A couple of days ago (Aug 25, 2006), Chicago Sun Times religion columnist Cathleen Falsani wrote a piece entitled “Weighty Matter: Is religion making us fat?” In the piece, she recited Adam Ant’s lyrics in the 80’s “Don’t drink, don’t smoke, what do ya do?” She raised the question whether those Christian denominations that prohibit drinking and smoking were not in fact doing what was left to do: abusing food as substitute for these other prohibited pleasures. In support of this, Falsani quotes Ken Ferraro’s study from Purdue University that studied churches as the potential feeding ground for the problem of obesity and gluttony in North America. Published in the June issue of the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, this study concluded (after accounting for several other factors) that some kinds of churches seem to encourage the problem of obesity. Ferraro in fact states that churches where drinking alcohol, smoking anything and even dancing are vices, “overeating has become the accepted vice.”

Now I come from one of those denominations. I minister under restrictions of no alcohol and tobacco. My denomination, along with others rooted in the old holiness movements of the turn of the century, still hangs on to the holiness codes that prohibit alcohol and tobacco for its clergy. I consider this to be “an adventure in missing the point,” to quote Brian McLaren, and I believe Falsani helps us see why. Let me explain.

If we prohibit certain behaviors as conditions of fitness for pastoral ministry, are we not really revealing the fear that we lack the character (or fitness) in the first place? If drunkenness and addictions that seek ultimacy other than in Christ is what we fear, why not name drunkenness and addiction as the symptoms that require discernment. Instead we prohibit all use as if to suggest we are hiding something. The total prohibition is a sign that we suspect we don’t actually have character formed in this direction in the first place. If this is true, we are we not really dealing with the issue of whether our clergy has fitness. We are just providing conditions to displace the lack of character (if it exists) to some other object that is safer, i.e. from tobacco, alcohol to food. We really do not have a test of fitness for ministry, just the means to obfuscate that the character may not be there at all.

Cathleen Falsani points to Jerry Falwell as exhibit A. in her Sun Times article. She says he exhibits the typical Baptist characteristic of shunning alcohol and tobacco yet overdoing on the food. The result has been numerous health issues for Rev Falwell. I have no desire to beat up on Rev Falwell. I want to be careful here about painting a broad-brush stroke across all of us who have struggled with weight. Please hear me. That’s not my point. I am someone who’s had food and weight problems. And I’ve had my own recent crisis with diabetes as a result. Rather, what I am trying to show here is how the holiness codes of my denomination and others do not address the issue, they merely reveal the symptom of the Real, what lies underneath.

Slavoj Zizek, post postmodernist (if there is such a thing) cultural critic, is famous for his use of Lacanian (post Freudian) analysis to help us see the ways cultures can manifest symptoms of the Real in ways that surprise and confound their own symbolic networks. I might just suggest a Zizekian move here and suggest, that in relation to our denominational holiness codes, Jerry Falwell is the symptom of the Real. That in the zeal of evangelicals to be different than culture, they have in essence revealed that nothing is really different. Instead the “hard kernel of the Real” has irrupted in the body of Jerry Falwell and the obesity epidemic in our holiness coded churches. As a result, the holiness codes and Falwell reveal the Truth. In Zizek’s words, “we overlook the way our act is already part of the state of things we are looking at, the way our error is part of the Truth itself.” (The Sublime Object of Ideology p. 59).

In the end, character is about the ordering of one’s appetites towards God’s purposes in creation through a purified vision of Christ and His glory. It is an orientation given through practices of worship in Scripture infused by the Holy Spirit. To have character as James McClendon says, “is to enter at a new level of morality, the level at which one’s person, with its continuities, its interconnections, its integrity, is intimately involved in one’s deeds. By being the persons we are (in Christ - my words) able to do what we do … “. (Biography as Theology p.30). If such desires are not ordered, if such desires are not integrated, holiness codes can only cover up the existing problem. The holiness codes then become a case of misrecognition. And as Zizek states, “the Truth arises from misrecognition.” (p.57). Thus we have obesity as an epidemic in our churches. .

