Spice it Up
This blog features the thoughts of a seminary student on theology, culture, and politics. It is meant to improve my communication and writing skills and develop my thoughts. It is also a way to share my ideas with family, friends, and whoever else stumbles upon this site. Enjoy!
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
God and the Hurricane
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Four Kinds of American Christianity
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Use and Enjoyment
Sunday, July 8, 2012
What is Love?
- What follows is an adaption of a part of a sermon I heard Tim Keller preach on May 6, 2012 entitled "Love and Lust."
Saturday, June 2, 2012
The Incomprehensibility of God and Worship
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Why I Don't Want a Christian America (and Neither Should You)
One of the greatest things about my seminary is the diversity. Having grown up and attended college up in homogeneous Western PA, I have a chance to finally meet people from an array of different cultures, nationalities, and ethnicities. Over the course of the year I have become quite good friends with a British student named Philip. We enjoy talking about theology, culture, and politics (usually over a beer), as well as occasionally and playfully mocking each others nationality.
One evening I brought up the recent retirement of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. I asked him who he thought his replacement would be. He informed me that typically the Church of England alternates between a theological conservative and a theological liberal. Rowans (at least from an Evangelical perspective) was liberal, so a conservative ought to take his place. Yet there is a complication: the Church of England is a state church, which means that the Archbishop of Canterbury is chosen by Parliament. The problem is that British Prime Minister David Cameron, as part of an effort to modernize the Tories by dropping the party's historical social conservatism, is a strong advocate of gay marriage. Whereas gay marriage is largely a social issue in the US, it is a messy political-ecclesial issue in Britain because the Church of England baptizes, marries, and buries British subjects. In other words, the legalization of gay marriage in Britain means that the Church of England would have to marry homosexual couples. However, while the Church has a broad social function, its primary religious functions are increasingly dominated by theological conservatives, whether Evangelicals or Anglo-Catholics, because these are the only people who still regularly attend church in Britain. Hence, against the wishes (and conscience) of the greater portion of its active members, the Church of England may soon be required to wed homosexuals. No doubt these Anglican parishioners will be quite upset. Social conservatism largely dead in Britain (hence, Cameron's decision to ditch this platform) so lobbying against gay marriage would probably only cause resentment. Philip told me that what this means is that the messy disestablishment of the Church sometime down the road is probably inevitable.
Thus, the irony is this: whereas American Evangelicals want to preserve a Christian America, British Evangelicals wish to hasten the end of Christian Britain.
Though American Evangelicals do not want to officially bind church and state together in America, they do tend to yearn for the days when Protestantism was unofficially established in American culture. Up until the twentieth century Protestants, or at least a Protestant ethos, wielded tremendous influence over public schools, colleges and universities, local governments, and local communities. The presence of a chapel on the campuses of many public universities is a testament to this fact. But as American high culture became increasingly secular, this cultural hegemony was challenged. Ugly culture wars were fought, and are still fought, between those who want to see a strong Christian presence in American culture, and those want Christianity banished from it altogether.
Christianity in America has been historically tied so close to American culture that many Christians don't know how to get along without being culturally established. Many Christians push for a Christianized America because their very identities are tied up with the national culture. As a result, the religious nature of American Christianity gets sidetracked by the nasty arena of politics. Three decades of lobbying by the religious right has done little more than cause deep-seated bitterness towards Christianity from non-Christians. Hence, Christians have allowed themselves to caught up in the messiness of identity politics, uncivil discourse, and resentment that dominates most of the public square.
Another one of the ill-effects of this cultural secularization was Protestant liberalism. Virtually all of the mainline churches were so inextricably tied to American culture as established institutions within that culture that they found it impossible to resist the rising tide of modernism. As a result the mainline denominations, just like the Church England, had to compromise their values due to a messy alliance with an increasingly secular culture. This compromise involved a nasty divorce proceeding, just as the Church of England may soon also face. The plethora of splinter Presbyterian denominations is a testament to the bitter separation that occurred between Evangelicals and the mainline cultural establishment.
