Jay posted a thoughtful response to my previous post on the irrelevancy of mainline Christianity. In particular he addresses my use of the term "Christ crucified" as a measure of the unique calling that only the Christian church offers among all of the functions in society. He points out that the church is often the only means for social gathering in many communities and that there are differences in what we mean when we preach the centrality of Christ in the church. I encourage you to read his post at length for additional comments. I want to address where I think we actually might disagree, although I am not sure that we really do. I started posting his as a comment, but then it got long enough to merit a follow-up post. I hope others might entertain and join in this conversation as well.
The central issue I raise is when the church attempts to supply social function prior to its calling as the institution that supplies salvation. Part of the problem is the very notion therapeutic of a personal savior. By salvation I am looking at it as a macro-scale. We all need it, the nation needs it, the world needs it. What seems to be the case in the liberal churches is a focus on the macro issues without making it clear that it is the unique event of Christ that makes the desire to change social structures. However, this desire often dissolves into reinforcing therapeutic belonging for which the notion of Christ is simply unnecessary. The source of tension is thus missing and that source of tension is in the uniqueness of why we join this community rather than another. In other words, conversion is missing from the discussion – to be a different person and community for the sake of Christ which comes with demands of discipleship. I would argue that even if the church is the only palpable source of social community-building that the call of discipleship still remain at the fore.
For evangelicals, the therapeutic alone tends to be the source of tension. "Come to us, so that you may be changed." Romans 12:1-2 are often quoted over and over again. But then there has been little or no demand outside the walls of the community other than to ask people to assimilate to that community which is where the rest of Romans 12 goes to expand on that notion of individual transformation. They understand reinforcing social tension through the uniqueness of what Christ does "for me" (which is why retention is better), but the way they do it has tended to be socially anemic outside the walls of the community. It is a follow-through to the legacy of American individualism in religion from the Great Awakening onward.
I am looking for a medium here. Liberalism that demands that people become something different for the sake of Christ. The Gospel is that the world needs a savior (not just indivuduals) and we are a misguided bunch of humans on this speck of a planet we call home. I think liberals are uncomfortable with the prophetic message that the world would indeed fall to pieces but for the grace of God, although I have seen changes occurring in recent years. There are evangelicals more and more concerned about the macro-social issues and liberals more and more concerd about the micro-social importance of personal accountability and discipleship as outcomes of conversion. Buit it is not enough. I want to see if liberals can be clear in their language and accompanied actions that the church is unique because it demands conversion and discipleship of people rather than because it offers social and psychological comforts through crock pots and concerts.
As far as attracting people, the church has been asking that question too long and without any success. Insanity is when one continues to do something repeatedly when it results in the same lack of reward (whatever that reward is). It would be better if we can help the people we have understand why they persist in church as opposed to some other social organization. The United States is not becoming more secular, but it is increasingly pluralist religiously, socially, etc. Hence the need to express clarity of purpose and uniqueness of identity in the religious marketplace.
The clarity of this purpose is to change the world for Christ"s sake and to do so even at the expense of our current congregational structures. If that makes people uncomfortable, it should. Jesus never asks us for our comfort, yet American Christians are guilty of social, material, and psychological comfort over-ruling a discipleship that mirrors Jesus" works in the world.
Related posts:
Drew,
Thanks for your reply. First, a word about language. I prefer and use the language of transformation, not salvation. If I substitute that word I can agree that "we all need it, the nation needs it, the world needs it." The church, in my view is in the business of transforming people and structures.
Now, a question: a self-professed pagan joins my church and over the course of a number of years experiences profound personal and social transformation. But she never becomes a "Christian." Is Christ behind this transformation? Am I failing in my duty as a Christian pastor to present the essence of the Christ event?
I get a little edgy with the notion that the world would fall to pieces but for the grace of God. Sounds too much like a world dangling by a spider's thread over the fiery furnace. I think the church is unique because it invites transformation and discipleship of people and is clear to say that this is why we are here.
