I was up late last night and my mind started racing. I was thinking about how all assumptions about church planting changes once you no longer can assume the culture is Christian. It is actually quite humorous to think of some of the old assumptions about church planting that some of us grew up with. Boy have the times changed. Since not all of us are necessarily living in places where Christendom has died, I thought I'd offer my thoughts in terms of the following 10 signs that may indicate Christendom in over in your neck of the woods too.

10 Signs That Christendom May Be Over

1. You do a survey in the neighborhood asking people what they're looking for in a church on Sunday morning and they respond by saying "they never heard of such a thing."
2. You fill in that yearly report card for church plants from the denomination … and when you get to the question about how many converts made decisions for Christ this year, no one asks if they can count Catholics in the church as "converts" anymore.
3. The local District says all ministries must be self-supporting in 3 years … and you ask what does "self supporting" mean? Because we already have jobs.
4. You invite your neighbors to the new video simulcast church plant down the street .. and they ask you why they just can't stay at home and watch it on cable.
5. You send out 10,000 postcards inviting people to come to a more relevant church … and 10 people show up asking for tickets to the Oprah show.
6. Your grandmother tries to explain why her church used to have a Sun. morning, Sun. evening and midweek service every week … and every body thinks she's crazy.
7. People mistake your Jesus tattoo for Che Guevara and ask why you prefer Marxism to postmodernity. You end up inviting people over for a coffee and talking about Jesus as an alternative politics.
8. A denominational official visits your church and asks about your foreign missions program. Someone in your congregation mistakenly responds by sending him to the local department office of immigration
9. No one says any more before the offering: "if you're visiting please do not feel obligated to contribute." Now it's "if you're visiting, this is what it means to be a Christian: we're in this together and your money is not your own."
10. When the pastor was announcing a new church "building project" he was not referring to a new church building, he was talking about the community's Habitat for Humanity venture in the neighborhood.

--------------------------------
These are just a start... anyone have another one to add?

On the passing of Christendom, I might recommend this book and this one as well.

Yo! One quick reminder that there is still time for anyone interested to get registered for the first-ever Midwest Emergent Gathering, July 20-21 in Rolling Meadows.

Mike and Julie Clawson of Up/rooted West have done alot of work on this along with many other friends. The conference is bringing together Tony Jones (Emergent Village), Denise Van Eck (Mars Hill Bible Church), Spencer Burke (theOoze.com), Nanette Sawyer (Wicker Park Grace), Doug Pagitt (Solomon's Porch), and Alise Barrymore & James King (The Emmaus Community) and an astounding array of missional thinkers and practicioners. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DID IT! There will be many more workshops and times to converse about missional/emerging church. Kudos to Mike, Julie and all the others contributing to make this happen. There is still time to register. Furthermore, I hear they still need help with volunteers. You can connect with them via the conference website here (Midwest Emergent Gathering) or click on to the banner on my sidebar.

I'll only be able to be there Friday. But I would love to connect with any friends over a coffee and talk theology and/or catch up with what you're doing in your missional gatherings. Anyone coming who wants to connect, let me know please if you're going to be around Friday via he blog here or my e-mail at "the Vine."

Blessings on the Midwest gathering!

Kevin Vanhoozer et al.'s Everyday Theology is a new book on the cultural studies scene. The subtitle is "How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends." It is co-edited by two of Vanhoozer's students (and doctoral candidates) Charles Anderson and Michael Sleasman.

As I said here, too often the default mode of cultural engagement (especially for protestants) is to see God and truth in all of culture by looking for correlations in culture with ready truths of Christian theology (ala Tillich). The other side of this is the fundementalist rejection of all culture as somehow a sphere of human activity detached and in separation from God. Most evangelicals and Americna protestants want nothing to do with this so they all too often join up on the Tillichian bandwagon. I believe Vanhoozer (and friends) offers us in this book a mode of cultural hermeneutic which avoids these pratfalls.

