Creation Is a Many-Splendored Thing (1)

1024px-Pillars_of_Creation
Gas Pillars in the Eagle Nebula (M16): Pillars of Creation in a Star-Forming Region (Hubble image)

Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars.

• Proverbs 9:1

Though separated by over two and a half millennia, the authors of ancient Scripture and numerous scientists of today find themselves caught up in a world of abiding astonishment.

• Brown, William P., The Seven Pillars of Creation

• • •

In William P. Brown’s stimulating book, The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder, Brown suggests that good scientists and good theologians and people of faith all explore mysteries that should provoke awe and wonder. But instead of being “lost in wonder,” it seems that many have “lost wonder” and replaced it with a spirit of adversity and contention. This book is William Brown’s attempt to restore a sense of Albert Einstein’s famous maxim back into the discussion: the experience of mystery “stands at the cradle of true art and true science.”

In order to facilitate this, the author suggests the following:

To recapture something of the awe that fostered the spirit of inquiry among the ancients and today ignites the “vital spark of wonder that drives the best science,” I want to embark on my own tour of sorts, not so much a roller-coaster ride as a leisurely excursion. I propose a tour of the biblical contours of creation conducted in conversation with science, an expedition that boldly charts the now uncommon ground of wonder. (p. 5)

The central aim of The Seven Pillars of Creation is to help readers contemplate “the Bible’s own inexhaustible richness, its profound wonder” in its accounts of creation. Notice, I said accounts (plural). One of this book’s contributions to our creation discussions is to remind us that “the creation story” goes far beyond Genesis 1-2 and weaves its way all throughout the Hebrew Bible. In fact, he notes seven creation accounts, seven separate accounts, none of which tells the complete story in and of itself.

1. Genesis 1:1-2:3
2. Genesis 2:4b-3:24
3. Job 38-41
4. Psalm 104
5. Proverbs 8:22-31
6. Ecclesiastes 1:2-11; 12:1-7
7. Isaiah 40-55 (excerpts)

hs-2005-12-b-web
Stellar Spire, Eagle Nebula
Brown operates with a couple of foundational perspectives as he takes us on this tour of creation accounts:

First, the truth of the Incarnation means that Christians cannot separate their views of the biblical world from what we learn from the natural world.

Theologically, there is no other option: faith in such a God calls people of faith to understand and respect the natural order, the world that God deemed “extremely good” (Gen 1:31) and saw fit to inhabit. The God in whom “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28) has all to do with the world in which we do indeed live and move and have our being. The world subsists in God even as God remains present in the world. It is, admittedly, a mystery. But through science we become more literate in the mysteries of creation and, in turn, more trustworthy “stewards” of those mysteries. (p. 7

Second, “Wisdom” may form the bridge we need between matters of science and faith. He observes that the rabbi’s linked “Wisdom’s seven pillars” (Proverbs 9:1) with the seven days of Creation in Genesis 1.

This insight, regardless of its exegetical validity, has inspired the title of this project. Wisdom’s “edifice complex” is, I submit, an appropriate framework for studying biblical creation in conversation with science. Biblical wisdom was nurtured by a spirit of inquiry. It acknowledges creation’s multifaceted integrity, complexity, and mystery. . . . As biblical Wisdom invites her students to enter her spacious home and partake of her varied fare (Prov 9:2-4), so the reader is invited to enter the Bible’s various perspectives on creation, to wander and to wonder, and from wonder to gain wisdom. (p. 8)

Third, though science and theology represent independent realms of inquiry, cross-disciplinary discussions are meaningful and important to both.

Because both seek truth, because each discipline is driven by an “onto-logical thirst, by the thirst to know reality as it is,” each can learn from the other, especially theology from science. If theology is about relating the world to God but does not take into account the world as known through science, then it fails. And such failure strikes at the very heart of the theological task, for among theology’s anathemas is the stigma of irrelevance or “the lack of cultural competence.” (p. 8)

William P. Brown longs for a day when the world is filled with people who are both contemplators and empiricists, sages and psalmists, stewards of the earth and servants of Christ.

This book invites the non-expert who yearns to know more about engaging biblical faith and science in constructive, as opposed to confrontational, ways. This study also welcomes the scientist who desires to know more about what the ancient Scriptures say about cosmology, nature, and humanity’s place. In short, I want to help readers become more literate in Scripture and science, as I have become in the course of my research. Specifically, I want to bring together two distinct disciplines, biblical theology and modern science, and explore points of conversation in ways that I hope generate more synergy than sparks. My conviction is that one cannot adequately interpret the Bible today, particularly the creation traditions, without engaging science. Otherwise, the Bible’s “strange new world” would become an old irrelevant word. (pp. 6-7)

• • •

The Seven Pillars of Creation: The Bible, Science, and the Ecology of Wonder
By William P. Brown
Oxford University Press, Inc. (2010)

 

William P. Brown is the William Marcellus McPheeters Professor of Old Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur, GA.

Sunday Formation Talk: Monastic Practices

13386399864_9655d545cd_z

. . . the following reflections on the basic elements of our daily life spring from a belief that the ordinary things we do every day constitute our normal monastic path to God.

