Theology BEYOND Google: Part II
If you missed the first part, please read PART I.
In part II I am responding to each of the 5 thesis’s Philip Clayton puts forward in his article “Theology after Google.” I want to stress again that I agree with the overall sentiment of Philip’s article. He will no doubt agree, however, that words are important and how we present our sentiments is often times as important as the sentiments we put forward (I won’t say “sentiment” again – promise). So while this may come across as merely picking apart everything I don’t mean it that way. My hope is that by offering a counter perspective conversation can begin (hopefully civilly) and a more robust, fuller articulation of what I think we all want to see happen be put forward. Again, thank you Philip for making me (and all of us) think about important matters of faith. That is a gift.
Theology is not something you consume, but something you produce.
Actually, I think it is fair (and OK!) to say that theology is both what we consume and produce as well as (and perhaps more importantly) how we define ourselves. Theology gives us our identity.
We should also be careful with our history so we don’t set up false dichotomies. It is not as if every Christian before the Google-Age were passive leaches merely consuming what was fed them from a book or pulpit. Just a cursory glance at the history of the Church from Acts forward reveals a lot of production by lay and clergy alike. In fact, speaking from my own Methodist history, most of the “doing” of God’s work was lay driven. They were not content to just sit in pews and be told what to believe but were pushing through the frontier eager to bring healing and hope to the suffering.
Also, we shouldn’t short-change the consumption aspect or paint it as the evil step-child of theology – it’s vital. As St. Paul said, “how will they know if they do not hear?” We have the best story in the world to share but it is not learned through osmosis. We shouldn’t apologize for stating the huge need to educate our churches because switching stories (read: conversion) requires one to learn a new language and a new way of being in the world. We need trusted guides to help us see and these guides need to know the landscape, which includes our past, our present reality and the hope to which we are moving.
No institutions, and very few persons, function as authorities for theology after Google.
This depends on how we define “authority.” Dr. Kavin Rowe, NT Professor at Duke Divinity, defines authority as such: “The possibility or condition in human community under which the common good is pursued and indeed furthered.” (You can read how this plays out in an essay I wrote about how Scripture can or should be authoritative). Churches, including denominations (institutions) are still loci where the common good is pursued and furthered. Do we fail at times? Sure. Do we disagree how that common good can best be pursued? Sure. But just because we have even more to consume at our fingertips because of Google does not mean people do not believe that God is still in the business of calling and equipping pastors and teachers and that people don’t show up to church on Sunday (or Saturday) expecting to hear a fresh word from God. As I said above, the new story we are inviting people into requires guides. I believe God is still raising up guides in the form of teachers and pastors and leaders and authors etc and we would do well to live into those vocations with God-given authority rather than surrender to any Tom, Dick or Jane who has an internet connection and a blog.
A mentor of mine recently observed that Americans can’t stand authority and don’t want anyone telling them what to think, including a pastor. I think Philip is right to make us more aware of this. But as he also points out, rightly so, people are willing to grant authority to those who speak truth – those who have something to say about life and faith that “rings true” to them. Tony Jones, Brian McLaren, Spencer Burke and allow me to add Philip Clayton are authorities in their own right. They are pursuing the common good and desire it to be furthered. They are speaking truth, and people are listening.
Therefore, rather than shy away from speech or things (like churches) that speak authoritatively simply because this is what the world after Google is prone to do, let us instead remind one another that we have received an authoritative Word that rings true to us and as a people who confess we are a creature before a Creator we give away far too much when we allow the world’s disdain for authority to shape our theology.
Here is the important point: That the world no longer looks to pastors as authorities is not an indictment on authority but on the pastor/leader. The degree to which leaders in the church lack authority is the same degree to which leaders in the church are not performing the story we proclaim. Authority is tied to performance, not a degree.
Theology after Google is not centralized and localized. Likewise, the church cannot be localized in a single building. We find church wherever we find Jesus-followers that we link up with who are doing cool things. This point is huge. Denominational officials and many pastors have not even begun to conceive and wrestle with what it means to work for a church without a clear geographical location.
John Wesley, the father of Methodism, said back in the late 1700’s “I look upon all the world as my parish.” By this he meant that the work of a pastor and the life of a Christian was infused with all of Creation. Why? Because all the earth is God’s. Theology before Google was already deeply attuned to what Mr. Clayton is driving at here.
One of the things I love about the Methodist Church is our connectional system. I can go anywhere in the world and not feel like a fish out of water. Also, we have the unique capability because of this connection throughout the world to respond to tragedy in a fast, effective and demonstrative way that other forms of church cannot (like a house church or a localized congregation that is non-denominational).
