states that God is transcendent and can be found in all human endeavors.
- the Church and culture are not it conflict.
- the Church embraces the world.
- uses cultural symbols and tools (rock music, theater seating, etc.) to communicate with the culture.
- mimics culture.

Examples: 20th century Protestant Liberalism and the Seeker Sensitive movement.

Where else do you see examples of this posturing? What healthy/unhealthy when the Church is postured this way?

The Divine Hours

Most loving Father, whose will it is for us to give thanks for all things, to fear nothing but the loss of you, and to cast all our care on you who cares for us: Preserve me from faithless fears and worldly anxieties, that no clouds of this mortal life may hide from me the light of the love which is immortal, and which you have manifested to us in your Son Jesus Christ our Lord; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

- Phyllis Tickle, The Divine Hours

Too Many Options For Significance

We are a culture that prides itself on having an endless array of choices ever before us. Choice gives us the space to be free; free from becoming pigeon-holed or defined to one particular way. Choice also embodies movement; a movement towards the significant.

To us the allure of choice begins with possibilities, possibilities become opportunities, and opportunities turn into hope. And what is the hope? That we might be able to move beyond our current situation and live a life of uniqueness and significance.

And so Significance drives our existence. From the time we are young and told that we are “special” to the moment we graduate assured that we were “created for something more” we desire to make choices that will lead us into a meaningful life.

Choice and Significance seem to be the perfect pair however is it possible that our over-indulgence with choice leaves us empty in our pursuit of meaning?

“As a society of consumers, we define choice “not as freedom to choose one course of action over another but as the freedom to choose everything at once. This is the ‘I-want-it-all’ mentality. ‘Freedom of choice’ means ‘keep your options open.’ However, in real life every choice of any consequence inevitably rules out a whole series of other options. It is literally impossible to ‘keep your options open’ and live a life of any significance.” (Truth Is Stranger Than It Used to Be)

Maybe, then, discovering our significance is found in making the difficult decisions that refine us into the people God has designed for us to become.