Starting Points (aka Describing Postmodern: The Sequel)
The suggestion that the Bible should be our starting point for a revision of "We Believe" represents a particular bias. Although it is one that is probably widely held by those who are reading here, it is still only one option of many. While I am not suggesting that the Bible should not be our starting point, I do accept the potential that other starting points may be helpful as we sort through this conversation. Another way of entering the conversation is to recognize that there are major differences between those making the decision and focus some attention on that difference before moving on to constructing a new statement. Obviously the goal is to construct a new understanding of the CGGC, but often we may assume too much about those participating in the conversation.
I posted some of these thoughts in October 2006 (under the heading "Describing Postmodern"), but in light of the recent discussion and agreement/disagreement over “We Believe,” I thought it may be timely to revive the conversation. Also, since many new voices have joined the blog over the past (almost) five years, hopefully others will contribute to the purpose of this blog which is to create a space for “emerging/postmodern conversation in the CGGC.”
I believe that definitions are very important; so, from my vantage point, it is important to consider what we mean when using words like “emerging” and “postmodern”. Although it is difficult to provide a definition for the phrase “emerging church”, many of the recent conversations that have taken place here have helped illustrate how that idea is understood. While equally difficult to define, we have not talked as much about what is meant when we use the term “postmodern”.
To help reignite this conversation, I want to provide a few coordinates that are helpful to me as I think about what is meant by the word postmodern. Since a complete analysis is beyond the scope of this post, there are many items I have overlooked. Questions/answers, discussion, and subsequent posts can provide additional ways for understanding our current historical moment.
Seeking a Definition
Over the past few months Bill has started many conversations about the role of a Mission Statement, the importance of being faithful to who we say we are, and the need for conciseness, clarity, and consistency with our doctrinal statement.
Taking this example a step further, the conversation about “We Believe” can be connected to the wider use of the term “common sense”. When we say something is “common sense” we are suggesting that what is understood without explanation in one particular narrative (informed by different geographic locations, one’s education, family traditions, political/religious traditions, etc.) can be transferred to another and be readily understood. While this may have been true in a Modern era that was driven by universal understanding it is no longer the case in a postmodern context.
In his book The Postmodern Condition, Jean-Francois Lyotard provides the philosophical backing for an understanding of the postmodern era that highlights the loss of universals in the public arena. Understanding “postmodern” as a loss of a metanarrative (or all encompassing story that unifies each person’s existence) also suggests that we live in a time of competing narratives. Lyotard writes that “the grand narrative has lost its credibility.” In other words, we currently lack an agreed upon metanarrative that guides public life. Based upon Lyotard, this means that our public life is no longer dominated by a trust in the progress of Science, Religion, and Progress. This creates a context in which there is a multiplicity of competing narratives that strive for our attention within public life.
Several years ago someone introduced a distinction that has been helpful to me and may be of use to others as well. It is possible to distinguish between the terms postmodernity and postmodernism. Postmodernity can be used to describe our current historical moment while postmodernism can used to describe the philosophical theories of Lyotard, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Richard Rorty, and others. Therefore, it is possible to say that we live in a postmodern moment (postmodernity) without accepting the whole of postmodern theory (postmodernism).
One side note. Although there is no universal agreement about what is meant by “truth”, the rise of postmodernism did not end the importance or the pursuit of truth. We can simply read Pilate’s question directed at Jesus (“What is truth?”) to see that there has not been a universal acceptance of truth for over 2000 years. Some of the same debates that go on today regarding who controls the truth, etc., took place several hundred years between Greek philosophers before Pilate asked this question. I have encountered many, both in personal conversations and through their writings, who suggest that postmodernity equals the “death of truth.” I do not believe that is an accurate assessment of our current historical moment.