The biggest contribution of this book comes from the first essay by Vanhoozer himself. It is entitled "What is Everyday Theology?: How and Why Christians Should Read Culture." This is a thick methodological essay that perhaps tries to accomplish too much in one essay. Yet for someone (like myself) who teaches in the area, a single methodological essay like this is just what the doctor ordered! It contains a concise history of the back ground to culture studies as well as a theory of cultural signs that enables one to engage them as texts with an inherent integrity on their own and well as theologically, for what they say to us about the reality of God. This is important for as Vanhoozer tells us, culture orients us to the world through cultivating habits and moods. Culture shapes our imaginations as opposed to arguing over propositions via reason. Therefore, we need to engage culture with this in mind knowing culture is shaping the very dwelling place we are inhabiting, the very ways we can or cannot imagine God.

To understand this about culture reiterates some common themes for me about the failure of evangelical church. First, we evangelicals have not engaged culture enough to either inhabit it or speak from within it. Too often we have withdrawn. Neither have we paid attention to our own culture of Christianity sufficiently to realize we are failing miserably at shaping the imaginations of our own people to allow them to see the way God is working in our own lives and the world around us. We have in a sense opted out of the work of culture formation leaving the minds of our people helpless and submitted to the only culture left, Hollywood, Wall Street and the American dream. In comparison to this, the culture of evangelicalism is either boring and lifeless and so a total capitulation to these forces (prosperity gospel, Jesus is my therapy etc.) is the only option evangelicals have left.

Vanhoozer gives us some tools to approach culture as Christians that calls evangelicalism out of its cultural malaise. In this regard, one of Vanhoozer's key insights is that we must approach cultural products as texts. "If culture is made up of "works" and "worlds" of meaning. … Culture is what we get when humans work the raw material of nature to produce something significant . Let us call the products of such work cultural texts. Why "texts"? Because a text is intentional human action, a work that communicates meaning and calls for interpretation. This is exactly what cultural works do. (p. 26)." Let us not confuse Vanhoozer's use of "texts" with some propositional exegesis oriented way of seeing a text. Vanhoozer is following philosopher Paul Ricouer here where each cultural text can be examined for the world behind, of and in front of the cultural text (p. 48). Cultural texts are much more than mere documents produced by culture. They are any kind of sign, symbol, media, artifact that communicates something about our values, our concerns, our self understanding. Amidst the myriad of ways proposed these days by cultural theorists to analyse cultural sites, Vanhoozer's proposal to look at cultural signs (artifacts, media, figures, movies etc.) as texts is helpful (although not without potential dangers to those over zealous seekers of "authorial intent"). His proposal helps guide a method of cultural analysis that is simple enough to follow yet complex enough to cover the multiple angles one must cover in approaching a cultural symbol for its (multiple) meanings, its functions within society and its effects upon the consumers of culture.

Perhaps the highlight of this essay is Vanhoozer's challenge to Christians that we become an effective community of cultural agents of the gospel. This involves first, interpreting culture in light of a biblical theological framework and second, interpreting Scripture by embodying gospel values and truths in concrete cultural forms. For Vanhoozer, TO BE A CULTURAL AGENT IS TO BE A PERSON ABLE TO MAKE HIS OR HER OWN MARK ON CULTURE RATHER THEN SIMPLY SUBMIT TO CULTURAL PROGRAMING (p.55). VANHOOZER DRAWS UPON GRAMSCI TO CALL ALL CHRISTIANS TO BECOME "ORGANIC INTELLECTUALS": intellectuals not sequestered in ivory towers but directly connected to a certain people group … who disseminate worldviews by calling into question customary ways of thinking and acting, thus challenging the people's consent to the prevailing order." (p.57) This is what Vanhoozer means by "everyday theologians."