• Fr. Charles Cummings

For Sundays from now through the fall, we’ll be focusing on the topics of spiritual formation and spiritual practices. I’ll be sharing my thoughts and responses to a book I bought when I had a weekend retreat at Gethsemani Abbey last spring. It is called Monastic Practices, and it was written in 1986 by a Trappist monk, Fr. Charles Cummings. This book was designed primarily as a guide for monks and nuns, but Cummings notes that “A selective, prudent use of these practices might be of benefit to persons ‘in the world’ wishing to follow the traditional christian methods of spiritual deepening.”

The majority of us may only be internet monks, but I know many hunger for the “spiritual deepening” of which he speaks.

• • •

In the introduction to Monastic Practices, Fr. Charles Cummings makes several pithy and important points.

First, he reminds us that it may not always be clear to us how any particular practice in which we engage is fostering a deeper experience of God.

As one who played and coached sports and as one familiar with the discipline of musicians, I can testify that this is simply the way it is. We do not always see a direct connection between “going through our drills” and playing the game, “practicing our scales” and performing a piece of music. Practices, drills, and acted habits of preparation can be tedious, boring, seemingly without importance or meaning. But let us stop practicing for a time and then see what happens to the quality of our performances!

Second, Cummings also notes that we may go through seasons of meaningfulness. Perhaps in the first part of our journey, a particular practice resonated with us. But now it seems lifeless. I get little gratification from it. He reminds us, “All of us need to rediscover deeper levels of meaning in the things we do every day . . . .”

The traditional practices are indeed intended to be “at the service of life” and not mere exercises to be put up with. I myself have found that feelings wax and wane and that it is good sometimes to persevere through dry times, to keep praying or working or worshiping even when it seems dull. At other times, I have found it good to set some practice aside for awhile (maybe for a long while) and then pick it up again in another season of life when it seems appropriate. It is the Spirit’s work to guide us in these matters.

13385742495_007cda68d1_zThird, perhaps the most important reminder in the introduction to this book is: “[The practices] provide the traditional outward form of monastic life; its inner spirit is love.”

God’s gifts of faith, hope, and love must give life to the “dry bones” of our practices. Our hearts, minds, and spirits must be animated by the Spirit of God, creating in us new and clean hearts that seek God. Cummings warns us to always keep in mind that “rubrics” cannot magically unite us to God. As we have received Christ Jesus the Lord, Paul wrote, so we are to walk in him, “rooted and built up in him and established in the faith” (Colossians 2:6-7). “By grace, through faith” is the pattern of our lives in Christ just as it was the way we became united to him.

Fourth, indeed, Fr. Cummings says, external practices may not only be “dead works” but may actually constitute defenses we erect between ourselves and God!

Many of us fear God in a cowering way. We fear actually relating to God, getting close to God, opening our hearts to God. Spiritual practices can be a means by which I actually avoid encountering God. I may base my security in a life of discipline rather than in the One who loves me with an everlasting love and who calls me to love him with a whole heart. It is a measure of our weakness that we can use the very practices God has given us to erect walls between us!

Fifth and finally, the author quotes an ancient Chinese saying: “When the shoe fits, the foot is forgotten.” In other words, the goal of spiritual practices is the same as that of any other kind of practice: they are meant to help us in the actual playing of the game. Once we are in the game, we forget about practice and simply play.

No great pianist was ever renowned for how well she played her scales. Nor has any great hitter in baseball been elected to the Hall of Fame because he could hit well off a tee or in batting practice. We practice in order to play the game and make beautiful music for others to enjoy. We do not practice so that we may practice well. When spiritual practices become integrated into our lives, we can take them for granted in a good way. We do our work. We go through our paces. We prepare well. We give concentration and effort, but the result is a more effortless performance. We are becoming formed, and the “shoe” fits.

• • •

Monastic Practices (Cistercian Studies)
By Fr. Charles Cummings, OCSO
© 1986 Cistercian Publications, © 2008 by Order of St. Benedict, Collegeville MN

 

Fr. Charles Cummings, OCSO,  is a Trappist monk of Holy Trinity Abbey in Utah.

Saturday Ramblings: Simpsons Marathon Edition — August 23, 2014

homersapienGood morning, iMonks! If you have cable or satellite and have the FXX network, WHAT ARE YOU DOING READING SATURDAY RAMBLINGS?

Why aren’t you watching the FXX Simpsons Marathon?

For the remainder of the month, basic cable newcomer FXX is celebrating its status as the new, exclusive, syndication home of The Simpsons by airing every episode ever made (and the movie), back-to-back-to-back, with no repeats.

The animated classic kicked off Thursday with the pilot from December 1989. The marathon continues through all 552 episodes, going all the way up to the 25th season finale on Sept. 1. They will also include a showing of “The Simpsons” movie on Aug. 29.

In celebration of this high point in Western civilization, today’s Ramblings will have a Simpsons theme. And our questions of the day are:

What are your favorite Simpsons episodes? Moments? Quotes? Characters?

