David Martin presents a series of thought provoking essays in his book On Secularization: Towards a Revised General Theory. In one such essay, he presents a quote which I think encapsulates a certain sense of unease many have with the emergent phenomenon in American Christianity in particular, and its continued purchases on rather ambiguous "postmodern" excursions in its theological maneuvering.
The fundamental shift, present in both the new spiritualities and the shifting psychological landscape within the churches, is (as a very insightful study of Kendal, Cumbria shows) toward subjectivization. Put dramatically, Protestantism destroys its capacity to reproduce and retain its vital memory, not because of some problem with the scientific world-view or rationalization, but by going completely inward, personal and inarticulate. the churches have mostly incorporated thin in the USA, whereas in Europe the mostly have not. Subjectivity militates against obedience, group discipline and personal obligation, as well as rejecting authority, in particular patriarchy, religious or otherwise. It therefore overflows into a feminine or feminist sense of "participation" in the rhythms of the natural world. Nature, human or physical, is good, but sin and evil, sacrifice and redemption are difficult to comprehend, even though evil is readily identified as malignantly present in the institutional and official social order (2005, p. 84-85).
In the recent conversation at the Presbymergent Coordinating Group, the focus has been largely on the notion of structure and how human structure mediates the transforming Spirit of God. The danger is if one eschews structure in favor of a complete subjective rhythm of spirituality. The cost for such a move, it appears, is a politically anemic and inarticulate social function of a religious group that rots away at any notion of vital memory that can be passed on to the next generation.
This is a problem with an overly optimistic reliance on postmodern critique in order to deconstruct and then re-build modern social and organizational norms. The outcome must be, in the end, an ambiguous subjectivity and a relativizing egalitarian pluralism. If there is one stable outcome of most if not all postmodern theories or theories that have been dubbed "postmodern", it is some flavor of this, some are just a tad spicier and less palatable than others.
The question is not therefore structure or no structure. Lack of structure kills any group of people that comes together around an idea. The question is what kind structure can best serve the ends of the Church as that which represents the Kingdom of God in the here and now?
No related posts.
Nothing is never fully objective, including old church structures, dogmas, canons, creeds, etc. There is always going to be subjectivity, collectively and individually. How then, do we move forward?
Thought-provoking post. Thanks!
EP
i think the point is that if everything becomes an amorphous subjectivity, it becomes very difficult for a religion to make a specific and, dare i say, exclusive claim on reality. to do so requires something real and vital outside of myself and outside of my collective group. there has to be some degree of objective tension a religious group has with the normative culture and that requires something more than a subjective implosion of reality.
Nothing is never fully objective, including old church structures, dogmas, canons, creeds, etc. There is always going to be subjectivity, collectively and individually. How then, do we move forward?
Thought-provoking post. Thanks!
EP
i think the point is that if everything becomes an amorphous subjectivity, it becomes very difficult for a religion to make a specific and, dare i say, exclusive claim on reality. to do so requires something real and vital outside of myself and outside of my collective group. there has to be some degree of objective tension a religious group has with the normative culture and that requires something more than a subjective implosion of reality.