I’m off to Seattle to the Inhabit conference tomorrow. Lookin forward to it.
I basically have one idea I’ll be trying to unpack: that it is only through “place” that we break the cycle of ideological church.
We see how the church gets ideologized all the time. “Oh that church is the Bible church – they believe in the Bible” implying the others don’t. Or we’re the church that believes in community. The others somehow don’t. That church? They’re the gay church and that one is the church that is against gay marriage. We all know this phenomena and have participated in it.
Generally speaking, it is the human tendency to form communities around ideas. People gather for certain reasons having to do with needs, whether economic, social or psychic. We articulate how to meet these needs in the form of ideas we are pursuing together. We rally around these ideas as common causes that enable us to organize to meet these various needs. The study of ideology, in its various brands, studies how we come together in these ways – what holds us together.
I want to show how whenever we extract ideas like this from its context – where the idea makes sense and is practiced – it tends to become ideologized in a bad way. It not only takes on the quality of a banner around which we rally. It becomes the symbol by which we rally over against those who do not accept our idea. It becomes the means of negotiation for power. It becomes the means of cynicism. Most of all, it plays on antagonisms which set us over against those who aren’t subscribing to the same beliefs. We start to think in terms of “us against them” or “see we were right afterall” or “shoooo I’m glad we’re not them.” The idea which is good in itself (the Bible, community etc.) becomes removed from its meaning on the ground and in essence now becomes the means to hold current structures of power in place. In other words, becoming ideology in these terms turns us into a people incapable of being the church of Jesus Christ.
Again, what I want to put forth in my upcoming talk at Inhabit is : it is only through “place” that we can break the cycle of ideological church. It is only through engaging in the practices of being the local expression of Christ’s body that we can break out of the entanglements of ideological cynicism. It is only in being the church of Jesus Christ, whose belief and practice is grounded in the Triune relation of God in the world, that we can avoid being ideologized. It is only in building communities that have their own internal integrity built in the on-the-ground participation in the Reign of Christ – that we can escape the ideologization of the church. No longer dependent upon ideological structure – we can then discern – resist- participate in the world in non violent non-antagonistic ways. This of course (I would argue) is the nature of the incarnation and incarnational communities.
In the book The End of Evangelicalism? I try to show how this has played out in the church of my upbringing – evangelicalism. I try to show how our core beliefs turned into ideological ideas (what Zizek calls Master Signifiers). The “inerrant Bible,” “the Decision for Christ” and “the Christian Nation” have all become these kind of ideological banners that set us in antagonism against the culture we seek to witness the gospel. In the process, we turn the world into enemies.
The proliferation of reviews on the book is much appreciated. Take a look below at the latest. And oh, by the way, for one more month the book is available at a 40% discount here (just follow the direction and the links).
Scot McKnight’s review at Jesus Creed More posts follow this one
W David Phillips Review More posts follow this one
Homebrewed Christianity’s Review 2 more posts follow this one
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
It’s sort of too bad that this post turned into a commercial. A real turn off.
An intriguing thesis about the idea of “place” being to only way to form a community that isn’t about ideology–and all the intolerance, manipulation, and abuse that comes with it.
But then you seem to offer the solution that building a community based on place comes from “building communities that have their own internal integrity built in the on-the-ground participation in the Reign of Christ”. Is this double-speak? That the only way you can build a community of “place” is to practice adherence to an “idea” (in this case, whatever constitutes “the Reign of Christ”).
The way I read this, is that the driving force behind building a community of “place” is to change whatever that place is into one that conforms to our idealized idea of how that place should be. And this will be accomplished by people exerting their beliefs and practices upon their local context.
Am I reading you totally wrong?
Yeah, Bob … sorry for the commercial … it’s a balancing act … I confess I’m not always good at it …
The question you ask is at the core of the argument I’m making. I’m trying to display how the only “politic” than can escape this inherent tendecy towards ideologization, is a community built around a particpation in the Triune God’s work in the world via the Incarnate work of Christ. Eveyrthing else, because of its metaphsyics, does not have a source beyond itself. It then must draw on its own differences and antagonism and needs to compete for political capital. Hope this helps .. and all this is fully expounded in a text which I shall refrain from mentioning.
Peace bro
But aren’t you still saying that the community be being built upon an idea? The very thing you attempt to escape is actually the foundation.
Yes, Bob,
yes, we can’t escape ideas, beliefs, etc. What I want to show is how beliefs get ideologized, and in fact almost have to get ideologized, apart from a dynamic that is set loose via the Incarnation. So beliefs detached from the practice of this belief in concrete life that forms us spiritually and politically as a communal presence is different from beliefs that are wedded to a practice that shapes our actual life together. One – detached – gathers a people at a distance … ideologizes. The Other – shapes our belief and practice into one on going concrete living. The very idea of ideology (ala Zizek) defines the beliefs as objects that distance the “believer” from having to change anything. These are some of the dynamics that I think are helpful in understanding what we are up against in leading churches into a missional presence in the world
Hi David,
I’ll be at the Inhabit Conference as well. It would be great to chat a bit.
Blessings, Brian
I wonder if it helps clarify this situation to consider learning styles and epistemology a bit. As I see it, the core issue here is HOW we think (process), which determines WHAT we think (content). If it’s accurate that the dominant ways we process information shape our content, then it should make sense that “universals” require abstract and analytic thinking that extracts principles that supposedly apply everywhere. That has some validity for certain realms of theology, but the “contextuals” you speak of require concrete and paradoxical thinking that constantly considers the layers of principle and place, abstraction and application simultaneously.