Because this is a religious blog, we’ll begin with a favorite “God” moment from The Simpsons:
 

 
53513Throwing Cold Water on the Ice Bucket Challenge

You’ve probably seen lots of videos of people dumping ice on their heads to raise awareness and get people to donate to research for ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease). Some Christians think believers should not participate, and this article tells why.

TODAY’S QUESTION: Would the fact that the ALS Association supports embryonic stem cell research keep you from donating to them or encouraging others to do so?

Here’s what happened when Lisa tried to get the citizens of Springfield to support a good cause:
 

 
53513What Writers Can Learn from Goodnight Moon

Thanks to Trevin Wax, I saw this wonderful little article in the New York Times opinion pages recently by Aimee Bender about the literary excitement she got when reading Margaret Wise Brown’s classic children’s book, Goodnight Moon. She thinks writers can learn a lot from Brown’s style.

Bender likens Goodnight Moon’s gentle story to a sonata that creates a world of both form and variation, one which leads us to an enchanted place and provides a “way for us to close our eyes metaphorically with the bunny and be in that state right before slipping off to sleep, that magical drifting moment after floating out with the stars and the air, when we only hear noises and next is sleep . . .”

In the following clip, Lisa remembers an Irish lullaby and succeeds in bringing the fighting Irish to a similar place of peace on St. Patrick’s Day, if only for a moment:
 

 
53513Really? Now You’re Saying This?

Pastor Tim Keller was quoted in another New York Times article this week — this one about Mark Driscoll and the precipitous fall he has taken lately. Here’s what Keller said:

He was really important — in the Internet age, Mark Driscoll definitely built up the evangelical movement enormously. But the brashness and the arrogance and the rudeness in personal relationships — which he himself has confessed repeatedly — was obvious to many from the earliest days, and he has definitely now disillusioned quite a lot of people.

And I say, can you believe this? It “was obvious to many from the earliest days? And yet you, Dr. Keller and other members of The Gospel Coalition continued to support Driscoll and even give him a place of leadership on the TGC Council until 2012, when he resigned?

I’m sorry. I don’t get it. I really don’t get it.

Homer got mixed messages too, when he tried to make the team with a group of All Stars:
 

 
53513Loaves and Fishes . . . and Calzones

Here’s a pastor who gets it. And has a generous imagination to boot. Meet Margaret Kelly, a 33-year-old preacher’s kid, ex-French chef and former mental health case manager. She’s now an Evangelical Lutheran pastor in St. Paul, MN, and a food truck is her church.

According to the Bemidji Pioneer:

Last year is . . . when [Kelly] came up with the idea of a food-truck church. When she was a mental health case manager, Kelly found that people in poverty often lack access to healthy food, reliable transportation, meaningful work and meaningful community.

She thought that one solution could be a church on wheels that drives to where people are, offering free food and prayer to the poor, homeless and near-homeless. The people helping to serve the meals would be from the community that the truck is serving.

After handing out calzones without charge, she offers a simple church service of prayer and Scripture to those who want more. Right now, the mobile pastor is using a borrowed food truck and doing this one day a week. In the winter, she hopes to use a heated tent. She hopes to get her own truck and offer services on more than one day, perhaps also offering curbside counseling and health services along with traditional rites such as baptisms and communion.

Homer had a great idea revolving around food too. Well, maybe more of a wish-dream and not as generous as Pastor Kelly’s food truck church:
 

 
53513We close this special edition of Saturday Ramblings now, leaving you to meditate on The Simpsons’ timeless reminder of the ancient wisdom of Ecclesiastes: “Vanity of vanity. All is vanity.”
 

 

IM Book Review: Our Great Big American God

6d64bcd569c5bf49f7a4bdd4fb4bc36b6ce1aac2-987a0fb9c33a55b04233c8b2b7d74742-hero_image-resize-260-620-fill

Our Great Big American God: A Short History of Our Ever-Growing Deity
By Matthew Paul Turner
Jericho Books (August 19, 2014)

• • •

Matthew Paul Turner sent me a preview copy of his new book last week (it’s now available – click the link above), and it ties right in with our emphasis in recent days upon U.S. evangelicalism and Christianity in America. MPT reminds us that our American experience has changed God, that is, our perception of God and the world’s perception as well.

Our Great Big American God is a breezy, irreverent romp through the history of our irrepressibly religious nation with a focus on the way the image of God has morphed right along with “we the people.”

It begins with a question: “Where would God be without America?” Whereas we might expect that to be asked the other way around, Turner’s friend Dave contends that America has been very good to God and that God would not be nearly as popular as he is were it not for what America has done to keep his reputation and work alive in the world. We have helped write his story. Turner says this about his friend’s argument:

[Dave’s] not alone. To some extent, we are all “growing” God, stuffing his mouth full with ideas, themes and theologies, fattening him up with a story line we believe to be true. I’m not sure intentions matter when it comes to God’s image. For good or bad, we are all molding God to reflect our own personal, American interpretation of Christian faith. (p. 6)

pilgrimsAh, but which interpretation? Which God?