As far as attracting people, if we believe Christ offers something significant and that the world needs transformation, then I fail to see the problem with talking about ways to reach those people.
I would argue that the US is becoming both more pluralistic religiously and more secular. Perhaps secular isn't the best word, maybe profane, I don't know. But my point would be that even Christians live in a mostly non-enchanted, non-magical, world. We live most of our day as if we believe that God does not exist. Our worldview is largely secular.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph.
i am fine with transformation since the term conversion is literally a turning from one way to another.
hate this answer, but it depends on the transformation of the pagan. sure Christ can be behind that. i am not as concerned about what people do with the message as that the church is responsible for the message itself. i am frankly not sure who christ actually transforms and i don't make that judgment. i have kind of cynically viewed a confession of faith as lip service. sure it can be an authentic representation of an inner transformation, but we can only judge the fruits not the spirit that produces them.
not a big fan of that edwards sermon either. if you look at weil's rather platonic understanding of the resurrected logos who holds the creation together, that's the point of reference. kind of a world spirit kind of concept if you will. the church does invite transformation, but a specific kind of transformation which was the main issue in both posts.
guess the last bit is how you understand secular. no sociologist is arguing that the US is becoming more secular. i am using peter berger's language where he says that modernization does not produce secularization, but it does produce pluralism. the us is a different animal since it was born out of a politics that was disenchanted, if you are referring to weber's use of the concept. the evidence is that we are as religious in the us as we have ever been even though that sense of the religious is more pluralistic than it has ever been. the pew studies bear that out as well.
thanks! always a pleasure to read your blog too by the way.
Drew,
Thanks for your reply. First, a word about language. I prefer and use the language of transformation, not salvation. If I substitute that word I can agree that "we all need it, the nation needs it, the world needs it." The church, in my view is in the business of transforming people and structures.
Now, a question: a self-professed pagan joins my church and over the course of a number of years experiences profound personal and social transformation. But she never becomes a "Christian." Is Christ behind this transformation? Am I failing in my duty as a Christian pastor to present the essence of the Christ event?
I get a little edgy with the notion that the world would fall to pieces but for the grace of God. Sounds too much like a world dangling by a spider's thread over the fiery furnace. I think the church is unique because it invites transformation and discipleship of people and is clear to say that this is why we are here.
As far as attracting people, if we believe Christ offers something significant and that the world needs transformation, then I fail to see the problem with talking about ways to reach those people.
I would argue that the US is becoming both more pluralistic religiously and more secular. Perhaps secular isn't the best word, maybe profane, I don't know. But my point would be that even Christians live in a mostly non-enchanted, non-magical, world. We live most of our day as if we believe that God does not exist. Our worldview is largely secular.
I agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph.
i am fine with transformation since the term conversion is literally a turning from one way to another.
hate this answer, but it depends on the transformation of the pagan. sure Christ can be behind that. i am not as concerned about what people do with the message as that the church is responsible for the message itself. i am frankly not sure who christ actually transforms and i don't make that judgment. i have kind of cynically viewed a confession of faith as lip service. sure it can be an authentic representation of an inner transformation, but we can only judge the fruits not the spirit that produces them.
not a big fan of that edwards sermon either. if you look at weil's rather platonic understanding of the resurrected logos who holds the creation together, that's the point of reference. kind of a world spirit kind of concept if you will. the church does invite transformation, but a specific kind of transformation which was the main issue in both posts.
guess the last bit is how you understand secular. no sociologist is arguing that the US is becoming more secular. i am using peter berger's language where he says that modernization does not produce secularization, but it does produce pluralism. the us is a different animal since it was born out of a politics that was disenchanted, if you are referring to weber's use of the concept. the evidence is that we are as religious in the us as we have ever been even though that sense of the religious is more pluralistic than it has ever been. the pew studies bear that out as well.
thanks! always a pleasure to read your blog too by the way.