More and more, the new generations cannot stomach these holiness codes. I have regularly met with outstanding candidates for ministry but who raise their eyebrow at my denomination’s persistence on its holiness codes for clergy. This is because these codes are not holiness. Instead, they trivialize holiness. They speak of a lack of character and virtue instead of one who does possess it. And so the lack of character may be subdued by the ideologies of holiness codes, but the “kernel of the Real” exposes its ugly head in our obesity.

The real question for us holiness denominations if we would ever be taken seriously by the postmodern generations (and our credibility slips everyday we hold onto to these “legalistic, and unbiblical” codes of behavior - e.g. there is no Bible verse prohibiting drinking alcohol, quite the contrary)… is whether we have the wherewithal within our doctrine and practice of following Christ so as to be sanctified in such a way as to be trusted with a drink or a stogie. The real issue that our denominational leaders should then turn to, concerning the fitness of its clergy, is the commitment to a holy life and what that would look like as worked out in a community. Obviously this refers to issues of so-called “personal holiness” (is any holiness personal?) like drunkenness, addictions that reveal our lack of dependence and prayer upon God including tobacco, pornography, gambling and food! But this should also include how we handle money, how we engage the poor, how we speak to our neighbors, whether we engage in conflict in holy and Christ like ways. We should not resort to legalism! To the postmodern generations, “no alcohol, no tobacco” speaks only to a religion of rules meaning people who don’t really believe what they say enough to live it.

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School invited me to come and be part of a five member panel discussion entitled “Culture Transit: Laying Down a Track for the Church.” Each of the five panel members was to write a statement on the subject “Where is the church now and where should it go?” Each of us was to read our statement and then be addressed by another member of the panel. The dean of the seminary, Dean Tite Tienou, moderated. The interaction both from the panel and the audience was good. Dr. Tienou was masterful. The piece delivered by Glen Kehrien from Circle Urban Ministries caused a stir over the continued segregation of the evangelical church. Although this seems to be a subject well worn and in need of new tactics that subvert the individualist and capitalistic evangelical theologies that have so far accomplished little in this regard. Other presenters were provocative and engaging as well. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School is to be commended for putting on such an event during their new student orientation. And I was honored to be invited and to participate.

My piece caused some stir as well. As I read it up there (in front of the gathering), I must admit it did sound somewhat over-done (I repent - I wrote it late one night before leaving for vacation). I can see how people might misinterpret my words here: people from both fundamentalist points of view and emerging church points of view. What was most curious was a critique I received from one of the faculty that suggested that the issue for the church is propositional truth? This confused me and I still do not know if I understood what concerns he was addressing towards me. So for my own clarification, I offer this piece for your reading. Any comments as to where I have gone wrong would be much appreciated! Many will recognize themes from my book the Great Giveaway.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WHERE IS THE CHURCH NOW AND WHERE SHOULD IT GO?

When I say church here, I speak about the evangelical church, the church where I have been born, become a pastor and an ordained servant of Christ. I believe we as a church in America are in trouble. I believe we’ve lost our way. I believe we have a.) accommodated ourselves to American culture in such a way that we have become another example of the mistake of protestant liberalism. And in the process, I believe we have b.) lost our calling that is given to all “the saved,” that is the calling to be the embodiment of Jesus Christ amidst society and the nations.

In regard to a.) I believe that evangelical church in its attempt to reach those without the gospel has accommodated itself to the languages of individualism, the habits of consumer capitalism, and the organizational forces of American business. We could do this because we have viewed salvation as largely an individualist transaction instead of the participation of God’s people in the cosmological salvation of God through the person and work of Jesus Christ. We could do this because we placed such faith in secular discourses like modern science and business technique (apologetics, business principles of leadership). In the process we have organized church life around the busy lives of Americans living the dreams of capitalism and democracy that leave little time for mission, community and worship. I fear the “church” for evangelicals has in George Hunsberger’s words, become “the distributor of religious goods and services.” As a result, I fear we evangelicals are becoming less and less noticeable and barely distinguishable as a people from the rest of our society who live as if God does not exist.