  • Is it the God of “America’s Pentecost” — in Cane Ridge, Kentucky in 1801, the second “Great Awakening” — when God showed up with tangible power, moving “through the crowd like a tsunami, slowly engulfing people in the Spirit, causing people to hop around like pogo sticks or to perform backflips off wagons and tree stumps”?
  • Or is it the God who brought the Puritans across the Atlantic to the New World almost 200 years earlier? This was the God of radical, sectarian Protestants with stern Calvinist theology, the God who spoke through preachers that replaced the nation of Israel in key O.T. texts with his chosen remnant who had come to the New World as if to the Holy Land. England had turned into Pharaoh and these were his once enslaved people he was planting in the land of milk and honey. They weren’t in search of a place of religious freedom as much as they sought a place where their religion could be practiced freely. That meant God had to be protected from people like Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, and other Christian groups like Quakers and Anglicans and Baptists. So the sovereign God of the Puritans hired them to be police, judge, and jury to guard the boundaries of the Promised Land.
  • Perhaps it is the God of America’s greatest theologian and most unlikely revivalist preacher, Jonathan Edwards. His God was glorious and majestic, decked out in the finery of Edwards’ magnificent poetic language. Edwards was one step removed from the early Puritans, emphasizing more fully the personal presence and pleasures of God. He found proof of God’s electing love in the “Religious Affections” God’s true people experience. Edwards also painted the most grotesque and picturesque visions of hell ever preached: “The God that holds you over the pit of Hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect, over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked; his wrath toward you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours.” Is this the American God?
  • God changed under George Whitfield’s preaching into a God with “a true catholic spirit, free from sectarian zeal.” This preacher sought to preach Christ alone and stay away from matters that caused disputes. He was the first celebrity preacher in America, the first mass evangelist who reached out to people from different backgrounds and religious affiliations and led a great awakening among them. Those who responded became the first “evangelicals” in the U.S. and this was what their God looked and sounded like.
Finney
Charles Finney

And what shall we say of the God of Patrick Henry, for Whom the Revolution was a “holy cause of liberty”? Or the God of the early 19th century — years when the Methodists and Baptists spread throughout the land like wildfire — Who shook himself free from Calvinist doctrines in the second Great Awakening and raised up men like Charles Finney to proclaim human free agency and the right use of “means” to produce spiritual results?

Is God the slave-owning God, or the great Abolitionist? It eventually took a civil war and a century of reconstruction to work out the answer to that question.

Or is God most interested in personal holiness? That was the God of Phoebe Palmer, who, along with her husband, spread the doctrine of perfection and spawned such groups as the Church of the Nazarene and laid the groundwork for later Pentecostalism.

Perhaps God is a winsome, plain-spoken Businessman who is interested in making a transaction for your soul: like D.L. Moody, who invented modern crusade evangelism and ran it like a business, with superb organization and a gift for getting the fat cats of the Gilded Age to pony up the dollars. Billy Graham learned a lot from Moody, and took this approach even further in the mid to late 20th century.

We could go on to speak of the Dispensational God, the Social Gospel God, and the Just War God who waved the red, white, and blue when America went to war and, in essence, equated patriotism and faith. We must not forget the Pentecostal God, who was born at 312 Azusa Street in Los Angeles under the spiritual midwifery of William J. Seymour, a God who is still growing today and taking his act around the world with enthusiasm. Nor could we complete this survey without a nod to the Fundamentalist God and the New Evangelical God, and especially the Culture War God, the deity of people like Jerry Falwell and the Christian Right, who reached the pinnacle of American success when George W. Bush became president at the turn of the millennium.

Matthew Paul Turner tells these stories of God in America with wit, energy, and sass. He definitely has a point of view; that is beyond question. MPT views American history through a post-modern, progressive Christian’s lens, and I’m sure he will be criticized for slanting his accounts that way.

But this book is meant not so much as a serious historical analysis (though it is certainly well researched) as much as it is a social and religious commentary. That should come from a clear point of view so as to present a clear case and prompt discussion and debate.

And above all, Matthew Paul Turner is asking us to consider how we who are created in God’s image keep ourselves relentlessly preoccupied remaking him into ours.

That’s something we should all welcome as healthy and necessary.

When America Believed In the Bible Alone

gill_1852-3_camp-meeting

It was still “the Bible alone,” as proclaimed during the Reformation, that American Protestants trusted. But it was also “the Bible alone” of all historic religious authorities that survived the antitraditional tide and then undergirded the remarkable evangelical expansion of the early nineteenth century . By undercutting trust in other traditional authorities , the power-suspecting ideologies of the Revolutionary and constitutional periods had the ironic effect of scripturalizing the United States. Deference to inherited authority of bishops and presbyters was largely gone, obeisance to received creeds was largely gone, willingness to heed the example of the past was largely gone. What remained was the power of intuitive reason, the authority of written documents that the people approved for themselves, and the Bible alone.

• Noll, Mark A.
America’s God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln
(p. 371)

The 19th century was the United States of America’s “evangelical” century. If we want to see examples of what it might look like when evangelical Christianity “wins” in the broader culture, the time between the American Revolution and the Civil War provides one.

In another post, we saw what it looked like When Christians Won the Culture War in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by leading the way in getting Prohibition passed. But earlier in 1800’s, it wasn’t a culture war. It was a “battle for the Bible.” A nation full of Bible-believers eventually came to blows battling it out over the “plain meaning” of the Good Book.

