Theology BEYOND Google: Part I
Below is the first of two parts that address and respond to Philip Clayton’s article, Theology after Google. I recommend you read the article first. It’s a great article that has some convicting and challenging words for all of us in the church (pastor and lay alike). While I can agree with much of the sentiment found in the article (change is needed) I disagree with some of the ways Philip (along with other leaders within the Emerging Church) articulates that sentiment. I think we can do better and I offer this as an initial response to the first half of his article. I will cover the rest in a follow-up post. Please feel free to contribute here and offer your own insight. And thank you, Philip Clayton, for spurring all of us on to be better! Grace and peace.
From Theology after Google:
But what church actually is has always been deeply affected by the world around it. When that world changes, so too does church. Everyone acknowledges that we are living in a time of revolutionary change. So tell me why we don’t think church is in for some radical changes?
What the church actually is should be affected by what her Lord has called her to be, not what the world dictates. I think this is setting the bar far too low. What if, instead, the world was deeply affected by the Church within it? That is a far more radical idea and one that I think the church has long given up on ever since it married with the state as far back as Constantine.
If they have the good fortune to depart seminary with their idealism intact, they’re generally assigned to a traditional church that has virtually no youth or younger families present, an average age of 60, and a major budget crisis on its hands. The orders are, “Keep this church alive!” The church members like the old hymns and liturgies; they don’t like tattoos, rock music, or electronics. They are about as likely to read and respond to blogs as I am to play in the Super Bowl. So the young pastor folds her idealism away in a closet and struggles to offer the traditional ministry that churches want.
While I am sure this is the case with many pastors who leave seminary it is not the fault of denominations. This would be the fault of seminaries poorly training pastors to be managers as opposed to leaders. As I heard one consultant say, “Churches all say they want leaders….but they reward managers.” The difference, of course, is leaders have a vision whereas managers maintain the status-quo. Churches all over are full of managers. We don’t need to blame denominations for this. In fact, we don’t need to blame anyone. We need to simply recognize where we are and make the adjustments. You will find managers in non-denominational churches and you will find them in house churches and you will find them in mainline churches. As they say, “Hate the player, not the game.”
Furthermore, in my context (a Duke Div seminary student and pastor) I have never heard of a colleague (nor experienced it myself) in an authoritative position (such as my District Superintendent) throwing anyone into an older, struggling, conservative church with orders to “Keep this church alive!” What I have experienced and witnessed is leaders within the church assessing which churches seem to be dying on the vine and either finding innovative ways to revive them or close their doors. Duke Divinity, to offer but one example, has a Rural Church Initiative (Thriving Rural Communities) that studies and funds rural churches in North Carolina and trains young, enthusiastic, visionary seminary students for parish ministry in these settings with the aim of leading these churches where God is calling them to be in their particular contexts. This is a model that could be replicated throughout the country and is but one example of how innovative thinking and reform can help solve problems without falling into the trap of just blaming the problem on denominations or institutions in general.
“The church members like the old hymns and liturgies; they don’t like tattoos, rock music, or electronics.”
My gut reaction here is: What is wrong with the old hymns and liturgies? Why must old hymns be pitted against rock music or electronics? I have a tattoo, love rock music (am listening to Pearl Jam’s new album as I type this) and love electronics (I’m typing on a MacBook!) and yet I LOVE the old hymns and the liturgies! Why? I suppose because no one told me it was wrong to, for starters, and also because people I encountered along my journey taught me to appreciate the deep treasure trove of theology that is found in our old hymns as well as appreciate the communal spirit and bond that arises from a congregation reciting liturgies together – the individual being swept up in the faith of the many. I derive great pleasure in teaching my rural church why we do the things we do and watching their eyes being opened up for the first time as they recognize the significance of a song they have sung for decades or a creed they have recited from childhood.
Furthermore, any pastor worth his or her salt will exegete a congregation and honor their story – where they have been, where they presently are and where they desire to go (where they desire to go may be part of the pastor’s greatest challenge!) But to be assigned to a church that “loves the old hymns and liturgies” and is over 60 can be a great blessing to both pastor and parish if entered into with the right spirit – which above all means recognizing this is Christ’s Church, not mine or theirs, and God loves 60 year olds who sing Blessed Be The Tie That Binds every Sunday as much as God loves the punk rocker who sings Pearl Jam’s Alive. Additionally, God has a plan for that 60 year old just as God has a plan for the punk rocker. The task for the pastor and the lay people of each church is to discern what that plan may be. A pastor who drops a drum set in the older, rural church on his or her first Sunday has not only dishonored the story that this church has lived into long before the pastor arrived but has also destroyed any chance he or she may have had to lead them into a new story in the years ahead.
Share this Post
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Chad, just left an intense discussion between Bruce Reyes-Chou and Tony Jones on the future of denominations here in Atlanta at #Enow, at which your name was mentioned (and not in vain!). Your experiences are clearly more positive than mine, and I want to honor them.
I concentrate on the sentiment that we share in common: the church can and must do better. And change starts at home, so … as a seminary prof I take responsibility for how badly seminaries are doing their part, and I look for ways to do better training for ministry…
– Philip Clayton
Philip,
I hope this can be the start of some ongoing discussion not only about how to proceed from here but also the sort of ethos emergents want to give off about our ecclesiology. It has only been in the last 8 months or so that I have noticed an increasing distrust/disdain towards denominations, as if you can’t truly be emerging if you still tie your anchor to one. I’m not sure if this is intentional on the part of the leaders/spokespersons or if it is something that is getting misconstrued. My hope is that these sorts of discussions can sort that out a bit.