Cultural Factors
Many events took place throughout the 20th century that shattered the sense of Scientific Progress leading to the decline of a metanarrative (both World Wars, the use of the Atomic Bomb, the Holocaust, etc.). Much has been written about the decline of the Christian culture in the United States since the middle of century. Other cultural events such as the Civil Rights Movement, the Great Depression, the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., also helped many recognize that the Modern world dominated by routine, technique, and progress was slowly fading.
Why Clarity Matters
Imagine an open field. A sign has been posted that simply says “Come and play.” Some people make the assumption that the game to be played is football, so they bring the appropriate equipment and attitude necessary to play the game. Others read the same sign and assume they will be playing baseball. Others rugby. Still others come prepared for lacrosse, volleyball, and even a friendly game of tag. A few remember the good old days when the field was used as a running track. Some come ready to play competitively while others come for the simple enjoyment. Others come, not ready to play, but simply to watch.
When the group assembles, no rules are provided, no boundaries given. Chaos breaks out when those hitting the volleyball around are run over by a person trying to catch a football. Arguments erupt because everyone feels they have the right to be there because they have come to play – just like the original sign invited.
Even as the spectators notice the growing conflicts, no one wants to offer any guidance because “everyone has a right to play the game of their choice.” “Who am I to say that football shouldn’t be allowed here?” is asked by others.
Eventually, frustrations over the lack of guidelines cause most people to leave. Of course there will be a few diehards who love to play anything who will stick around until no one else is there. But ultimately, no meaningful games will be played and many people will never again respond to a sign that has the simple invitation “Come and play.”
Wrap-Up
When working from an understanding of postmodernity defined by competing narratives and metanarrative decline, this brief story illustrates what can happen if clear boundaries are not drawn. Whether a church, a non-profit organization, a blog such as this one, or any other context in our current moment, guidelines must be given in order to help people make a decision about their participation.
What does this mean for the CGGC? local churches? “We Believe”? And the list of questions goes on and on.
This is only one person’s views on the topic of postmodernity. Hopefully this will provide the starting point for a helpful conversation for those who are interested.
Labels: CGGC, Emerging Church, Postmodernism, We Believe
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 10:01 AM
31 Comments:
brian,
thanks for this. it is helpful for us who joined mid-way in the conversation and who want to have a meaningful part.
a thought to (hopefully) feed the conversation:
it seems that, in many philosophical trends, the us lags a bit behind europe, and whatever wave they just rode we seem to be riding. at least, that's the trend i see in the last few centuries.
it also seems, from what little i hear of the continent, that they are largely past postmodernity (it is my understanding that they rarely speak of "postmodernism"). a british mp recently spoke on the failure of state multiculturalism, and many of you have probably heard of france's recent public banning of full muslim headcoverings. it seems to me that while they are still wrestling with issues raised by postmodernity, the "question of truth" seems to be less visible these days, and relativism is no longer "all the rage".
after living the last few years at a university, which (along with the other ivies) shapes much of our cultural milieu, i didn't see a whole lot of people actually holding a relativist view. most had strong convictions on a great many things, and would only resort to postmodern rhetoric if they didn't like where they saw a conversation heading.
and now, living in a town which seems to harken back to yesteryear in terms of its cultural "churchianity", there seems to be little of the postmodern spirit here.
all that being said, maybe i'm overstating it, but i don't see postmodernism/relativism being a huge issue right now. feel free to push back on this, as my view is fairly limited, and i would love to hear your thoughts.
walt,
FYI: Brent wrote this, not Brian.
Brent, good stuff. I'll think it over and comment later.
bill
oops, my bad. sorry, brent.
Part 1
Brent,
Wow!
I don't even know where to begin. I'm certain that I will experience layers of understanding of what you have written as time goes on. For now, I will stick my toe in the water.
I think that you have hit on something in raising the issue of 'common sense.'
(T)he conversation about “We Believe” can be connected to the wider use of the term “common sense”. When we say something is “common sense” we are suggesting that what is understood without explanation in one particular narrative (informed by different geographic locations, one’s education, family traditions, political/religious traditions, etc.) can be transferred to another and be readily understood. While this may have been true in a Modern era that was driven by universal understanding it is no longer the case in a postmodern context.