As historian Mark Noll says in the quote above, this country had been “scripturalized” through widespread religious awakenings in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. Americans held a uniquely democratized theology, a synthesis of “evangelical Protestant religion, republican political ideology, and commonsense moral reasoning.” And at the heart of America’s evangelical mindset was “the Bible alone” — interpreted literally and considered the ultimate authority for all of life, culture, and society.

By the early years of the United States, in other words, Scripture had become the national book par excellence. Confidence in the ability of ordinary people to understand it fueled the formation of many new sects. The revitalization and expansion of Protestantism in the early republic rested upon a widely shared confidence in the trustworthiness of the Bible. Broad familiarity with its contents characterized both ordinary people and elites. (Noll, p. 372)

Continue reading “When America Believed In the Bible Alone”

Another Look: Ballyard Religion

bunch of kids

Note from CM: This was written about a month after Michael Spencer died in 2010. I was coaching my grandson’s T-ball team at the time and remembering Michael’s love for baseball when I wrote it. It touches on a theme that was also a common concern for Michael and me: the dearth of understanding in evangelicalism about spiritual formation and the contemplative life. This has long been one of my major issues with American activist-style religion.

• • •

I had a vision of the evangelical church today. While coaching at my grandson’s Little League game (6-8 year olds), the heavens opened and a lot of things became clear to me, especially:

  • Why it’s so hard to be a Jesus-shaped follower of Christ in America today.
  • Why the evangelical church is not helping in that regard.

I love these kids at the ballyard, and we have all kinds on our team. There’s this tiny kid, Johnny, who just stares at me with a goofy look on his face whenever I try to tell him something. Then he does whatever he wants. We have Big Jimmy, who has grown faster than his peers. He can hit the ball hard, and we have to make sure the younger ones aren’t picking their noses or playing in the dirt when he’s at the plate. Then we have L’il Jeffrey, the small athletic child who is quick as a fox and plays with abandon. Our team has two little girls in the lineup. They are among the younger ones, and they don’t really get this baseball thing yet. Nor do a few of the boys, who dig their spikes around in the dirt, blow bubbles with their gum, and watch what’s happening in the stands as much as what’s on the field.

Continue reading “Another Look: Ballyard Religion”

My So-Called Evangelical Life (2)

In spite of the televangelism scandals and the failed presidential run of Pat Robertson, the evangelical right remained the political and cultural baseline for measuring the status of religion in American public life. The emergence of groups like Moral Majority, wrote theologian Richard John Neuhaus in the mid-1980s, “kicked a tripwire” in the ongoing church-state debate. Perhaps, as wise minds across the political spectrum once again argued, religion was vital to the health of American democracy. In the Age of Evangelicalism, “religion” was often translated, however inaccurately, as “evangelical Christianity.” Yet many evangelical elites saw themselves as an embattled minority even as they sought—and gained— public influence. In the 1990s, the audacious Christian Coalition and other born-again banes of President Bill Clinton shared the stage with a disproportionately prominent group of moderate evangelical scholars and public intellectuals. They, in turn, coexisted with (and chafed at) the booming evangelical music and entertainment market. Two metaphors profoundly informed discussions of faith and public life in the fin de siècle United States: the “naked public square” and the “culture war.”

The Age of Evangelicalism

This excerpt from Steven P. Miller’s book on public face of American evangelical Christianity from the years 1970-2008 speaks to what happened in the 1990’s, after the rise and triumphs of the Christian Right in the 1970’s and 80’s. During this decade, evangelicals consolidated their power, engaged in spirited discussions about the role of religion in public life, and continued to participate in a process of reshaping historic alliances and loyalties. As Miller writes, “A nation that once thought in terms of Catholics or Protestants (or, more specifically, Polish Catholics or German Lutherans) had become a society of pro-lifers and pro-choicers. A conservative Southern Baptist now might have more in common with a traditionalist Catholic than with, say, Jimmy Carter. The new coordinates were easily politicized. Such divisions threatened to tear apart American society.”

The lines were drawn in the 70’s and 80’s. One scholar described the 1990’s as public evangelicalism’s transition “from revolution to evolution.”

As for me personally, this was the decade in which I served in an evangelical church in Indianapolis, a “community” church. It was a “daughter church” that had been planted by another congregation which was, at least in the context of our county, a megachurch. This group of churches was founded by pastors and missionaries in the Methodist and Wesleyan traditions. The congregations were intentionally non-denominational and independent of one another, based on a ministry philosophy of evangelism, discipleship, church-planting and missions, non-doctrinaire, non-liturgical, and elder-led with strong senior pastor leadership. Bible-based, they emphasized practical Christian living rather than in-depth study or theology. They were committed to church growth, and a great deal of that growth came from Christians who migrated from other congregations.