I believe the EC can learn a lot both from the mistakes and the triumphs of denominations. I believe denominations can learn much from the EC’s critiques and questions. Both need each other.
I’m just a pastor who loves the church of Jesus in all her expressions. I don’t want to see the inclusivity that first attracted me to the EC be changed into a “us vs. them,” as if one must decide to leave a mainline church or at least declare them “sinful” if they can be taken seriously by the EC (Tony called me a “worthy adversary” in his latest blog post. I don’t want to be an “adversary” just because I love my church. I want to be a “friend” who has a different opinion about these things). Does that make sense?
btw, I tried to leave comments on your article at the Ooze but none of them are showing up. That is what prompted me to write this. Would love your feedback when you get more time.
peace,
Chad
I think your perspective is pretty good, Chad, and I definitely do think there is much value to be had about approaching ordination as being immersed in a story bigger than yourself. I guess my only hesitation would be that there seems to be many denominations whose stories are not worth remembering or keeping alive, sadly. I know particularly in… See More the Baptist and Pentecostal strains of American Christianity, there are many denominations who exist solely because they broke off from other denominations because of fights over secondary issues. I think that is actually the thing that most people think of when they think of denominationalism.
So I do agree with you that it may not be wise to take an approach that simply throws everything out, but I also think that there are many denominations that do need do own up to there past and repent of the fighting that has gotten them where they are.
Phil,
I think you bring up a great distinction that ought to be made but unfortunately, at present, is not. The EC (at least from Tony and other spokespeople) have as of late been using the term “mainline” and “denominations” interchangeably. As such, it sort of limits the strains of denoms you reference as problem children. There certainly are… See More stories not worth remembering but when they say “mainline” they are not speaking of these divergent churches who exist solely over quarrels about nonessentials – OR, if they ARE meaning this, the/we need to be more clear in their/our language.
I agree 100% that many denominations, mainline or not, need to own up and repent of past and present junk. My hope is that all of us can celebrate what each do well while at the same time encouraging excellence through loving critique without calling for the “death” of something just because we have some a priori assumption that denominations by definition are “sinful” or beyond redemption.
Thanks Chad for your thoughts and for the necessary words of caution not to throw out the baby with the bathwater or getting stuck with false alternatives and dichotomies!
Remembering my own seminary time at a public German university brought back many of the same sentiments and conclusions that Philip shared in his post. So much of what he said resonates deeply with me, particularly the apparent failure of theological schooling to help bridge the language and culture gap between the academic world and the people we want to reach. So much of Christian leadership depends on persuasion, and how can we persuade people effectively without truly immersing ourselves fully in their questions and concerns, and unless we are able to speak their language in our effort to show the continuing relevancy of the Gospel? I’m not saying the Holy Spirit cannot reach and communicate beyond those boundaries but why would anyone want to try to maintain unnecessary hindrances in the first place?
The old dispute how change ought to come (from the top down or from the bottom up) is being answered by what is happening with or without our encouragement and prompting: pastors make up at least part of their educational handicap by educating themselves and by making full use of Google-age technology and connecting with people across denominational borders and theological convictions; parishioners take more initiative than ever before in taking initiative when they feel that their church is not keeping pace with the changes around us and the needs that ought to be met. Increasing financial pressures more or less FORCE churches and denominations to rethink their structures and approach to ministry.
The biggest challenge that I see is not that change is not happening fast enough, but resisting the temptation to absorb cultural trends to the point where the counter-cultural aspects and offensive aspects of the Christian message are dropped altogether.
Thanks Josh for your comment.
I think you are right – especially about the movement already taking place and the need to resist the temptation to allow the tail to wag the dog (the world dictate who or what the church is).
As for bridging academia and the church I guess i am blessed to be at Duke Divinity. When I got here 3 years ago I sort of expected this to be Ivory Tower sorta stuff. But I am so thrilled to be able to say that my experience has been the total opposite of that. Every professor I have had has stressed that the real work being done is in the parish and that they are in service to the church, not the other way around. I think this ethos can be attributed in large part to Stanley Hauerwas, Richard Hays and of course Dean Jones – all of whom are church people first and scholars (and brilliant ones) second.
In my first semester, Warren Smith, my Christian History prof, told his class of 140 eager MDiver’s to keep in mind that not a single person in our congregations will ever ask us what grade we got in Christian History (or in any other class). What they will care about is how well you have used what you learn here in service of Christ’s Church and how that knowledge is meeting people at their need on the ground. J. Kameron Carter, my Theology prof, told us all something very similar- namely, theology is not theology unless it is *embodied*. IOW, unless we are alongside the hurting, the oppressed, the marginalized, the hungry, the poor, the dying, then we are just spouting empty words about a God we haven’t yet identified with.
So I would say again: The problem is not with the idea of denominations (they are not ontologically evil) but the problem lies in how we have made them into an idol and/or have dropped the ball in teaching well.
peace to you
Chad, I agree that the problem is not with the *idea* of denominations as such. I remember the beginning of the charismatic renewal movement some decades back — EXACTLY the same dynamics were played out, the same accusations, the same defensiveness on both sides.
Also, there are thousands and thousands of pastors, who happen to serve denominational churches, who are doing cool, brave, emergent stuff in their ministries. And there are some denominational leaders who are visionaries and are making calls in the right directions.
However, I do call denominational leaders to task for not adequately supporting renewal and change in their midst. Leaders MUST prepare their churches or groups for the radical change that is upon us. I think few are acknowledging that society (and technologies) are changing around us at unbelievable rates. We can’t just assume that 20-somethings will start pouring back into the box churches as soon as we do X…
– Philip Clayton