The lesson to be learned is that a "Christian America" is a double edged sword. Culture can transform Christianity instead of Christianity transforming culture. For many Christians the line between Christianity and Americanism became so blurred that when the latter exerted pressure on the former to compromise their values, they had little ability to resist. Liberal Christians have largely given orthodox values in order to become "modern" or "progressive." Evangelical circles have compromised as well. The profusion of consumerist, therapeutic, and nationalist Christianity in American churches, particularly in the mega-church churches, is a witness to the fact that Christianity often prostitutes itself out when seeks cultural establishment.
If we are unable to learn from our own past, let us at least learn from what is going on in Britain right now. The Church must ultimately stand with one foot in the world and with the other in the City of God. We must strive for the difficult paradox of antithesis to and contextualization within our culture. Only then will the integrity of the body of Christ be kept.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
A Cautionary Warning Concerning the "Relevance" Ethos
The decline of regular church attendance over the past two to three decades has spurred several recent surveys of American Christianity which pay special attention to why Christians leave the Church. Many Christians are understandably concerned by the exodus of people from the pews, particularly young people. Hence, there have been recent campaigns to make the church "relevant." The Emergent Church is an outstanding example of this.
First, let me say that I am an outstanding supporter of theological contextualization. There is a definite need for the Church to constantly contextualize itself in whatever cultural situation(s) it finds itself in and to make use of the "gold of the Egyptians" - a la Origen and St. Augustine. The reactionary and fundamentalist attitude that orthodox American Christianity has had over the last century is lamentable. I by no means desire a Christianity that is hostile to outsiders and adopts Bob Jones University's attitude toward to culture. The Church has been too cold, too political, and too legalistic and a prudent movement away from these things is most welcome.
Yet at the same time a word of caution is in order. Though many Christians are understandably upset by Christianity's bizarre and at times un-Christlike sub-culture, they can often be far too naïve self-depreciating. First, it must be recognized that there is more to the numbers than what meets the eye. The fact that people are leaving the Church doesn't imply the Church in America is declining. For most of America's history regular church attendance was considered to be a sign of upstanding citizenship and morality. Hence, many people attended church for formal or social reasons rather than from true piety. Similarly, many Catholics have historically attended Mass (during Christmas and Easter at least!) and engaged the rituals of the Catholic Church because it is part of their ethnic heritage. So as social approval for regular church attendance wanes and the importance of ethnic identity for Irish, Poles, and Italians lessens, it is likely that those who were once regular attendees for reasons other than true piety will cease to be so. To a great extent our society is polarizing over religion and the middle ground of vague, ethnic or formal Christianity is disappearing.
Secondly, it is naïve to take many of the reasons people give for leaving the church at face value. I know many people who claim to have left the church because Christians are "hypocritical" or "uncaring", when in reality they left the church because they disliked the strong claims Christianity made on their individualism. My generation's distaste for anything that gets in the way of our claim to individual autonomy is, I suspect, one of the reasons why so many twenty-somethings stop attending church regularly. For instance, a sermon that faithfully and pastorally preaches the Christian sexual ethic can easily evoke cries of "moralism" or "hypocrisy," despite the fact the pastor preached in a loving and Christ-like manner. Often it is simply the case that essential tenets or values of Christianity are at variance with the worldly values of a erstwhile church-goers. People say that Christianity is too homophobic, sexist, prudish, or authoritarian, when what they really mean is that they dislike the church's unalterable teaching on homosexuality, gender roles, chastity, and obedience in contrast to individual autonomy. These are Christian teachings and we cannot change them. We cannot reject the commands of Christ and adopt the ethos of the world without damaging the integrity of our faith.
Moreover, it is naïve to think that if the church simply became more "seeker friendly" and more flexible that unbelievers would be pouring in. We must remember that there is a sharp distinction to be drawn between a sincere seeker of spiritual experiences and a sincere seeker of the Triune God. In a secular society, we often forget that a mere desire for the spiritual does not equal a desire to be formed by God's will. People will charge the church with hypocrisy or moralism or exclusivity simply because they cannot and will not surrender themselves to God. If you pander to these people, you will find yourself adapting Christianity until there is little true Christianity left. The problem that such people have with Christianity is simply that it is Christianity. We must understand that the there is always the offense of the cross. It is foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block for the Jews. So while it is wise to take a healthy dose of criticism in order to grow in sanctification, we must avoid self-flagellation over those who won't accept Christianity no matter how appetizing we make it.