As a pastor in such a church in the 1990’s I tiptoed my way through the minefield called “worship wars.” The more I studied worship and read people like Robert Webber, the more I questioned what I was doing as a “worship leader” (now an official category of vocational ministry in evangelicalism) and whether we evangelicals understood much about worship at all. I spent countless hours in Christian bookstores. I went on mission trips and watched my children go on them as well. I coached Little League and developed a life outside the church and thereby realized more and more the “Christian Bubble” I and my fellow evangelicals were living in. Thankfully, the senior minister with whom I worked was more of a traditional pastor than a church growth practitioner or CEO, so our congregation was less “driven” than some others.

We were not a politically-obsessed people. Occasional remarks like, “No true Christian could ever vote for Bill Clinton,” were thankfully rare and not the focus of our conversations. But that had more to do with our pastor and the atmosphere of unity and focusing on essentials that he worked hard to maintain among us.

The 1990’s were good years for me. However, many of the seeds of later dissatisfaction with evangelicalism were planted and/or watered during that decade. They did not break the surface until the 2000’s.

bill_hybels_willow_creek

The 1990’s were the years we became familiar with:

  • The culture wars
  • Influential writings by Richard Neuhaus (The Naked Public Square, First Things journal), James Davison Hunter (Culture Wars), Stephen Carter (The Culture of Disbelief), Mark Noll (The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind)
  • Pat Buchanan’s “culture war” speech at the 1992 Republican Convention
  • The Fundamentalism Project
  • Voices of “thoughtful” evangelical intellectuals: George Marsden, Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, Randall Balmer, Richard Mouw
  • Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), Neuhaus and Charles Colson
  • The “commoditization” of evangelicalism: “The booming “Christian lifestyle” phenomenon took many forms, ranging from contemporary Christian music to megachurches and the rise of such Christian-friendly citadels as Colorado Springs and Branson, Missouri.”
  • ralph_reedThe widespread growth of Christian bookstores.
  • Christian music artists “crossing over” into popular music and the development of “Praise and Worship” music.
  • The rapid expansion and establishment of megachurches and the “seeker” approach. Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. The expansion of the Willow Creek Association. The Purpose-Driven Church.
  • Founding of the Christian Coalition. Ralph Reed.
  • The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), the evangelical answer to the ACLU. Jay Sekulow.
  • The rise of conservative talk radio and cable news. Rush Limbaugh.
  • The Clinton Presidency, the Republican triumph in the 1994 mid-term elections, Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America.
  • The Promise Keepers men’s movement. Their emphasis on racial reconciliation.
  • Resurgence of the evangelical left: Habitat for Humanity, Jimmy Carter’s post-presidency, Tony Campolo.
  • The Clinton impeachment hearings, led by independent counsel and evangelical Kenneth Starr.

At the end of his chapters covering the 1990’s, Steven Miller summarizes where we were with regard to evangelicalism in public life:

As the impeachment crisis revealed, the evangelical right held more power in the House of Representatives than in society as a whole. Public distaste for the impeachment process was a pointed reminder that, while evangelicals might occasionally form a moral plurality, a true majority was out of reach. That distinction became particularly important a few years later, by which time the Christian Right again was the talk of the Beltway. “We are going to have to invent a presidential candidate for the year 2000,” Ralph Reed declared after Clinton’s reelection victory in 1996. Four years later, Reed found his man.

The Age of Evangelicalism

Another Look: The Coming Evangelical Collapse (3)

panoramic-lightning-storm-and-prairie-church-mark-duffy

Note from CM: Here is the last of the three “Evangelical Collapse” pieces that Michael Spencer wrote five years ago. I think five years provides a good mile marker at which to look at what he said then, how it compares to the landscape today, and what we might see ahead. We’ll stick to discussing U.S. evangelicalism in one form or another throughout this week. If you haven’t been following along, we started last Monday, and I’d encourage you to peruse those posts and comment threads so you’ll know what ground we’ve already covered.

• • •

church lightning3. Is all of this a bad thing?

I’ve received many notes and emails over this series of posts, and I’m glad that it has been provocative and discussion-producing.

Is the coming evangelical collapse entirely a bad thing? Or is there good that will come from this season of the evangelical story?

One of the most encouraging developments in recent evangelicalism is the conviction that something is very wrong. One voice that has been warning American evangelicals of serious problems is theologian Michael Horton. For more than 20 years, Horton has been warning that evangelicals have become something almost unrecognizable in the flow of Christian history. From the prophetic Made in America: The Shaping of Modern American Evangelicalism to the incredible In the Face of God to the most recent Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church, Horton has been saying that evangelicals are on the verge of theological/ecclesiastical disaster.

Horton’s diagnosis is not, however, the same diagnosis as we saw in the heyday of the culture war, i.e. that evangelicals must rise up and take political and cultural influence if America is to survive and guarantee freedom and blessing. Horton’s warning has been the abandonment of the most basic calling of the church: the preservation and communication of the essentials of the Gospel in the church itself.

The coming evangelical collapse will be, in my view, exactly what Horton has been warning us about for two decades. In that sense, there is something fundamentally healthy about accepting that, if the disease cannot be cured, then the symptoms need to run their course and we need to get to the next chapter. Evangelicalism doesn’t need a bailout. Much of it needs a funeral.

But not all; not by any means. In other words, the question is not so much what will be lost, but what is the condition of what remains?