Ironic, ain’t it, that supposed “universals” actually don’t apply in every place and situation?
Actually, I believe that a large part of what’s gone wrong in our era is that church planters and church leaders often adopt the WHAT principles of doing church from somewhere else without engaging in the HOW process that lets them discern what fits in their own place. So, for example, the principles of a seeker-sensitive worship service (designed, as I understand it, in a culture of skeptics who stand apart from the experience until they ‘get it’ about the content) may work very well in a place where the dominant processing mode is skepticism. But when the seeker-sensitive ‘Christianity light’ version that is presented there as an INTRODUCTION to following Jesus is uncritically presented in a culture of spirituality embracers, then that weakened intro picture is assumed to be THE FULL EXPERIENCE by those who process by immersion. Is it any wonder that sincere but linear/analytic methodologies do not (and likely will never ever) work well in layered/immersion-learning cultures?
Don’t intend this in a mean-spirited way, but certainly as a challenge: Come to think of it, perhaps the real issue is not simply that we rely on ideas, but that we’re just plain theologically lazy …? Without discernment skills? Sincere but stretched too thin to stop and consider more reasonably complex ways to address complex cultural problems than just spiritual plagiarism?
Seems like the Inhabit Conference is designed to help consider how to do your own contextuals work in your own place and cultural space. Wish I could be there … have a lot of friends going. Perhaps next time …
Aren’t religious ideologies the same thing as denominations? After all, denominations are formed from different theologies culminating in IDEAS about God. Wouldn’t it be great if we all set aside our theological differences, worship together and have fellowship, then individually decide on our own what our theological and ideological beliefs are… in private? Why should our individual beliefs be so divisive to the greater whole? The Body of Christ is fragmented and disjointed. Only when Christ returns will He put it all back together again.
I hate to jump in with criticism, but, my reaction was critical, so best wishes with your presentation, and in all Christian charity:
Is not “place” functioning ideologically in this post? You have a binary opposition (contextual v. abstract), which separates the proper from improper community and is organized around an abstract idea (“place”), which presumably defines or marks you and your community. This framework leads to a “friend-enemy” distinction between your church and the world (as you say, outside of the contextually engaged church, everything else is metaphysics and therefore antagonistic). Finally, it seems, nothing would be able to cause you to change your commitment to this ideal of “place,” since it, and it alone, can save us from ideology.
I think you are circling around what I was trying to get at, Tim. I think “place” (as presented here) was actually an idea since it is something to be created within a context.
My disappointment came because I always viewed “place” *as* the context. It is our “place” that forms the communities that exist within it. As such, there is no separation between a place and a community. The practice of a missional/local church must be a product of the place it finds itself within. That means not only exerting a redemptive presence in it but also being open to being formed and shaped by that place.
“Place” is not something that is created. It is something that acts upon us and that we act upon. It is an organic relationship. The problem with ideologues is that they adopt this friend-enemy relationship with their place. Either they seek to so fully integrate with it that their identity is lost or they seek to unnaturally impose their identity on it and thereby lose any connection to it.
If a church is going to free themselves of the kind of ideologically based presence I think David is talking about, they must cast their lots in with their “place”–as a partner rather than savior–and be willing to live or die with their community.
I wished I lived near Seattle just so I could come and hear your talk! 8^/
Sorry to be off line … but busy with several things … let me respond quick …
Place functioning as an idea ideologically? Interesting. But that would that mean that people would have to be rallying around the idea of place so that it becomes the means for them to rally against those who don’t believe in place … I suppose this is possible … But isn’t that too cute?…i.e it bypasses what I am essentially describing as “place”… that where belief (or ideas) plus practice shape us for a presence in a context … I don’t agree with Bob when you say “Place” is not something that is created. It is something that acts upon us and that we act upon.” For I view all places as something with a history, a culture. Some of this culture is often inherently good and to be blessed and received… other times this received culture is not good, even inherently evil and must be rejected … Out of what place does this dialectic develop? … The Incarnation is the logic for such an engagement …
… hope to chat more …
Isn’t the conference a rallying around the idea of place (the importance of embodied presence)? And aren’t you saying that only those who adopt your vision of “place” are free from ideology (meaning, we’re good, the others are bad)?
I don’t disagree that Christian witness functions and needs to be aware of its functioning in a specific social context–who would?–I just don’t think claiming to be involved in “incarnational ministry” means you now found the path to avoid ideology. That claim seems quintessentially ideological.
Tim,
For now, I think the way you are using “ideological” is different than the way I am. You seem to be using ideological in a broader sense than I am. I am talking about a particular social dynamic. Hope to have time to flesh this out at the conference
David,
Seriously–best of luck and many blessings.
I did not notice the commercial, but then, I don’t fully read long posts. I’ll read the first paragraph then the first sentence of the other paragraphs.
Sorry, I guess I am a product of the times.
What I read was good.
[...] Place [...]
How was His reign different when He ascended into heaven?…different from what OT or NT? Anyway here’s my simple answer: God gave Him the kingdom and Satan is bound. Sorry, these are not very good answers because they just popped off the top of my head…didn’t really research…my bad!
[...] while back David Fitch posted some thoughts on the power of “place” to overcome ideology in the life of the church. He states his [...]