I don’t think we can survive long with the world as our parish without some localized place where we can feel connected – grounded. One of our primal needs, as Genesis well reflects, is a need for land – a place to call “home.” This is not a bad thing, although like anything, home can become an idol. I can’t name a single pastor I know who thinks “church” is restricted to their geographical location or building or denomination. Certainly it is the case that many Christians in churches across America have gotten very cozy in their “home.” But this can be as true of the 12 folks meeting in a house church as it can be for a denomination. Rather than hope for the death of denominations we should be praying for revival.
The new Christian leader is a host, not an authority who dispenses true teaching, wise words, and the sole path to salvation.
I love the language of “host” and think it should be something we add to our vocabulary as church leaders. But if our model of leadership in the best of times models Jesus it seems odd to me that we would pit “host” against one who dispenses true teaching, wise words or the path to salvation. Jesus did all three and calls us to do the same. We are, after all, “ambassadors” of Christ (2 Cor. 5:20) and we have been given a mandate to go into the world and make disciples. I believe the Holy Spirit is raising up pastors and teachers and leaders today just as the Spirit was in the 1st century and before. While these roles within Christ’s body, the Church, do not make anyone greater than another (and to even think this way of oneself is to forget that the Lord we proclaim is the same one who washed the feet of his disciples) they are gifts from a God who brings order out of chaos.
The Christian leader is certainly a host but also a guide and his or her authority is not and should not be simply tied to their title or degree but to the extent that he or she is living out the story proclaimed.
Theology after Google does not divide up the world between the “sacred” and the “secular,” as past theologies so often did. All thought and experience bears on it, and all of one’s life manifests it. Thus the distinction between one’s “ministry” and one’s “ordinary life” is bogus. All of one’s life as a Christian is missional..
Amen. (That was easy, huh?)
But what exactly do I believe? What must I say, and what should I not say (and do)? This quest is more open-ended. It’s filled with uncertainties and indecisions, and it’s constantly evolving. That quest just is theology. It’s everything I think about and do. It’s reading the New York Times headlines online each morning when I awake. It’s the philosophy text that I teach in a classroom or the intriguing idea about christology that I talk about with friends over a beer. It’s our attempts to be involved in authentic forms of ministry and Christian community, and the questions we ask about whether those attempts are really faithful and how to make them better. It’s that recurring question, “What should I do with my life?”
One thing missing here is Scripture. The work of doing theology certainly includes the profound to the mundane of life but it most certainly cannot exist apart from its root. As Christians we confess a belief in revealed religion. We are not simply spouting off novel “ideas” about Christology but offering informed, prayerful, Spirit-led reflections on what it means to be addressed by this God and how to best live out that address. The New York Times does not tell me how to think about God. However, Scripture gives me a lens through which I can read the Times, thus adding flavor to a meal already given us by our Host.
Looking forward to anyone’s comments on any of this.
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.
sweet series. i will make sure philip sees it.
These are extremely thoughtful responses. Thanks.
Thanks, Tripp and Deacon.
peace.
Chad, great nuancing. You know that I can’t quibble with you about most of what you write here. Scripture will *always* guide those of us who seek to know and follow Jesus. Ignorance of the Christian theological traditions will produce superficial (and sometimes dangerous) theologies. And I could go on. Thanks for reminding emergent types, and others, that there are two sides to these issues. Yes, there are things to preserve and conserve.
Now help me, in your next post, to express what and where change is needed. E.g.: in three days with 115 pastors at “Emergence NOW!” in Atlanta, I see and hear discouragement. Great innovative ministry is happening. Yet pastors are being fired and disciplined for ministries that reach out to the unchurched generations. While they seek to understand the new culture around us, their superiors insulate their theologies more and more from a world of “secular humanism.”
How can we strengthen and support those wings of the church that are seeking to connect with a post-Christian world?
– Philip Clayton
Philip -
Beautiful.
Yes, even as I finished this second part I was thinking more needs to be said. I do not like sounding only like a critic (and I hope it doesn’t come off that way) and desire to offer some positive ideas for going forward. In fact, that was the primary reason for doing this and I am glad to hear you and others are game.
I will work on that part III over the next couple days but I can say this now: Much of the answer to your question “what to do?” is already being done by people like yourself. I celebrate and give thanks for leaders in the emerging church who are pushing the envelop and being a gadfly for those of us in mainline churches (even if we are friends of emergent). We need to hear these critiques so that we can continue to be vigilant within the contexts God has, at present, placed us to minister.
So in that sense I think great things are happening and we are moving in the right direction. Given that, though, I hope we can, “say what we mean and mean what we say” as we move forward. The words we use (especially by those with platforms as large as your own) will shape people for better or worse as well as predispose people both within and without the church towards certain stereotypes. I want to caution my brothers and sisters in the EC as we go forward to use our language wisely, in such a way that an “us vs. them” mentality (whether it is intentional or not) is not created.