When I defended my dissertation one of my readers suggested to me, in his own way, that "common sense" is elusive in Church of God history. I don't think we required the demise of modernity for that to happen.
As I think is often the case in a body whose roots are connected to a person as radical and charismatic as Winebrenner was, its first understanding of common sense often disappears when that unique person disappears. Clearly, that happened with us.
When I call us to come to grips with our Mission Statement, which is virtually quoted from Winebrenner's words at his most charismatic and radical moment, I am, to use your term, asking us to be honest on the level of common sense.
I've told the story on the blog of talking to a very gifted CGGC leader who was present in the Ad Council meeting when it approved the Mission Statement and who has absolutely no recollection that the issue even came up.
Part 2
I believe that it is monumentally important in understanding the CGGC that the people who were on the Ad Council--people who are imbibers of the CGGC metanarrative that began to form in the 1930s and 40s--could approve the radical Mission Statement that they did. It strikes me as crucial to who we are today that one of our best and brightest could forget approving it. My guess is that virtually no one else on the Ad Council remembers it. I'm certain that no one that I know of is LIVING it.
Lytotard's The Postmodern Condition notwithstanding, I'm not certain that what's happened in the CGGC culture is a function of the loss of metanarrative. I think that one exists--at least among the powers that be.
I could describe myself as calling for an understanding of the dysfunction in the metanarrative that allows that group of people to approve so radical a Mission Statement and then move on from it as if it doesn't exist.
But, this is what we do in the CGGC.
Here in the ERC, we approved and aggressively promoted a Strategic plan sometime in the early 2000s. And, true to what the Ad Council has done, as soon as the aggressive promotion of the Strategic Plan was completed, nary a word has been said about the plan and it hasn't been implemented.
The thing is, these bizarre ways of behaving are nothing new. They are par for the same course that got us all hopped up about 35,000 by 2000 and twenty years ago, which failed and which was dropped like a hot potato as soon as the plan came to an end.
As far as I can tell, this metanarrative formed at least as early as 1937 when the General Eldership called for the creation of a Minister's Manual in unashamed defiance of Winebrenner's conviction that we have no such documents.
The radical Mission Statement followed by Credentials and a WE BELIEVE that ignored it are par for the course.
The recent symposia on WB that entirely ignored the concerns of the Ad Council is further evidence that we have a unique metanarrative that is at least about 75 years in it hegemony and still withstands challenges from people like Fran Leeman and me.
Anyway, Brent, powerful stuff. We need to get serious about the big-picture issues you raise.
Please let me know what you think about what I've written on just a short passage of what you've written.
And, if I'm missing your point, don't be bashful.
Walt & Bill,
Thanks for the replies and great insights. I'm going to respond in a little different manner. My hope is that others will engage the conversation so I'm not going to address the following responses to either one of you individually. Instead, I'm going to divide the theoretical (Part One) from the practical (Part Two). I'll weave my replies to your posts into each part.
Reply Part One: Theoretical Concerns
First: I agree that Europe is often 50 years or so ahead of the US when it comes to cultural and philosophical trends. Walt provides some great examples of the ways in which there is a cultural progressivism in Europse that has not yet emerged in the US. I think that is one of the reasons why many authors, including voices like C.S. Lewis, could publish ideas 50 years ago that still resonate today. So, on this point, I definitely agree with Walt.
