My denomination is mostly southern, mostly conservative, and often out of touch with the general culture of my generation. Most of the time I feel like I don't belong. But then from time to time (and more frequently now I've noticed) they throw me a bone like this little gem from the PCA's official webzine. Reminds me that I'm in the right place and that God is a Johnny Cash fan, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Funky,
Do you think they are out of touch with "general culture", or are you out of touch with their culture? For example, if you were to roll into small town Alabama, would you be out of touch with "general culture"?
For the celebration of diversity,
kdny
Kdny,
They've been out of touch with my culture (or should I say sub-culture?). It is the duty of the church to incarnate the gospel, NOT to ask the unconvinced of the world to make a cultural leap into the Church. And by "my culture" I don't mean to sound self-centered. I've worshipped my whole life in churches that demanded I make the cultural jump and I learned early on to do so. My point is that I think the PCA is beginning to recognize that we have been asking many unbelievers to make a cultural jump and now we are being more intentional about incarnating the gospel to the subculture that I associate most closely with. I agree diversity is essential and I celebrate an ever expanding diversity of cultures in our denomination, which is why I believe there is a place for me in the PCA and that God has called me specifically to this mission. There is still a lot of work to do, but we are getting there.
Point simply being that everyone has a culture. We either like or we don't. If we like it, then we claim it is "incarnational"; if we don't, then it is something other, usually "out of touch". Think of all the lies and maliciousness that the early church was accused of. Most today would scoff at their "fundamentalism", easily dismissing them with a word.
Is your feeling of "not belonging" simply due to your inability to be "incarnational" in their culture? You guys, I think, are essentially in a Mexican standoff. "Come here." "No! You come here."
I'm unconvinced that the "unconvinced" should govern my thinking on how I worship God, i.e. "do Church" and live. In fact, I think the overwhelming majority of evangelical churches have a faulty spirituality due to the influence of culture and being "incarnational". What has the megachurch, the essence of the previous generations "incarnational" ministry, really and truly given us? We are all too quick to "touch the Mt." and offer up "strange fire".
I am convinced that there is a great antithesis between the two worlds/cultures. In fact, so much so, that I tell them they need a bath in blood and water to enter and to eat our Meal.
KDNY,
I couldn't disagree more. A culture may be incarnational even if I don't like it or feel comfortable in it. For instance, I recognize the need for the Church to be incarnational in a latino cultures. I even recognize the value of it. I'm just not comfortable in latio cultures.
Secondly, it is not a missionary's job to accomodate to the culture of the church. It is to incarnate the gospel in the culture of the people who don't yet know Christ. It is no Mexican standoff. it is a "Hey, is there room for me on the bus as well?" "Is my cultural capital valued or welcomed here?" My point is that I am now seeing signs that the people on the bus are answering "yes".
When a church refuses to be incarnational or to contextualize the gospel you end up with something like what you were critiquing in the Eastern Orthodox churches, where their cultural and ethicity was unseperable from their faith.
As you say, everyone has a culture. True. The question is, will the Church be intentional about embodying culture in such a way that draws all people to God or will we exhibit a very narrow swath of cultures and so restrict our ability to fulfill the great commission?
To charge incarnational ministry with allowing the culture to govern our thinking on God is to attack a straw man. Granted some have done this, but just because some have gotten it wrong, does not mean there isn't a way to contextualize properly. Jesus was able to be enculturated while maintaining the integrity of his mission. I believe we are called to do the same thing.
Of course people must be baptized in water and blood to enter the Kingdom. My point is let's remove the other cultural barriers by bringing the good news in the language and culture of all the people.
Well, a blog won't settle the issue, so I will just make two quick points:
1. The "conservatives" in the PCA that you are talking about, I believe, are the essence of "incarnational" ministry in their culture: white, southern, rural and conservative. They are high modernists. You simply have a different culture than they do, both out of touch with the other.