In regard to b.) I believe that evangelical church has lost the calling of God upon us to be the church of Jesus Christ in society. We evangelicals don't need the church to live salvation because we have personal salvation augmented by reason, science and immediate experience it seems. In some ways frankly, we can do without the Church. And so, the church in essence is left to be a sideshow to what God is doing for, in and through individuals. We no longer have a need for the church to be the social manifestation of His Lordship where He reigns over the powers of sin, evil and death, the very inbreaking of the kingdom of God, where His mighty works are made manifest and put on display before the world (1 Pet 2:9), where hospitality is such an overpowering ethos that the lost in this world are compelled by this invitation. As it is right now, we lack a way of life that people look at and see and say, “Look what manner of life has been made possible in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Our witness has been lost because we don't see “the church” as God’s strategy for the salvation of the world.

Where we must go? Let us reclaim the practices of being His Body. I count these as community, hospitality, embodied witness, truthful formative worship, preaching of the Word, justice both internal and then external to His body, spiritual formation as a Body, and the catechesis of our children as a community. The church becomes a culture in order to engage a culture. The church is the social strategy. We cannot know what parts of culture, justice or works of righteousness are faithful in the world, until we have discerned them as His Body from which we engage the world and perhaps make partnerships in the world, all under the Lordship of Christ. In short, let us embody the mission of Christ, in not just what we do or say, but also in who we are.

------------------------------------------------

That was it. Any comments?

Jamie Smith has written a superb book entitled "Who's Afraid of Postmodernism?" In the book, Jamie makes three of the seminal authors of postmodernity, Lyotard, Derrida, and Foucault, accessible to the uninitiated in continental philosophy. He then makes an excellent case for a reinvigorated ecclesiological practice as a response. Jamie's book is the beginning of a new series that Baker is doing with the aim to make many of these thinkers accessible to the broader Christian public. I heartily recommend this first one and use it in my classes at Northern as one of the introductions to postmodern thought.

I've been interviewed on the new blog website for the book series. There's some good comments in response to the interview. If you have time, check it out here. If not, here's the interview part of the post on the church and postmodernism.

-----------------------------------------------

An exchange over “Who’s Afraid?” with David E. Fitch, planting pastor of Life on the Vine, the Lindner Chair of Evangelical Theology at Northern Seminary, and author of The Great Give Away.

churchandpomo: In the introduction of the Church and Postmodern Culture Series, Smith writes that "the series will provide accessible introductions to postmodern thought with the specific aim of exploring its impact on ecclesial practice." There is a constant criticism made against those who dabble and/or dive into postmodernity, that you have substituted postmodernity for the gospel. We see this criticism from two different Wilson's: (Douglas) Wilson on James K.A. Smith, and (Jonathan R.) Wilson on David E. Fitch. How do you respond to this critique of your work and Smith's?

David E. Fitch: When it comes to engaging culture, evangelicals are captivated/horrified by “contextualization.” Whether it is the enduring influence of H. Richard Niebuhr over us, or our endemic modernism which inevitably privatizes our faith and makes it into an idea to be “translated” into a given culture, we evangelicals are obsessed with contextualizing the gospel as a “message” into a particular culture. To think that the person and work of Jesus Christ demands that we ourselves embody a politic in the form of the church with given social practices that engage society as an embodied presence, is completely alien to the evangelical mind. Therefore, whenever Jamie or I use the postmodern critique to expose the weaknesses of current church practice as it has been captivated by modernity, evangelical authors automatically assume that we are trying to contextualize the gospel to this new cultural phenomenon - postmodernity. In both our cases, they couldn’t be more wrong.

Although I have nothing against contextualization per se, Jamie nor I have this in mind as we present our various takes on postmodernity as a critique of current American church practice. We are both simply trying to unveil what the critique of postmodernity reveals about both our current culture and our current church practice. We are using the postmodern authors to unveil the huge shortcomings of current church practices all because of our indebtedness to modernism and all its manifestations. The response we both offer, however, is not to contextualize a church to postmodernity, but rather to reinvigorate an ecclesiology for our times. As Jamie states “it might just be these Parisians who can help us be the church.” (p.23).

c&p: Smith notes that many practitioners (say within the Emerging Church) give an approving nod to postmodern philosophers, but rarely move beyond slogans or trite summaries. After tipping a hat to philosophy, many claim that everyday life needs attention. Why is engaging with postmodern philosophy important to you, and how do you see it hitting the roads of 'real' life?