Second: While I am not an expert on such things, I have been told that there are two ways to lay a new sidewalk. One is to lay the walk and, in turn, force people to follow the path that has been laid. The second is to wait until people establish walking patterns and lay the sidewalk on the paths that emerge more naturally. I've come to embrace this distinction as two competing metaphors for how we often come to accept certain philosophical positions. As I understand his comments, Walt is suggesting that the first is the better option. I prefer the latter. For example, when Walt suggests that because postmodernism has been eclipsed by other terminology/movements in Europe (such as post-postmodernism, etc.), the US should follow the path that has been laid by our Continental friends even though we may not have reached a place where such a philosophy makes sense in the US. My approach is a little different. I do my best to survey the cultural landscape and try to make sense of the issues that I see emerging and then search for a philosophical approach that helps me make sense of what I see. I follow the natural path and then begin to lay the foundation. The other approach suggests that because a philosophy exists, we have an obligation to embrace it. [Yes, I am overstating to make my point, but probably not as much as it appears on first reading.] So...it really doesn't bother me that Eurpose has moved on from postmodernism. I'm not sure I see how that invalidates that particular approach to making sense of our current historical moment. It may be helpful for Walt to unpack how relativism and postmodernity are interchangeable since it appears as though he is using them as synonyms.
Theoretical Concerns Continued
Third: There are many philosophcal ways to interpret common sense and we can go into those if anyone is interested. The main point that I was trying to make with my reference is that common sense cleary no longer exists in the CGGC, at least not in reference to "We Believe"; it can be debated another day whether it ever existed in the CGGC at all. Most likely, if common sense did exist it slowly disappeared with the demise of any metanarrative that existed.
Fourth: I'm not sure we're using metanarrative in the same sense. If a metanarrative exists in the CGGC today, then there would be no confusion. What has clearly emerged in place of one all-encompasing metanarrative, are multiple narratives (or what I believe Ricoeur refers to as 'petit narratives') that are competing with one another. If a metanarrative existed we wouldn't be having any of these conversations.
Reply Part Two: Practical Considerations
So, what am I proposing as a constructive alternative? Let me choose a different starting point. While this may appear as a continuation of the theoretical concerns, stick with me and hopefully I'll make my practical application.
The philosopher (I know, not a good start for a practical section) Alasdair MacIntyre has written "I can only answer the question, ‘What am I to do?’ if I can answer the prior question, ‘Of what story or stories do I find myself a part?" In other words, before we answer how do we proceed with "We Believe" we must situate ourselves in some particular faith story. Going back to my initail post and the example of the game that has no rules, the more specific we are in our choice the more clearly we will be able to see what we should do next. Many of the pressing issues don't have anything to do with "We Believe." What the CGGC is lacking is a clear answer to which story we are a part of. If it's Winebrenner's story, then choose. If it's an Enlightenment-inspired faith, then choose. If it's embracing the creedal system, then choose. We're arguing over "We Believe" but I'm not sure that will ever be resolved until someone answers whether or not we are still part of Winebrenner's movement.
Are we part of Winebrenner's Church of God movement? The more clearly we receive a "yes" or a "no" the better we'll be able to move on.
Some have written here that it doesn't really matter. But, I hope you can see, that from my vantage point this choice makes all the difference in the world to how this conversation proceeds.
There are more things to write, but that is my starting point. I'll wait to read a few other responses before posting more.
Brent wrote, Some have written here that it doesn't really matter. But, I hope you can see, that from my vantage point this choice makes all the difference in the world to how this conversation proceeds.
I completely agree. The story that binds the CGGC together is not as universal as it used to be. When I first started attending a Church of God in 1984, I can see how it had a certain feel (story) that translated across the country.
When kids went to IMPACT, they felt that connection and continued it. One reason IMPACT may have started to die is that this connecting story began to disappear.
We can't go back to the old story. What will the new story be?
(Note: I'm not talking about the Gospel when I say story. I'm talking about the connecting cultural story that pulls the CGGC together.)
I agree with you, Brian. We are losing our connectedness, and the CGGC "story" is greatly weakened.
I remember Sunday evening worship and revivals with mixed feelings: some nostalgia, but also gratitude for a freer schedule. But I'm worried about how disconnected people feel to each other and to the church.
In his book "Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered," James Wilhoit laments the fact that churches have abandoned formative, traditional ministries without replacing them. Lance is attempting to replace IMPACT with ENGAGE, and hopefully the new service paradigm will replace the conference paradigm. Nevertheless, there is very little that links us together.