2. Maybe my culture is just different and out of touch, but I've yet to observe a church that is self-consciously "incarnational" be of substance, esp. in the long run. In the end, it is too culturally affirming rather than pressing the antithesis, the call to discipleship, and the foolishness of unbelieving thought. They treat the culture as if they just need to add Jesus. As I spend more time in NY I am convinced that that is one of the fundamental problems and despite all the talk of changing culture, redeeming it, etc., there is no difference. I even had a discussion with a guy (an ex-minister in the Presbytery) last week on why they don't like "preaching" in the presbytery, but focus on "teaching" and how sermons at church are self-consciously "seeker" oriented or "market" tested. That, I believe, turns the Church on its head and is just confusing. The focus then becomes small groups, anything but the liturgy and focus on the union b/t the Husband and the Bride. This, I believe, is fundamentally contra scriptura and contra confessional. People can hijack the word "incarnational", but this is a far, far cry from the incarnation.
In response:
1. You write... "The "conservatives" in the PCA that you are talking about, I believe, are the essence of "incarnational" ministry in their culture"
- True! But not incarnational to the communities I am a part of. I'm glad to see that now there is some effort to be incarnational in the communities I am ministering in. What mainstream PCA is to southern rural and conservative cultures, I am pleased to see it is also becoming to more urban, progressive communities. Wouldn't it be great if a denomination like the PCA had a presence in urban, poor, liberal, minority communities, like it has now in rural, middleclass, conservative, white communities? That's all I'm saying. you can't possibly be against that, can you?
2. A Church must speak a message of substance and call people to discipleship, point out the futility of unbeliving thought, AND they must do it in a way that gives the people the are speaking to access to these messages rather than raising unnecessary barriers. Let the cross be stumbling block, but let's minimize the cultural stumbling blocks. Everyone contextualizes or incarnates wether they are aware of it or not. The question is, are we biblical in our contextualization or not? Are we thoughtful about it? A biblical contextualization or incarnation of the gospel will give the lost in any particular culture access to that message rather than create barriers. That's all I'm saying.
I think we're talking past each other a little. I haven't heard you respond to what I'm trying to communicate. Wish I could communicate more clearly.
Funky,
Why did you have to post this? We are almost no longer in disagreement, but we were talking past each other. You say, "True! But not incarnational to the communities I am a part of." I'm saying, "Of course not. They are rural, white and southern. Not funky, milano, and in the C-bus."
Yes, I want the Church to have presence in all segments of society. That, and that only, is the only sense in which kdny is an egalitarian.
Agreed with the cross being the stumbling block, but I rarely really hear this cross mentioned. Seriously! Call me a fundamentalist, but how many talks have you heard on "grace", but how often is a bleeding deity mentioned? The way the PCA talks about "grace", I believe, is an instance where the culture has influenced our understanding in the wrong direction. It's treated more therapeutically then salvivically (I think I made that word up or just butchered the crap out of the spelling).
Personally, I'm for returning the Church services to latin, so away with your contextualization. That's a joke, but I do want it in our grammar. I want it to be about us, God's people, which includes a universal call, but I am separate, distinct, and peculiar. This should effect the way Church, the romance of the husband and wife, is played out. FP and and fpwife have their own grammar, which another couple won't understand, especially an unfaithful and couple, and I am looking to keep that grammar between the bride and the bridegroom. That doesn't negate our ability to communicate with our neighbors, but adds a lot more flavor.
Kdny,
I think the cross has been a stumbling block for people who've come to gcpc. Hamartology certainly has. As has the Lord's supper. We do it every week, so the bleeding deity is emphasized at least there each week.
I really like your analogy of the communication between husband and wife. It's beautiful. I agree that is what a worship liturgy should reflect (among other things). So in this analogy, contextualization would be having that conversation between husband and wife all the while aware that the neighbors are listening to us over our shoulder, and being intentional about using imagery, terminology, and poetry that while remaining true to the essence and flavor of the marriage also is framed in a way that makes all the single girls say "wow... I wish I had a Husband like Him". As a pastor & a pastor's wife FPW and I are quite aware that we are regularly modeling a Christian marriage for all kinds of people at our church and in our community. So... contextualization is for the Church to be similarly self-consciously aware that we are modeling our marriage to Christ. It's knowing who is listening and watching over our shoulders.
Have you read Keller's Missional Church paper? It's available at the Redeemer site. I think he nails it for the most part. Now TK can sleep well knowing that he has my endorsement. HA!
Well crap. I think we basically agree now. That's no good. I was convinced you were a heretic. Now I must be a heretic too.
Post a Comment