As you know, most reformations tend to swing the pendulum all the way to the other side (Luther’s emphasis on grace had a tendency of gutting works from Protestant churches in subsequent generations – an effect we still feel today).
I guess I’m a liberal centrist, if that makes any sense
grace and peace to you!
Hi,
I just posted a reflection on this on my blog:
http://pjames.greenhousedistrict.org/post/364186097/denominational-decline
Thanks,
-james.
Hi,
Just updated.
http://pjames.greenhousedistrict.org/post/364186097/denominational-decline-updated
Thanks,
-james.
A couple side notes. And before I write, I really have enjoyed the article and your responses, Chad.
Chad, I have to disagree slightly with your assessment:
‘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.”’
But I don’t disagree with it strongly or with all of it. I think denominational leadership and in some cases the seminaries are to blame. I can only speak from my limited experience with the Baptist and Lutheran denominations, but most times, if a pastor tries to be a leader in a congregation, they are fired by the congregation’s lay leaders (whether elected or self-appointed) for trying to change too much. And you mentioned this in your post.
The denominational leadership is not supporting the pastors when they get into tough situations. They schedule meetings, they send letters to the pastor, but primarily the pastor is left to deal with it on his own. I understand that most denominations give authority to the local church and but there is so much more that can be done to support pastors who are in tough situations with their congregations.
And seminaries do nothing to teach how to deal with those difficult situations, how to solve problems, what resources the denominational leadership can provide, disciplinary actions and when they are warranted, etc.
Overall, I think that pastors are being ill-equipped to be leaders, and then not supported by denominational leadership, when they do lead.
But my experiences are limited, so your mileage may vary. Oh and just to be clear, my knowledge of seminary is second-hand so feel free to ignore it
Mike,
Thanks for your feedback and for sharing your experiences.
This is quite a claim and one I am sure you realize is not universally true. I have no doubt it is true in many, many cases and perhaps is even true in every dealing you personally have had with denominations. One of the problems, however, with consequentialist arguments (arguments that depend on the results of something for their validity) is they fall apart when examples to the contrary are shown. I could share many, many examples where this is simply not the case.
I suspect that these problems are more acute in Baptist traditions and in some cases, Lutheran, due to their form of episcopacy. Baptists by their very nature are more like mini-non denominational churches. They ordain their own pastors within the local assembly and their “denominational” affiliation is rather loose. It’s a call system and as such, the church hires or fires their pastors. What can happen (and often does) in these churches is the pastor is somewhat beholden to the board members in the church. The pastor knows that he (or in rare cases, she) needs to appease the board or else be fired. This can cause all sorts of problems when a pastor is a visionary and wants to lead – sometimes where a church stuck in her ways doesn’t wish to go.
So you are right – in these cases the “denomination” can’t intervene and help because the structure is set up in such a way that each church is an island to itself.
The irony here, as you might suspect, is that the problems you have highlighted are problems more pronounced in churches that don’t have clear leadership or authority within the denominational structure. The sort of problems inherent in Baptist churches would be true in any non-denominational church or even a house church. Who steps in to help when the “house” members no longer like the vision the “leader” is suggesting?
Speaking from the Methodist tradition (and as a pastor within it) I can say it is very different from what you describe. My church can’t fire me just because they don’t want to change. In fact, from our bishops on down change is being encouraged and pastors are backed up by the episcopacy. If people in the church are upset their recourse is to speak with my District Superintendent who will remind them to whom the church belongs to (hint: Jesus Christ, not them). I can take the pulpit each week knowing I can preach whatever word God has placed on my heart without fear of losing my job because I am not beholden to a board who has the power to fire me. It’s quite liberating if you think about it.
I’m in my 3rd year of seminary and while I agree that more can be done there is more than “nothing” being done. I can say this: they are aware of this and things are being done to make an impact in this area.
But in all honesty, much of the “work” of being a pastor comes through OJT, not from the classroom. Hopefully our pastors are getting educated on how to think through problems theologically rather than through other means.
This is longer than I intended. I’ll pause for now…
From your comments on the way the Methodist tradition does the assignment of pastors, is very different from both the Baptist and Lutheran traditions. Lutherans have a call process as well and it has the same problems as the Baptist call method.
The process that you outline seems to be better in some ways than the call method I am familiar with…
Very interesting…
Mike,
I’ve been part of a few ways of doing it. I was a PK in the Nazarene church that had a call system like Baptists and Lutherans. I was also a Lutheran for a few years (my dad got ordained in the ELCA) and now I am a Methodist.
Yes, it is very different. Methodist pastors don’t get to pick where they want to go and churches don’t get to select their pastor. Those decisions are made by the bishop and district superintendents each year after many weeks (months) of prayer, meetings, counseling, assessing the needs of Christ’s church in all its contexts, etc.
While this is not without its own unique problems I would say it does tend to circumvent most of the problems you raised earlier.