Rather than wallow in nostalgia, what ideas are out there besides ENGAGE to bring CGGC churches together? I can think of a few: the CGWM women's conference; CCM missions; Ritz Lectures (what happened to that?). Unfortunately these are all ministries where churches are more likely to do their own thing rather than work with other CGGC churches.
As someone who goes back in the CGGC for nearly 40 years, I'm thinking this through carefully.
When I became aware of things CGGC beyond the level of the congregation I attended back in the 70s I encountered a group that was sharply and passionately divided.
Was there a deeper connection? I guess that depends on how you define connection.
But, the liberals and fundamentalists were at each other's throats. There was a threat, in the 60s, I believe, to shut down the seminary. It very nearly succeeded. There were struggles to win the seminary back from people whom many regarded as heretics. And, of course, that battle was won very shortly before the first WB was published.
Issues of theological difference were intense in those days and make the discussions of our differences seem like play time. I recall a loud and successful shake-the-rafters voice vote at East Penn Conference to defrock a--what was called then, minister--what is called now a Pastor. Clearly, it fed a fairly common blood-lust among our clergy at the time.
Perhaps Brent is correct in suggesting that there was one metanarrative then. But, life in the CGGC in the 60s and 70s was certainly something less than sweetness and light.
Ben, re:
In his book "Spiritual Formation as if the Church Mattered," James Wilhoit laments the fact that churches have abandoned formative, traditional ministries without replacing them.
What are some examples of 'formative, traditional ministries? In what sense are they traditional?
Bill,
I see what you mean about the 60's and 70's.
Ben,
I'm thinking more of Lance's MLI and Justin Meier's AMP.
You make a great point about ENGAGE replacing IMPACT, in that the story of ENGAGE is more the story of youth these days.
Bill, what I meant by "formative, traditional ministries" (at least in Wilhoit's terminology) would be things like Sunday evening worship and week-long revivals twice a year. They're traditional in that they were a staple of revivalism and countless numbers of American evangelicals grew up with them as a matter of course. And they're formative in that they provided a valuable means to strengthen fellowship (connection) and additional opportunities for spiritual growth in biblical instruction, preaching, and singing. For example, in the "old days," kids always had a Sunday School opening in which we learned traditional Bible songs (e.g. "The B-I-B-L-E") and acquired a pretty decent knowledge of Bible stories. (I devoured PIX.) Most churches have dropped the Sunday School opening, but what has replaced it? And is the new situation better?
It seems to me that we do very little catechesis (in the best understanding of that word) as we've dropped straight-through-the Bible curricula in favor of topical, technology-driven approaches. "Veggie Tales" has replaced teachers who passionately and lovingly instill Bible knowledge in children. For adults, consider the Workman Quarterly. What once was produced by CGGC people is now the Standard Publishing quarterly with the CGGC logo pasted on it. I'm sure the quality and consistency has improved (and cost of publishing), but what about the harder to define loss of CGGC perspective? And how many of us on the blog actually USE the Workman? Would we want to?
Brian: The MLI and AMP look very promising; I pray that each can engage a large number of leaders and change the CGGC culture. In terms of missions (my particular focus), we need to see churches of all varieties mobilized by a global perspective. I'm excited by the ICLF (International Church Leaders Fellowship) and how we can learn from each other.
brent,
you are correct that i have used postmodernism and relativism as synonyms, perhaps incorrectly so. but at least in my limited experience, people used postmodernism as a synonym for a truth-is-relative, everyone's-opinions-are-equal, "inclusive" mindset. i suppose the general problem i've had defining it otherwise is that its defined mainly as a loss of the past, not as thing in itself, but merely the rejection of modernism, leaving a sort of philosophical void. having never read the philosophers mentioned, if you could enlighten me as to a more proper (at least in this context) definition of postmodernism, it would greatly help me.