As I’ve said in the previous post in this series, what will be left will be 1) an evangelicalism greatly chastened in numbers, influence and resources, 2) a remaining majority of Charismatic-Pentecostal Christians faced with the opportunity to reform or become unrecognizable, 3) an invigorated minority of evangelicals committed to theology and church renewal, 4) a marginalized emerging and mainline community and 5) an evangelicalized segment of the other Christian communions.

Is it a good thing that denominations are going to become largely irrelevant? Only if the networks that replace them are able to marshal resources, training and vision to the mission field and into the planting and equipping of churches?

Is it a good thing that many marginal believers will depart, leaving evangelicalism with a more committed, serious core of followers? Possibly, if churches begin and continue the work of renewing serious church membership?

Is it a good thing that the emerging church will fade into the irrelevance of the mainlines? If this leaves innovative, missionally minded, historically and confessionally orthodox churches to “emerge” in the place of the traditional church, yes. Yes, if it fundamentally changes the conversation from the maintenance of traditional churches to developing new and culturally appropriate churches.

Is it a good thing that Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority of evangelicals? Yes, if reformation can reach those churches and produce the kind of unity we see in Wesley and Lloyd-Jones; a unity where the cleavage between doctrine and spiritual gifts isn’t assumed.

The ascendency of Charismatic-Pentecostal influenced worship around the world can be a major positive for the evangelical movement if that development is joined with the calling, training and mentoring of leaders. If American churches come under more of the influence of the movement of the Spirit in Africa and Asia, this will be a good thing. (I recognize, btw, that all is not well overseas, but I do not believe that makes the help of Christians in other cultures a moot point.)

Will the evangelicalizing of Catholic and Orthodox communions be a good development? One can hope for greater unity and appreciation, but the history of these developments seems to be much more about a renewed vigor to “evangelize” Protestantism in the name of unity. For those communions, it’s a good development, but probably not for evangelicals themselves.

Will the coming evangelical collapse get evangelicals past the pragmatism and shallowness that has brought about its loss of substance and power? I tend to believe that even with large declines in numbers and an evidence “earthquake” of evangelical loyalty, the purveyors of the evangelical circus will be in full form, selling their wares as the promised solution to every church’s problems. I expect the landscape of megachurch vacuity to be around for a very long time. (I rejoice in those megachurches that fulfill their role as places of influence and resource for other ministries without insisting on imitation.)

Will the coming evangelical collapse shake loose the prosperity Gospel from its parasitical place on the evangelical body of Christ? We can all pray and hope that this will be so, but evidence from other similar periods is not encouraging. Coming to terms with the economic implications of the Gospel has proven particularly difficult for evangelicals. That’s not to say that American Christians aren’t generous….they are. It is to say that American Christians seldom seem to be able to separate their theology from an overall idea of personal affluence and success American style. Perhaps the time is coming that this entanglement will be challenged, especially in the lives of younger Christians.

lightning umbrellaBut it is impossible to not be hopeful. As one commenter has already said, “Christianity loves a crumbling empire.” Christianity has flourished when it should have been exterminated. It has conquered when it was counted as defeated. Evangelicalism’s heyday is not the entirety of God’s plan.

I think we can rejoice that in the ruins of the evangelical collapse new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. New kinds of church structure, new uses of gifts, new ways to develop leaders and do the mission- all these will appear as the evangelical collapse occurs.

I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, paid staff and numbers its drugs for half a century.

I expect to see a substantial abandonment of the seminary system. How can a denomination ask its clergy to go into huge debt to be equipped for ordination or ministry? We all know that there are many options for education from much smaller schools to church based seminaries to internet schools to mentoring and apprenticing arrangements. We must do better in this area, and I think we will.

In fact, I hope that many IM readers will be part of the movement to create a new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being his people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture. There are encouraging signs, but evangelical culture has the ability to disproportionately judge the significance of movements within it.

I’ll end this adventure in prognostication with the same confession I began with: I’m not a prophet. My view of evangelicalism is not authoritative or infallible. I am certainly wrong in some of these predictions and possibly right, even too conservative on others. But is there anyone who is observing evangelicalism in these times who does not sense that the future of our movement holds many dangers and much potential? Does anyone think all will proceed without interruption or surprise?

One Big Problem with Evangelical Worship

On his blog and Facebook timeline last week, Tim Challies posted the following picture and quote. In my opinion, it represents a point of view that is a constant problem for evangelical worshipers. Challies represents the new calvinist tradition, so the quote takes on a distinct cast, but other evangelical groups share a similar perspective, even though the specific requirement they place upon believers might be different.

photo

The big problem this quote reveals might be labeled pietism. Evangelicals of all stripes tend to approach worship from a pietistic perspective. What I mean by this is that the emphasis falls on what believers bring to worship rather than on God’s actions in worship. In the end, this approach is about my piety or lack thereof. That’s what makes things really happen.

The quote from Donald Whitney clearly recommends this. It is the believer’s mindset that determines whether or not worship occurs. The burden falls upon each individual, therefore, to make sure his or her mind is right when worshiping in the sanctuary. If we sing without concentrating on God, then it is not worship.