If there is one haunting spectre to Vanhoozer's proposal it is this. Can Christians be this and or do this in any way apart from being a Christian culture itself? Through the essay there is a danger in thinking that here is a method that I as an individual can learn and master to become a cultural critic, translator, bridgebuilder and change agent all by myself. The problem for me however (maybe I've read too much Foucault) is how do I possibly escape the cultural web I am being shaped in sufficiently to engage the culture? How do I escape the cultural imagination I have been immersed in long enough to possibly engage it theologically without being subsumed by it already in another form? To me, unless we engage some of these cultural forces as a community, in some sense producing and interacting as a culture ourselves out of the history we already have in Christ, we too as individuals shall succomb to the mind-numbing forces of the culture industries of America. Is this not why evangelical church already looks a lot like Disney on Sunday mornings, or Tony Robbins in a stadium, or Wal-Mart making available Jesus in ready made convenient consumer choices?

This is why I take heart at Vanhoozer's statement at the close of his essay. "When the people of God learn to read the signs of the times and to respond to culture so that they become a sign of the end time, they will have achieved not only cultural literacy but counter-cultural wisdom. For the church is to be a contrast society, an ecclesial excorporation that demonstrates a way of living blessedly here and now by taking not only every thought but every cultural text and way of life captive to Jesus Christ. What the world needs now are Christian cultural agents who demonstrate the understanding of faith by performing the gospel and giving concrete form to the kingdom of God wherever two or more are gathered, in the country garden, the city gate, the megachurch, the multiplex."p.59

Here's some questions evoked by Vanhoozer. In what ways has evangelical Christianity failed at engaging culture? Are there just some things in culture that are not capable of being taken captive to Jesus Christ that evangelicals had no business incorporating? i.e. Megachurch- Wal-Mart? Are there things we have shunned that are avenues for witness? i.e. Beer? Can we please have a theology which gives the artists a place alongside other interpreters of Scripture? How should we use movies as cultural bridges to the gospel? (I admit I have the bad habit of using movies (not clips in sermons BTW) as narrative exegesis tools almost every Sunday). Any other comments to Vanhoozer and my take on him?

Mark Van Steenwyk is at it again: questioning the emergence of oligarchy in organizations like Emergent and Allelon. He points to a wonderful article by Ginny Hunt (cited by Len at NextReformation here) where she gives 5 principles for allelon (greek for "one for another") based ways of organizing. These five principles are:

1) Power should be used to help others become powerful. This is the opposite of what usually happens. Power usually begets more power, but in the Kingdom of God, the citizens seek to use power to equalize power.

2) Power should be distributed as widely as possible among individuals and organizations. The law of oligarchy says that power usually concentrates in the hands of a few people. While there will always be varied degrees of power within human organizations, we ought to work to diffuse and decentralize power where possible.

3) Hierarchy in social governance should be reduced to a minimum. Kraybill uses the analogy of a ladder to demonstrate social hierarchies. He says the ladder should be flattened out. As that happens, coordination and cooperation replaces domination.

4) Authority for leadership should be freely given by the led. Leadership should not be imposed on a group nor self-appointed. Leadership naturally arises when it is freely given by the ones being led to the leader in response to the leader?s servant posture.

5) The Christian perspective looks down the ladder. The normal human tendency is to climb the ladder as quickly as possible, but the followers of Jesus work to serve the powerless at the bottom.

I find these principles a compelling formulation for Christian leadership for our times. I find Mark's comments timely as groups like Allelon and Emergent head towards new stages of their development. Of course, to some extent, all organized efforts, will find it hard to resist the spatializing forces of American distribution, media and business. I consider myself a friend, supporter and participant in Emergent and Allelon. I love both of these organizations. I know they will listen to Mark on this. At the same time, inevitably, these organizations, as they gain clout and media force, become a vortex for a forming oligarchy. Media exposure, publishing influence tends to shape ego. Forces emerge that constantly push and tug names into becoming a "club" where people are vying and (dare I say "competing") for visibility. I don't know if we can blame Emergent or Allelon or other organizations for this. Or at least single them out. For at least they are talking about it. Nonethless, it makes me sick how I inevitably get caught up in these games. I see others doing the same and it makes me want to puke. In the last few weeks, as I've had meetings, telephone conversations, and long walks, I have been asking myself how I can resist these sickening temptations into these COMPETITIVE POSITIONING games within many national organizations of clout (not just Emergent or Allelon).