----------------------
on another note, i was not suggesting that we need to follow europe in its moving past relativistic/"postmodern" thought, but that i think, at least in the places i've been, either people never embraced it (here in plainfield) or were rapidly moving past it (particularly my final year at cornell). so my thought was that i'm not too worried about relativism, as it seems to me most people i have and do deal with hold rather strong opinions on many issues and do not consider all thoughts on the matter equal. i find my world to be increasingly polarized, not homogenized into bland nothingness.
i suppose my concern is that the church tends, as far as i've seen, and as many have said before, to be a decade or so behind the culture, and so our attempts to contextualize are often in line with yesteryear, not with the here-and-now. on the other hand, i prefer to be more proactive in creating culture rather than merely following it, which i think we tend to do at times (though, this needs to be tempered with proper thought to our context). am i making sense?
-----------------------
all,
at least among my peers, there is a strong movement to get beyond the often-watered-down seeker-sensitive version of churchianity, and move into the depth and beauty of a God Who is worth of worship and is solid enough to stand on in the midst of this world. that's why, i think, the new reformed guys are gaining such momentum: they present a God Who commands respect and is both worthy of obedience and is worth following, Who is both loving close as Dad and terrifyingly transcendent as Lord of all.
i think much of "evangelicalism", including the cggc, has lost the point that God is truly at the center of it all (though we pay lip service to that), and instead have put our behavior as the emphasis, whether in believing or in living "the Christian life" or even being "on mission". we've lost that we are but a part of the picture, that though we matter, we are the extras in the story of our Hero, Jesus. we've assumed that people know nature and character of God and focused on morality. as a result, Christians (including myself at times) tend to base our understanding of Him on feelings and assumptions rather than Scripture and sound doctrine that accords with the Word.
that may be tangential, but i feel it is relevant and needs to be said, especially in light of ben's last comment. your thoughts on this are most welcome.
brian,
i don't understand this part of your comment:
We can't go back to the old story. What will the new story be?
(Note: I'm not talking about the Gospel when I say story. I'm talking about the connecting cultural story that pulls the CGGC together.)
isn't the metanarrative of all history and Scripture, the "creative and redemptive work of God through Jesus Christ", of which the Gospel is the center and culmination - isn't that the only story we have? i'm pretty sure you'd agree with that, so i'm sure i must be missing something in your meaning. please help me out of my conundrum.
bill,
would it be correct to say, with respect to the 70s era, at least for either side (liberal/conservative, for lack of better terms), that there was greater unity because of the struggle they faced, because of a clear "enemy" and "battle to be won"?
Walt,
I just meant that while the Gospel is what centers all churches around a narrative, that the CGGC metanarrative that distinguishes her from other groups is something more than the Gospel, such as Sunday night services, revivals where CGGC pastors would take turns and therefore make connections, and feet washing services that were a major part of most churches.
Even Bill's description of a common enemy was the old story. What is the new story that binds? The more I think about this, the more essential I think this point is.
Walt,
I completely agree that postmodernism is often defined as relativism, a wishy-washy acceptance of truth, or even a "anything goes" mentality. There is not one all-encompassing definition of the term; but I'll do my best to summarize in more of a definitional form how I've come to understand the term:
The postmodern era can be understood as a time in which there is not one universal way to interpret and experience daily life (including religion, politics, and culture in general). What has replaced this one over-arching acceptance of the belief in Progress is a variety of smaller, competing narratives that vie for public acceptance.
I share your lack of concern for relativism. What we are dealing with in its place are a wide variety of people passionately promoting a wide variety of unique interests. Therefore, the contemporary challenge is to create a forum where these competing ideas can be heard and find a way to constructively navigate through the tensions created when these differences collide.
I am also not suggesting that everything postmodern is evil. There are many wonderful things that have emerged over the last 50 years due to the collapse of this metanarrative [also, I do not equate metanarrative strictly with religion or Christianity]. You can consider the Civil Rights movement as one positive example.