Which begs the question, how fully must I be “thinking about God” in order for worship to occur? What percentage passes the test? How can I be sure I’ve thought hard enough, long enough, rightly enough to satisfy the requirement?

Other evangelical groups might stress something different. Perhaps it’s not so much a matter of “thinking about God,” but “experiencing God’s presence,” or “feeling the Spirit.” Perhaps in those churches it’s about people clapping or raising their hands, closing their eyes, swaying to the music, smiling, singing enthusiastically, dancing, speaking in tongues or expressing spiritual ecstasy in some other fashion. Maybe the emphasis is not so much on our thoughts, but on our feelings or certain specific experiences or spiritual manifestations that the particular community recognizes as evidence of “real” worship.

As one commenter last week wrote, “One old girlfriend said she left Evangelicalism . . . because she got tired of having to be excited all the time.” Excitement!!! is the requirement, apparently, in a lot of evangelical churches.

Is this really what coming before God in worship is about? Trying to work up the right thoughts and feelings? Making sure I don’t sully the divine presence with unworthy concerns and emotions that are weighing me down?

I don’t think so.

Burden-BearerI’m thankful I have a God . . .

  • who accepts imperfect sacrifices from distracted people whose minds are a thousand miles from where they should be on a Sunday morning.
  • who welcomes me into his presence through Christ even when I can’t sing or smile or lift my hands.
  • who hears my unspoken prayers, my fears, doubts, and laments, my unbelieving hesitations, and even my rebellious rants.
  • who doesn’t give a hoot if I fit in to the accepted patterns of “worship” some church community tries to impose on me, either through specific teaching or general peer pressure.
  • who simply invites us to come, we who are “weary and laden with burdens,” so that he might give us rest.

He invites us to a place where he speaks a Word so alive it can cut through the distractions, and even when it seems like it doesn’t, it still finds ways of doing its work in our lives.

He invites us to a table where he provides food that sustains the weary, worn out, and empty of heart, mind, and spirit.

Next time you’re in worship, whether you are singing “Holy, Holy, Holy” or some other hymn or praise song, go ahead, try to focus on God, who he is, what he’s done to bring newness of life to us all in Christ. Nothing wrong with that, and if you can do it, great. And if the song lifts your spirit and brings a rush of emotion or a manifestation of God’s presence in some special way, be thankful.

However, if you can’t stop thinking about your finances or your kids or something that upset you at work or all you have to do this week, don’t beat yourself up. You are still there, in worship, with God and with your brothers and sisters, many of whom are probably equally distracted and finding it hard to concentrate. And I have good news for you: God is still present and active. God will still speak to you. God will still feed you. God will still call what you are doing “worship.”

Pietistic expectations with regard to worship are cruel. They put the burden on us, rather than inviting us to come and have our burdens relieved by the One who never stops thinking graciously toward us.

Now that’s something to think about.

Saturday Ramblings — August 16, 2014

Eggs_Expressions_Happy_Sad

Hello, fellow iMonks. It has been a sad, scary week in the world’s news. Iraq. Gaza. Ferguson, Michael Brown. Robin Williams. Ebola. Kevin Ward. Ukraine. Suffering right before our eyes on the TV screen and a whole world of hidden suffering we can scarcely imagine. With all the bad news, we’ll seek respite in a bit of humor and distraction today, digging out a few odd and wondrous gems from that little source of information and entertainment we call the internet. We won’t ignore the serious stuff, but heaven knows we need some laughter-medicine too, don’t we? However, I’ll warn you, I’m in no mood to be cute or subtle (or nice) today.

Anyway, I invite you to join me, your grumpy Chaplain, as we ramble through the good and the bad, the silly and the sobering.

• • •

Four-Pillars-Law-Firm-Happy-Sad-Eggs1I know what we need! An app that makes Satan shut up and flee! Yeah, that’ll do it. According to Kevin Winkler, the “Shut Up, Devil!” app is just the ticket to overcome evil. He writes:

screen568x568We activate Scripture as a weapon in our lives when we speak it. In fact, this is the model Jesus used during His temptation in the wilderness. Three times He countered Satan’s temptations with scripture, responding, “It is written…” In other words, “Shut up, devil!” Scripture silenced Satan and forced him to flee (Matt. 4:1–11).

I found speaking scripture crucial to keeping Satan silenced in my life too. My strategy began with note cards on which I penned personalized versions of scriptures relevant to whatever issue I faced. I kept these cards on me throughout the day, intending to speak them aloud as often as I needed. Still, despite my best intentions, I frequently forgot or became too lazy.

With this, I implored God for something more convenient—something always with me that could help me remember. That’s when I received a download from heaven. Over the next day, God revealed to me the blueprints of what is now known as the Shut Up, Devil! app.

Now if we could just airdrop a bunch of these into northern Iraq (along with smartphones, of course), where actual evil is revealing itself with all its might, we could help those folks do serious battle with the devil, IS, and all things jihad.

Sheesh. I think the only “download from heaven” KW received was the anointed trifecta of bad theology, evangelical silliness, and hucksterism.

Continue reading “Saturday Ramblings — August 16, 2014”