Tuesday, March 26, 2013

A Brief History of the Recent American Church

Ok, disclaimer... this is more like recent, protestant,
euro-american-centric church history with an eye
toward explaining the advent of the emerging and
post-emerging church... but that is way too long
for a title...

What we know as church today mostly comes from recent movements in human intellectual advances. The Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries and the trajectory since changed how humans saw the world. Modernity was founded. For the first time, western scholars believed that everything could be known, medicine could fix all ailments, wars would cease, peace would prevail with or without divine intervention. The modern thought process impacted the church in three distinct ways: It created two strands of church theology, fundamentalism and liberal theology; and it also created a strong anti-religion movement which has ultimately led to the new atheists.

Both liberal theology and fundamentalist theology rely on the modern concept that all things can be known. For the liberal theologian, it meant exegesis that tore open the biblical texts and searched for empirical truths by looking at the scriptures through historical and literary lenses. Myths and miracles could be explained away by understanding the context of the ancients writing styles and storytelling. Jesus could be better understood by listening through ears attuned to a cultural context that we attempted to understand. Most mainline seminaries continue to teach in the liberal theological tradition.

Meanwhile, the fundamentalists felt this liberal theological trend was getting away from the fundamentals of Christian faith. Also believing that all things could be known, the fundamentalists prescribed basic concepts that they required affirmation of in order for a Christian to truly be Christian. These included biblical literalism, a direct slap in the face to liberal theologians exegetical work; biblical inerrancy, which presupposes that God had a hand in all biblical scholarship; the virgin birth, a story that many liberal theologians had decided was essentially a “myth” that was meant to explain deeper truths; the bodily resurrection of Christ; and substitutionary atonement, the belief that Jesus died for our sins to appease God and the need for humans to petition Jesus for salvation in order to escape hell in the afterlife.

The 20th century was a period of separation between these two theological lines of thought while the growing atheist movement, which drew plenty of agnostics along with it, went from being a cultural abnormality to a cultural expectation among intellectual elites. This new movement would begin the work of intellectually driving a wedge between science and religion and ultimately create great unease among the Christian faithful. Where the liberal theologians had little difficulty keeping science and religion comfortably combined, their fundamentalist brethren had to disavow much of current scientific thought in order to maintain a hold on their purported fundamentals.

But in the early 20th century several things happened that began to bring about the collapse of the modern time period. The advent of World War I shook even the firmest foundational modernists, a war that not only unhinged the enlightened belief that peace would prevail but indeed escalated to include much of the world’s population. Further wars added to this failure and the Vietnam war of the mid-20th century put the nail in the proverbial coffin of modernity’s expectation for peace. In science, Quantum Theory undermined the notion of a predictable universe. If there is the potential for the quantum, now long since proven, then there is simply no way that all things could be known. The universe is not deterministic. The 1918 flu pandemic threw to the wind this idea that all disease could be abolished and a series of new viruses, including the AIDS virus, would challenge our medical theories. We were no longer living in a quantifiable, predictable world where all things could be known. Thus Postmodernity was born.

Postmodernity or no postmodernity, the church has a tendency to take a little while to catch up to the current intellectual mindset. The church that most of today’s society is familiar with was birthed from the modern movement. Our 1950’s white pillared protestant church with its committees and 10am Sunday morning hymn laden, sermon focused worship services is a product of the modern response that we can be enlightened and educated through hymnology and good preaching. This classic traditional worship could and can still be seen in congregations that value both fundamentalist as well as liberal theologians. Both were word heavy. Linguistic and musical learners have always been the mainstay of the modern church, which relies on a passive congregation receiving edification from the worship leaders.

In the 1970’s the contemporary church sprang up in order to respond to the growing atheist and unchurched movement. It was no longer culturally conditioned across America that people attend worship on Sundays or even go to church at all. Christendom was beginning to die in the western world and several church leaders responded by trying to “change the package without changing the message” in order to try to draw the unchurched back into the fold. Gone were the stain glass windows, the high pulpits (or indeed any pulpits). Gone were the pews and the visual symbolism. Gone were the hymns and the organ.

In auditoriums with new technology at their fingertips, the contemporary church began bringing the sounds of the current culture: rock and roll, punk, hip hop, rap, and alternative indie rock. A whole new music industry even developed around this new church movement. Liturgy was replaced by skits and music sets. The sermon still took center stage, but it would be accompanied by power point presentations and video clips. Churches grew at exponential rates as the contemporary church learned how to use modern marketing practices to bring in the crowds. In order to maintain some personal connection to individual congregants, small group ministries began to emerge. Discipleship classes became the mainstay of contemporary pastor types who promoted new programs. Starbucks and McDonalds could be found in the lobby of megachurches as they sought to cater to contemporary tastes.

To be continued….
(next month look for the advent of the emerging church and the continuation of the story…)

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Burlington High School Students Speak Out Against Racism


This is a MUST WATCH. Spend an hour and watch it...




Now, what are we going to do to respond?

Sunday, March 25, 2012

What's a Christian To Do? by Philip Holt (Ripple on March 20, 2012)

On some levels, a religion can be judged as good or bad based on whether or not it makes its adherents better people. In that case, what can be said about Christianity? History has seen it begin as a humble faith of the persecuted and oppressed, grow into an intolerant leviathan, and then, in some places, shrink to a matter of convenience.


It has been used as an excuse for everything from the butchery of men, women and children, to the burning at the stake of people who did nothing wrong. Nowadays, those sort of things are frowned upon, but the use of a forgiving and loving philosophy as an excuse for hate still goes on. The infamous “God hates Fags” slogan of the Westboro Baptist Church springs to mind. And I’m sure that Texas legislators would tell you they were following God’s teachings when they passed their abortion law. How the hell can we reconcile following the teachings of a wise man with the people who claim to follow them, but disobey them at every turn?

It can be done pretty simply. First, say that you don’t believe what they believe. Distance yourself from this poisonous excuse for theology. Then, poke holes in their logic. Big holes.

The first step is the easier one. All it takes is stating that you do not believe the same as the people who you disagree with. While this might seem difficult, it really isn’t. Working to follow Jesus’ ideals of kindness to others, charity and forgiveness is not that difficult. What is difficult is the mental doubletalk that it takes to for people to maintain the personal illusion that they can follow Jesus while also really, deeply hating someone. What we are called to do as Christians is to be accepting, forgiving and kind to all people, gay or straight, white or black, Democrat or Republican, Samaritan or priest. What Jesus didn’t want us to do is to ignore his teachings and use his name as a cover to oppress and belittle others. So distance yourself from the dark and twisty path of invoking Jesus’ name in all the wrong ways, because it ends in Crusades and Inquisitions.

After the easy step, it’s time for the fun one. When people cite Old Testament passages to cover up homophobia, point out to them that that same book also prohibits gossip, shaving, tattoos and mixed-fiber clothing (Leviticus 18:22, 19:16, 19:19, 19:27-28). Also keep in mind that they condone when someone tries to force their point of view by invoking God, ask them how a kind and forgiving god could accept this sort of belligerent and mean-spirited behavior. I think you can take the idea and run with it from here.



And running with it is what we should do. Run and run and run and spread the word that not all the people who call themselves Christians are belligerent, hypocritical, aggressive blowhards. That is one of the greatest challenges I can see before us as peacemakers, that of cleaning up the name of religion, of showing that it isn’t just a front for hateful opinions, but rather a place for learning and bettering yourself.


by Philip "Puxy" Holt
Freshman @ SBHS


"I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith." 2 Timothy 4:7

Saturday, October 22, 2011