Let me know what you think about this. I'll be happy to write more.
Thanks for engaging the conversation.
Brian,
Thanks for refocusing this conversation around what the central story should be for the CGGC.
My whole point with this post is that we can better see the background of postmodernity so that we can have a clearer focus on the foreground narrative of the CGGC.
Over the past decade, I've read and heard many inside and outside the Church who give lip service to the value of "narrative." Unfortunately, few really understand the importance of having an institutional narrative. Even more difficult is working with an organization in an effort to help them identify, clarify, and retell a particular organizational story.
As I think about your comments a few questions emerge:
- Who is the primary storyteller?
- Who are the major characters?
- What is the major plotline?
As more and more people come into the CGGC who were raised within another church (or none at all) somebody has to be able to articulate who we are and what We Believe.
Unfortunately, those who are in the "official" leadership capacities are not always the ones who are most equipped to recognize and retell the story.
Ben,
It's not just at the denominational level that the events have disappeared. Think about the ARC and how Winter Retreat has changed over the past 15-20 years.
Brian,
I see hope in and through MLI but I fear that it will lead nowhere that 35,000 by 2000 didn't unless there is, well, macrorepentance. Unless we change our hearts, MLI could turn out to be just another CGGC program.
I pray every day that it won't be.
Ben,
Bill, what I meant by "formative, traditional ministries" (at least in Wilhoit's terminology) would be things like Sunday evening worship and week-long revivals twice a year. They're traditional in that they were a staple of revivalism and countless numbers of American evangelicals grew up with them as a matter of course. . .It seems to me that we do very little catechesis (in the best understanding of that word) as we've dropped straight-through-the Bible curricula in favor of topical, technology-driven approaches.
Good observations.
Sunday evening worship and revival services, of course, no longer fit. We do suffer because nothing takes their place.
Interestingly--and excuse me for stepping up on my soapbox--the lack of catechesis can be seen as an APEST issue. This would be a place in which the shepherd domination at the expense of the 'T' gift would come back to bite us hard.
walt,
i think much of "evangelicalism", including the cggc, has lost the point that God is truly at the center of it all (though we pay lip service to that), and instead have put our behavior as the emphasis, whether in believing or in living "the Christian life" or even being "on mission".
I could tweak that to say not 'including the CGGC' but to say, 'the CGGC as prominently as any group.'
There is something about the shepherd dominated leadership culture that is extremely narcissistic and, therefore, centered on people, not their Lord.
In today's church culture, there is an 'it's all about me' value that is waaaaaaaay too much like what the man and woman bought from the serpent in Genesis 3. I believe that your generation does see the error in the narcissism of the generation that parented it in the church.
To the degree that is true, I praise and thank God.
walt,
would it be correct to say, with respect to the 70s era, at least for either side (liberal/conservative, for lack of better terms), that there was greater unity because of the struggle they faced, because of a clear "enemy" and "battle to be won"?
We were, I believe, at a crucial time of paradigm shift. I was your age then and very new to the Churches of God and didn't understand what was going on then and am only trying to give meaning to it now.
Among the people in the two major camps there was close connection with each other but what happened was very complex because there were subcultures in both camps and there was also the complicating reality that many of the liberals and conservatives were, at the same time, deeply committed to the Christendom/Priest model of the church while there were, I think, both liberals and conservatives who wanted us to be truth-oriented like we were in our first days. So, you had 'Death of God' people and fundamentalists both being concerned that we were too lukewarm on truth, even though they opposed each other's idea of what truth is.
I think Richard Kern would have fallen in the liberal/truth camp while many of the rest of the seminary people would have fallen into the liberalish/Pastor-as-Priest camp.
What interests me is that the victory at the end of that time was, more than anything else, the victory of the Pastor-as-Priest paradigm.