For me, I am convinced ... that I must resist these urges. For these games are so easy to fall into. And I believe these games distract from and sometimes even derail the furtherance of the Kingdom of God. For me, this kind of resistance, and keeping one's humble focus on the kingdom work set before me, requires spiritual formation. I'll suggest quickly a few regular practices for such spiritual formation.

1.) The Lord's prayer every morning, every night, and during the day, when I go on those long walks with God. I say it verbatim. Then I say it in my own words. Then I have silence. The phrase "Thy Kingdom Come, Thy Will be done, on earth (right here in this) as it is in heaven" is a key moment of spiritual formation for me.

2.) Allow fellow leaders, younger, less experienced, and with less education and knowledge than yourself to have authority in your life (by the Spirit). For me, it's most often a co-pastors group at our church. And then, EVEN WHEN they tell you things about your life and ministry that you know is bogus, "eat the crap," sit there and take it, and pray over it for days. This happened to me last weekend. I still think they were wrong on alot of things. Nonetheless I learned some things about myself. Furthermore, just the act of submission formed me a little further into the kind of leader Ginny talks about above. And it gained trust and empowerment for others.

3.) Never make unilateral decisions in a church. We have a Worship Committee which dialogues about our spiritual life at "the Vine." I regularly say around the church verbally that I "never make unilateral decisions" just so I'll never be tempted or allowed to. Normally, unless there is a doctrinal issue at stake (this takes explaining), I or the other pastors are automatically over ruled when "three or more agree" against us.

4.) Never stop inquiring about other people's gifts. If you see someone doing something well and with graced power, ask about it, name it, push them forward, empower them. I do this alot at "the Vine." Many times encouraging people has resulted in some failures (not moral ones). I personally don't think this is bad. For people have learned more about who they are in the Kingdom and are more ready to go to where they are called.

5.) All pastors should have to do some dirty work. As busy as I am, last week I shopped for groceries at midnight Saturday for our church wide potluck Sunday. Matt (another pastor) took care of the septic problem at the church building. People in the church are always telling me that as a busy pastor/professor, I should give up the details. I should, but not all of them. These menial tasks are what teach me that I am in, part of and a servant of the Body.

I've got more. But what about the rest of you? Any spiritual formation practices for resisting Oligarchy?

_______________________

PS .. don't forget Pernell Goodyear at Up-rooted on Third Places Thursday 7 p.m. at the Vine.
Also ... I'll be reviewing Vanhoozer's Everyday Theology next up.

I am going to review Kevin Vanhoozer's et. al.'s Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends (Baker Academic) on my next post. But I need to say a few things first about the current state of cultural engagement in the evangelical church in order to tell you why I think it is a timely and important book. Here goes.

Most Christians approach culture in one of two ways. One way says all of culture is bad. All culture by definition is separated from God and therefore should be shunned. This is the way of many so-called fundamentalists. This way misses the point that every human being in that he or she speaks a language and goes to the bathroom is already deeply embedded in a culture. The other way says that all culture is good. This is the way of all those who can't stand being a fundamentalist any more. For these people, "all truth is God's truth." And all we need to do is be thoughtful and reflective in understanding culture and we can find what is there that can correlate with God working and the truths we know through Christ. Influenced by Tillich and H. Richard Neibuhr, the truths of the gospel can somehow be found and applied to all cultural manifestations. Sometimes influenced by Reformed notions of Common Grace, these Christians look for the good in all of human cultural activity not recognizing that there are forces, powers, even orders of creation turned in rebellion against God which can no longer be redeemed or participated in (e.g. we cannot redeem a porn theatre for Christ). This of course is a way over-simplification of Tillich (for which I apologize). But you get the sense of how Tillich can be misappropriated by this quote from his Theology of Culture (1959) p.41:

If religion is the state of being grasped by ultimate concern, this state cannot be restricted to a special realm. The unconditional character of this concern implies that it refers to every moment of our life, to every space and to every realm. The universe is God's sanctuary. Every work day is a day of the Lord, every supper a Lord's Supper, every work the fulfilment of a divine task, every joy a joy in God. In all preliminary concerns, ultimate concern is present, consecrating them. Essentially the religious and the secular are not separated realms. Rather they are within each other.

There is a subtle truth in Tillich's words. Yet people who go uncritically in this direction find God in everything. Every movie becomes a piece of revelation. And every cultural development is something to used for the gospel.

There is of course a third way. It is a much more nuanced way of looking at culture. For it says at once both that we cannot escape culture and yet we must discern it. Yet we cannot discern it being separated from it. The work of John Howard Yoder (Authentic Transformation), and more recently Craig Carter (Rethinking Christ and Culture) have pushed us in these directions asking Christians to be critical in the way we engage our culture: to discern the times, carefully engage what we are to make tactical alliances with, what we are to come alongside of and what we must outright reject. For these folk (good Anabaptists that they are), engaging culture requires being shaped positively by a Christian community as a culture for the purpose of engaging all of culture(s) as Christians.

Often, I find myself trying to be discerning about culture and automatically get pegged as being either fundamentalist or "liberal." I particularly get irritated when I say something about a cultural phenomenon that doesn't immediately hop on the "Tillich bandwagon" and it leads to someone suspecting me of being a fundamentalist. In this regard, here's a list of things you might say that might get you labeled a fundamentalist.

1.) Goth, Hip Hop, Cyber, and Motorcycle gangs may not ALL be forms of another kind of church.

2.) Technology is not always a net positive when applied to the worship of God.

3.) Bigger is not always better. Efficiency may not be what we're after in the being of church.

4.) Why would we have Bill Clinton (or former H-P CEO Carly Fiorina) come to teach us pastors about leadership?

and lastly,

5.) You say, we don't need church. Instead let's look for where God is already working, and merely join in with what God is already doing. How would we know where God is already working without church?

This last phrase is the one that gets me in trouble sometimes with some of my missional/emerging co-laborers. For I believe we need worship and a community in order to know where to join in with what God is already doing in the world. We need the church as a place that shapes us to see and discern where God is working in the world. I AGREE THAT WE MUST JOIN IN WITH GOD IS ALREADY DOING IN THE WORLD!! But how would we know what God is doing without the perspective and vision that comes from within Christian worship? On what other basis can we discern God's work from false gods in the world? God's justice from false justice? In fact, apart from worship, confession and prayer, how are we even shaped to be motivated to join in God's mission in the world?

All of the above is to say this: For Christians to be engaged in the culture(s), we must be able to discern the signs of the times, what is and is not of God in the culture, and then how to either join in, relate to or resist the various cultural activities for the gospel. This requires neither knee-jerk fundamentalism nor over reactionary pop-Tillichianism (is that a word?). This is why I am excited about the new book out there edited by Kevin VanHoozer's entitled Everyday Theology: How to Read Cultural Texts and Interpret Trends. We need a primer, a book that explains the fine cultural discernments necessary for Christians to navigate the new cultural waters we are in. For this reason I am glad this book has arrived. (uh a few months ago). I recommend it! And I'll blog about it on my next post.

------

In the mean time … anyone out there suspicious I am a fundamentalist in relation to culture? Why? Why not? Anyone reading this been a fundamentalist suspect in the ways above? Have I overstated my critique of the missional matra in #5 above?

Peace.