Well said, and well done!

In this post, however, I’m trying to go beyond reminding people that they are “Christian Priests.” I’m talking about applying cross-cultural communication skills that have not typically been practiced by Christians (priests or otherwise).

Christians should indeed be subversive. But subversive within a cultural you consider to be your own is very different than subversive within a culture that is foreign to you. I believe that the world has changed to such an extent that all Christians must begin to think like missionaries and put in the effort to influence people in cultures that, though they seem familiar, are not our own.

I believe that we do so, only because we have diluted and lost the original, simple meaning of “Christian” and “Priest”. When I hear someone say, “We are all missionaries”, I typically want to interrupt them and say no, you are a Christian Priest. Once ANYONE becomes a Christian, they become subversive; their real purpose in life is to know Him and make Him known.

Why then, for social conveniance, should we abduct a word/term so that it too will become diluted in time? Why not just get back to basic instructions regarding what being a “Christian” means?

Some good examples I’ve seen are urban churches exploring things like hip-hop and the arts in worship. Rural churches doing more outside (they do everything else outside already). My church in the Pacific Northwest avoids lecture by keeping things conversational- there’s still a preacher, but he’s a very gifted discussion leader who preaches interactively. Most of this is just basic contextualization.

As for the Modernistic leanings of American Christianity- there are plenty of examples. Until the Enlightenment, Christians didn’t talk about the faith “making sense.” Christians adapted to the prevailing worldview (as we should do) so that they could talk about God in a way that was appropriate.

Today, we use logic and reason in our apologetics (“Lord, Liar, Lunatic,” or “The Way of the Master” stuff), and a humanistic appeals to common morality (this goes beyond “God’s word is written on their hearts” to an assumption that everyone who is in sin recognizes that to be so- that non-believers are amoral.) These assumptions, and others, keep Christianity Modern. New believers are discipled into that Modernism.

Again, I’m not against Modern Christianity. I’m just concerned that it’s inappropriate for postmodern cultures, which are emerging everywhere.

Do you have any suggestions, ideas or things you have tried or seen being successful in the things you mentioned (conceptualizing systematized theology, corporate worship beyond singing, proclamation beyond lecture, teaching beyond the didactic, translating the gospel into the postmodern worldview)?

“Our vocabulary, our epistemology, our apologetic, even our worship styles were formed by Modernistic thinkers and are therefore rooted in rationalism and humanism.”
Can you give some examples of this and why they are rooted in rationalism and humanism?

Thanks,

Clinton

My opinion is that Christianity, as we know and practice it (especially in the U.S.,) is thoroughly Modern. Our vocabulary, our epistemology, our apologetic, even our worship styles were formed by Modernistic thinkers and are therefore rooted in rationalism and humanism. We tend to focus on the individual, on the propositional, on the objective. I don’t think this is bad, because it’s still the Truth and because most Christians in the U.S. are modern. This expression of Christianity is appropriate for them.

But for the growing percentage of Americans who are less modern- the “postmodern” if you will- conversion to the American version of Christianity also requires a “conversion” to Modernism. To be conversant in Christianity today, one must learn to think in terms of either/or. One must learn to conceptualize theology that has been systematized. There are few examples of corporate worship beyond singing. Most “proclamation” is through lecture. Most teaching is didactic. These things are not wrong, but they are not indigenous to Postmoderns. Just as missionaries must do the work of “cultural translation” of the gospel (contextualizing the communication of the Good News with language and cultural bridges), so must we allow for the translation of the gospel into the postmodern worldview.

We’re working through that (the “emerging church” may be an experiment in just that), but we’re way behind the curve. The process of translation is tricky, though, as evidenced by heresies that are emerging along the way.

I’m not sure this makes any more sense than the original line, but thank you for asking. I’d love to hear any thoughts you may have on the matter.

what did you mean by this statement? can you elaborate?

“Not when there is yet to be an expression of Christianity that is truly free from modern rational humanism.”

many thanks…

david

More and more are saying enough of this and doing their own thing…outside of existing churches and denominations…it’s easier to be missional there.