The theological liberals were definitely purged but it would be far from the truth to say that evangelicals won because Evangelicals, especially in those days, were all about the authority of Scripture. The mnumentally important book, The Battle for the Bible was published, I think, in 1975 and, in the 1975 Doctrinal Statement, the authority of Scripture was shamefully buried as a sub-point under our belief in the Holy Spirit and in WB we buried our view of Scripture as the fourth most important point, something that would have displeased Winebrenner in a way that I can't imagine.
Brian, your question about what story binds the CGGC together puts words to an unspoken question we've all felt for a long time. I can't speak to the things that bind CGGC churches together (Impact, etc.), but the question of what would make one CGGC church like another intrigues me.
Whatever those elements were in the past (and I suspect the recipe shifted, like all culture, between 1830 and say, 1960), what I wonder now is how a diverse group like ours recaptures a common cultural story. It seems that the easiest time to have that common story is while the group is still in the momentum of the values that launched it to begin with.
I agree that we are not talking about the "gospel as the story" here, but a CGGC cultural story, but I also wonder if the only thing strong enough to be a new cultural glue is a paradigm for gospel and mission that arouses a significant number of leaders to cry "yes" and flock to that banner. I also suspect that if a distinct CGGC culture emerged again, only part of what is now the CGGC would be in it-- you can rake leaves in the wind, but you won't get them all.
i've heard that a good way to show understanding of terms is to rephrase them in your own words. so, in order to clarify and make sure i'm on the same page, let me use a theatre metaphor.
if the Gospel (in its broadest scope) is the overarching plot of the play, are we talking about our scene? the "mini-meta-narrative" that connects the breadth of our little time, like the reformation of the 16th century (with its fights with the papists and political upheaval) or the restorationism of the 19th century (with its camp revival meeting and itinerant evangelists) - is that what you mean by "our/the cggc metanarrative"?
Fran,
what I wonder now is how a diverse group like ours recaptures a common cultural story. It seems that the easiest time to have that common story is while the group is still in the momentum of the values that launched it to begin with.
This has been a concern of mine too--because I continue to feel the need to call us to repentance.
I have some thoughts:
1. While it is easiest early on for a group to have a common story, it is clearly possible to maintain a single story. We have examples. Two come immediately to mind. One is the Mormons. The other is the JWs.
What they have in common, I believe, is a story built on what Hirsch calls communitas, as opposed to community. When I did my dissertation, I was all but forced to do it on Feet Washing in the CGGC and I suspect that the reason my first reader was so adamant was he wanted to examine Feet Washing as a means for creating communitas among us. It seems to me that it did serve that function for a long time.
In any event, in my opinion, when the shepherds or the priests took over the CGGC, the idea that our people would have some defining experience to created deep community disappeared. Shepherds are the enemies of communitas.
2. If it will ever be the case that we have one shared story again, it will be through an act of repentance that gives birth to a CGGC remnant. That's, I believe, one way to understand the work of the prophets in the OT. They were calling for a new, shared movement based in repentance from which a new understanding of what it meant to be an Israelite/Jew could arise.
I think we have no hope unless we repent.
Brent,
I want to thank you for shifting the conversation to a philosophical view from the historical/theological view that I bring to it.
This is helpful.
Walt,
i've heard that a good way to show understanding of terms is to rephrase them in your own words. so, in order to clarify and make sure i'm on the same page, let me use a theatre metaphor.
Great question. Brent can you speak to this? The metaphor doesn't sound right to me but I can't put my finger on it.
Walt,
I'm not sure the idea of a scence captures the depth of the CGGC tradition. To follow your metaphor, scenes often advance the larger story of the play but they only last a fragment of the entire theatrical production.
If we're going to stay within the theatre metaphor, perhaps a better point of connection is a major character of the play. Even a small character is present throughout the entire production and traces his/her development to events scattered throughout the story.
I'm not sure a theatre metaphor, as you framed it, is the best way to capture the essence of what I'm talking about. So, let's keep talking and see if we can make better sense of this.
Post a Comment
<< Home