DF: It is ironic that the church which turns out to be most modern, the church which turns out to carry out protestant liberal strategies in terms of ecclesiology, is the evangelical church, the version of American Christianity from which both Jamie and myself come and remain aligned with. The fact that many evangelicals when they read this may be dumbfounded by that statement is simply the evidence of how little we evangelicals understand about our own indebtedness to modern assumptions, politics and way of life. To me, this confusion extends even to many in the emerging church. As I have said elsewhere, protestant liberalism and evangelical fundamentalism are two sides of the same coin. And so it is odd that many of our emerging church pastors, as well as many of our most modernist mega church pastors, all seek to engage social justice on terms that only make sense in a society where a modernist politics still make sense. Many of these pastors put forth ideas about kingdom theology, social justice, and engagement with culture that are as old as Tillich, Niebuhr, Raushenbush etc. They somehow present these ideas as new? Yet these are all failed theologies both in terms of practice and in terms of the postmodern philosophers and post foundational theologians we all seem to be reading (and in the case of Jamie, myself, and the emergent writers seem to find benefit from).

This is why it is so important to understand these postmodern philosophers, thinkers and critiques at such a time as this. It is into these situations that I believe the insights of postmodern authors on the issues of subjectivity, the Other, democracy and capitalism, and the nature language and reality are so powerful for understanding the very issues we must engage as a social presence in the world where the modern consensus is heading into an implosion called “late capitalism.” For this reason I believe the emergent authors, the mega church pastors, the Christian church that still exists, has so much to learn and understand from the postmodern critique. This is why what Jamie has done in his own book “Who’s Afraid of PostModernism?” and what he has done in creating this series of books is so important.

c&p: At the end of chapter one, Smith, laying out the contours of his appropriation of postmodernism, notes that we must shift from an apologetics of demonstration (reason) to one of proclamation (through ecclesial witness). Why do people get so upset with Smith and others for saying that "the church doesn't have an apologetic; it is an apologetic”?

DF: Many of the “younger evangelicals” are afraid of anything that smacks of withdrawal from culture. They were raised in a brand of fundamentalism that preached “separation” from culture, withdrawal. All culture is bad! They don’t want to go back to anything close to that and I don’t blame them. To say “let the church be the church” as Stanley Hauerwas has made famous and Jamie reiterates here with a new twist in “Who’s Afraid?” scares these ex-evangelicals. They suspect this theological turn could be used as an excuse to withdraw from the culture.

Let me allay any fears. Jamie is not suggesting anything of the sort. Rather he is suggesting, along with myself, and certainly spearheaded by Hauerwas (although Jamie is more Reformed than either Hauerwas or myself) that the church as an embodied presence is the social strategy in the new fragmented worlds of declining modernity. The church becomes the means of a living breathing display of justice from which we engage the world with an all the more compelling justice that comes out of God’s work in the church. From such a social display, our ability to support justice efforts and even know which justice efforts to join hands with is made more possible because we have such an embodied justice to live and discern out of. But by possessing a justice that is a politic of the cross (Yoder), by making justice more than something we do, but indeed something we are, we are able to remove justice from being a mere idea or concept and instead allow justice of God to become part of our way of life in the ways we live and engage the world. In fragmented modernity, this is only possible if we take the church seriously as a politic with integrity of its own.

c&p: Lastly, do you have any final comments on your reaction to Jamie’s book?

DF: “Postmodern” is easily the most misunderstood word in American church. In addition, postmodern philosophy is largely inaccessible to average pastor or M.Div educated reader. Many authors have written primers for postmodernism that have failed to do anything to alleviate this situation. It is simply hard to find anyone who has intimate familiarity with the primary sources yet will take the time to write in terms that all of us practitioners can understand. Before Jamie’s book I thought this was impossible.

But I say congratulations to Jamie because he has done a marvelous job at introducing Foucault, Lyotard and, yes, Derrida in an accessible way. Since its release, I have used this book in all my classes on church in the postmodern context at Northern Seminary. But Jamie does not stop at helping us understand these three seminal authors of Continental postmodern philosophy. He gives us a wonderful engaging response which helps us see the compelling case postmodernity makes way for, the case for the church to return being the church, a social strategy, an embodied presence in the world, all of which is sadly lacking in the evangelical world from whence both Jamie and I come.

While I was away in Canada, I stopped by the Freeway Café (Hamilton, Ontario) and visited with good friends Pernell Goodyear and Nathan Colquhoun. They are so graciously helping me ungrade my blog. Coming this fall, I am changing the blog’s title to “Reclaiming the Mission .com” There wil be no need to change your link if you currently link to “the great giveaway.” I am changing the blog away from the title of my book “the Great Giveaway” and instead moving it towards its subtitle as I seek to widen the discussion and scope of this blog. I hope to continue with two to three mini-blog essays a month on topics on emerging ministry issues, postmodernity and evangelicalism. I also hope to blog two or three times a month on personal stuff I am seeing, participating in and receiving as part of pastoring Life on the Vine, teaching at Northern, and speaking at various events which I am doing more of these days. Hopefully you’ll tune in and chime in as we continue the discussion as to how to go forward as ministers of Christ in these new N. American contexts and theological currents called post-modern, post Christian, post secular. Look for the new look on the blog upcoming this fall. Thanks to Nathan and Pernell … they are true friends I could not do without.

I’m back. RaeAnn, Max and I went away to Canada for some vacation. We had a restful time - an enjoyable time. For me, it takes two weeks away from everything to get a rest. We almost lost the second week when our cottage got canceled because the owner didn’t receive our check in the mail. But whew … we found another cabin through some contacts we made (uh Rae Ann made). And so I feel recuperated.

In our society, vacations sometimes become an end instead of a means, a reward for me because of all my hard work, instead of a discipline which shapes us for further mission. Vacations in our society, strangely can become a status symbol, a luxury item, something to actually be talked about and used to help with our identity - “I just returned from a vacation to Cancun, where did you go this year?” In our society, it is like there are expectations placed on vacations to somehow be exciting, push the level of danger, adventure … vacation becomes an “experience” sold to us by travel companies. The emotional investment in these kind of vacations scares me. In our society we spend fortunes on vacations. In our society we take vacations because “I deserve it.” “I earned this vacation” as if the reason I worked all year was to take this exotic vacation. These kind of vacations simply don’t interest me. They exhaust me. They are a set up for disappointment. I don’t recommend vacations like this.

Instead, I recommend going away to a familiar place far enough away so that the routine and e-mails are broken, yet familiar enough that no stress or time need be spent planning what to do, where to go, or how to eat. I recommend doing simple things like spending time on a beach, reading books, eating together around a barbecue. I recommend doing familiar traditions so as to slow oneself down, get some silence and introspection time … in other words, see vacation as a monastic practice. Plan for times with God, pray the hours, have a lot of silence by a beach. Pastors go at things hard for a long season. So much of our time, so many people need a piece of us. I don’t need more activity, or the stress of trying to create activity. I need getting away from the phones, schedules, e-mails.

Now I realize that many people see this as a terrible vacation. There are always two kinds of vacation people. Vacation people like me, and vacation people who view vacations as always about “doing novel things.” The latter simply won’t understand the challenge to “see vacation as a monastic practice.”

My body flipped this past year as I was diagnosed with early diabetes. Much of this, including my many symptoms, was due to stress, and of course poor eating and exercise which comes from stress. I’ve been on the mend and doing well. But the stress will come. If you live like me, and you’re a pastor, professor, and do other jobs as well to pay the bills, you can’t entirel;y avoid stress. Modern life surrounds us and incorporates us into its systems. And we simply can’t sustain life even as a pastor, without good rest, quiet and restorsation. It all demands we pull back, recupe and get in touch with our selves, the calling of God in mission, and our bodies. So pastors, TAKE A VACATION! Thanks to my church and all the men and women leaders at Life on the Vine for giving me and my family a vacation!